Minutes of

Environmental Management Program Coordinating Committee

and

Navigation Environmental Coordination Committee

Joint Session

 

May 20, 2009

 

Crowne Plaza Riverfront Hotel

St. Paul, Minnesota

 

 

Charlie Wooley of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service called the meeting to order at 12:40 p.m. on May 20, 2009.  Other EMP-CC and NECC representatives present were Ken Barr (USACE), Mike Jawson (USGS), Butch Atwood (IL DNR), Bernie Hoyer (IA DNR), Bernie Schonhoff (IA DNR), Tim Schlagenhaft (MN DNR), Janet Sternburg (MO DoC), Jim Fischer (WI DNR), and Bill Franz (USEPA).  A complete list of attendees follows these minutes.

 

Minutes from the November 19, 2009 Meeting

 

Jim Fischer requested clarification regarding the timeframe related to the LTRM Strategic Plan noted on page A-4.  Ken Barr said that the 1 ½ years was attributed to the development of the Plan, not the amount of time that the Plan will be used to guide LTRM.

 

Bernie Schonhoff moved and Jim Fischer seconded a motion to approve the minutes, with the understanding that language on page A-4 regarding the LTRM Strategic Plan timeframe would be clarified.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

Reach Objectives

 

Dan Wilcox reported that the Notebook for System and Reach Planning through Adaptive Management was completed and distributed on February 4, 2009.  However, he explained that it is a living document and will be subject to modification over time.  Wilcox said that a subset of each of the four floodplain reach teams (FWIC, FWWG, RRAT, and IRWG) identified ecosystem restoration objectives for its respective floodplain reach, as well as unique characteristics and stressors for each of the geomorphic reaches within the floodplain reach.  The objectives, characteristics, and stressors were reviewed by the reach teams and the River Management Teams (RRF, RRCT, RRAT Exec, and IRT), and are now under review by NECC and EMP-CC.  Wilcox said that the ecosystem objectives were classified in five categories:  geomorphology, biogeochemistry, hydrology/hydraulics, landscape, and biota/biological processes.  As reach planning continues, performance measures will be developed for each of the reach objectives. 

 

Wilcox presented the proposed objectives for the Upper Impounded Reach.  He also discussed examples of the proposed geomorphic reach characteristics and stressors for this floodplain reach.

 

·      Biota — Diverse and abundant aquatic vegetation communities, native fish community, native mussel community, and native bird community.

·      Biogeochemistry/Water Quality — Improved water clarity, reduced contaminants loading and re-mobilization of in-place pollutants, reduced nutrient loading, nutrient export, and reduced sediment loading from tributaries and sediment re-suspension in backwaters.

·      Habitat — Restored habitat connectivity for migratory fishes; more natural riparian habitat along the rivers; diverse native floodplain forest and prairie areas; restored isolated wetlands and floodplain lakes; and increased habitat diversity in impounded, backwater, and channel areas.

·      Hydrology and hydraulics — A more natural stage hydrograph and restored lateral hydraulic connectivity.

·      Geomorphology — Restored rapids in the gorge.

 

Marv Hubbell noted that some of the objectives lack associated direction (i.e., increasing, decreasing, etc.), and thus may be confusing.  Wilcox said that while the objectives are not descriptive, there will be follow-on performance criteria and indicators that will offer more detail.  He said that the objectives were written for a wider audience, and thus were articulated generally to minimize confusion, while providing sufficient context.  Barb Naramore recognized the need for brevity, but said it is important to provide sufficient information for that wider audience, in an effort to avoid having the objectives misconstrued.

 

Bob Clevenstine presented the proposed objectives for the Lower Impounded Reach.  He also discussed examples of the proposed geomorphic reach characteristics and stressors for this floodplain reach.

·      Biota — Maintain viable populations of native species throughout their range in the UMRS at levels of abundance in keeping with their biotic potential, maintain the diversity and extent of native communities throughout their range in the UMRS, and reduce the adverse effects of invasive species on native biota.

·      Biogeochemistry/Water Quality — Reduce sediment loadings to the rivers and reduce nutrient loading from tributary rivers.

·      Habitat — Increase vegetated riparian buffers along tributaries and ditches in the floodplain; modify the extent, abundance, and diversity of submersed aquatic plants; modify the extent, abundance, and diversity of emergent aquatic plants; and provide pathways for animal movements.

·      Hydrology and hydraulics — Restore a more natural hydrologic regime in the navigation pools, increase storage and conveyance of flood water on the floodplain, and naturalize the hydrologic regime of tributaries.

·      Geomorphology — Modify contiguous backwater areas; modify the channels and floodplains of tributary rivers; and restore hydro-geomorphic processes that create, maintain, and improve bathymetric diversity, islands, sand bars, shoals, and mudflats.

 

In response to a question from Janet Sternburg, Clevenstine said that all identified reach characteristics and stressors will be included in the UMR ecosystem objectives final report.

 

Brian Johnson presented the proposed objectives for the Unimpounded Reach.  He also discussed examples of the proposed geomorphic reach characteristics and stressors for this floodplain reach.

·      Biota — Maintain viable populations of native species and communities throughout their range in the unimpounded river reach in suitable geomorphic areas of the landscapes; reduce the adverse effects of invasive species on native biota; provide nesting, feeding, and resting habitat for migratory birds; and provide habitat for all life stages of native fishes and other aquatic biota.

·      Biogeochemistry/Water Quality — Restore hydro-geomorphic processes that create, maintain, and improve connectivity, bathymetric diversity and flow variability of channel borders, side channels, islands, sand bars, shoals, and associated habitats.

·      Habitat — Restore, expand, and maintain the amount of diversity of floodplain terrestrial habitats, emphasizing contiguous patches of plant communities to provide a corridor along the unimpounded river reach and riparian buffers; restore habitat types most reduced from their pre-settlement extent (e.g., bottomland and mesic prairies, savanna, floodplain lake, floodplain forest, and bottomland hardwoods) and the ecological processes and functions to support them; protect, restore, and manage complex wetland areas (including within leveed areas) to provide diverse habitat; and increase the extent and number of sand bars, mud flats, gravel bars, islands, and side channels towards a more historic abundance and distribution.

·      Hydrology and hydraulics — Restore hydraulic connectivity (surface and groundwater) between rivers and their floodplains, especially backwater flows into lakes, wetlands, sloughs, swales, abandoned channels, and backswamp depressions.

·      Geomorphology — Enhance water quality parameters (e.g., nutrients, dissolved oxygen) sufficient to support native aquatic biota and consideration of designated uses.

 

Marshall Plumley discussed examples of the proposed geomorphic reach characteristics and stressors for the Illinois River reach.  Plumley said that the Illinois River-related goals identified in the Illinois River Basin Restoration Comprehensive Plan will serve as the objectives for this floodplain reach.  However, those goals have been revised to parallel the style established for the other floodplain reaches.  The proposed objectives for the Illinois River Reach are as follows:

·      Biota — Restore and maintain ecological integrity, including habitats, communities, and populations of native species, and the processes that sustain them; and restore and conserve natural habitat structure and function, including, but not limited too:

o     Concentrations of flora and fauna or areas that are high in biodiversity, especially vulnerable to disturbance, and/or important in fulfilling a life-history requirement of the species present.

o     Specific suitable habitat for Federal and State endangered and threatened species, or other species of concern that is capable of supporting long-term sustainable populations at the site and protect additional acres of the identified suitable habitat, as appropriate.

o     Representative examples of all community types in the Illinois River Basin, best in kind or as needed, to protect and restore habitat structure and function at the system level.

·      Biogeochemistry/Water Quality — Improve water and sediment quality in the Illinois River and its watershed.

·      Habitat — Improve floodplain, riparian, and aquatic habitats and functions.

o     Restore up to an additional 150,000 acres of isolated and connected floodplains along the Illinois River main stem to promote floodplain functions and habitats.

o     Restore and/or protect up to 1,000 additional stream miles of riparian habitats.

·      Habitat — Restore aquatic connectivity (fish passage) on the Illinois River and its tributaries, where appropriate, to restore or maintain healthy populations of native species.

o     Restore main stem to tributary connectivity, where appropriate, on major tributaries.

o     Restore passage for large-river fish at Starved Rock, Marseilles, and Dresden Lock and Dams where appropriate.

o     Increased habitat diversity in channel areas

·      Hydrology and hydraulics — Naturalize Illinois River and tributary hydrologic regimes and conditions to restore aquatic and riparian habitat.

·      Geomorphology — Reduce sediment delivery to the Illinois River from upland areas and tributary channels with the aim of eliminating excessive sediment load. 

o     Eliminate excessive sediment delivery to specific high-value habitat both along the main stem and in tributary areas.

·      Geomorphology — Restore aquatic habitat diversity of side channels and backwaters, including Peoria Lakes, to provide adequate volume and depth for sustaining native fish and wildlife communities.

o     Restore and maintain side channel and island habitats.

o     Maintain all existing connections between backwaters and the main channel (connections at the 50 percent exceedance flow duration).

o     Compact sediments to improve substrate conditions for aquatic plants, fish, and wildlife.

 

Reach Planning Discussion

 

Ken Barr outlined two topics for this discussion, including 1) are we ready to complete this first phase of the reach planning?, and 2) how should the identified objectives be discussed in NESP’s Implementation Report to Congress (IRTC)?  In response to a question from Janet Sternburg, Barr said he expects that an individual report will be developed for each floodplain reach.  A consolidated report for the four reaches will not be compiled at this time.  Sternburg said that it may be worthwhile to standardize terminology, to facilitate comparison across the individual reaches.  Barb Naramore said it’s important that differences in terminology are meaningful — i.e., that they reflect underlying differences across the four reaches.  Where planners are talking about the same thing, they should be using the same language to the extent possible.  Dan Wilcox said the glossary in the Reach Planning Notebook is designed to encourage such consistency, but said there are important physical and cultural differences that will ultimately result in various interpretations and meanings for each reach.

 

Marv Hubbell noted that presenters often referred to the reach planning as a NESP effort, when in fact it is program neutral.  He asked individuals who participated in the reach planning whether they viewed this as a program neutral undertaking or a NESP-specific effort.  Jim Fischer said that the Upper Impounded Reach objectives are program neutral, and recognized the value in having a program neutral approach from the beginning.  Brian Johnson said the Unimpounded Reach objectives are program neutral with respect to Corps programs.  However, they are not necessarily applicable to all Upper Mississippi River-relevant programs of other agencies.  Marshall Plumley said that the effort on the Illinois River Reach was program neutral as all relevant Illinois River programs were included.  Clevenstine said the objectives on the Lower Impounded Reach are program neutral.  Specifically, he noted that NRCS was involved.  Bernie Schonoff said that tributary impacts were considered in that reach.  Wilcox also noted the involvement of the UMRBA Water Quality Task Force in the Upper Impounded Reach objective-setting effort, and said that programs such as the state TMDLs will have a roll in achieving various ecosystem objectives.

 

Tim Schlagenhaft asked if each reach had identified performance measures.  Wilcox said the FWWG has developed conceptual ecological models that will be used to define performance measures for the Upper Impounded Reach.  Clevenstine reported that the FWIC will begin very shortly to develop performance measures for the Lower Impounded Reach.  Johnson said the RRAT Tech is in the process of developing performance measures for the Unimpounded Reach.  Plumley said that indicators and performance criteria have been established for the Illinois River Reach, but they will need to be refined for purposes of this planning effort.  In response to a question from Schlagenhaft, Barr said that geomorphic reach planning will commence after performance criteria have been defined, so that the criteria can be used in developing geomorphic reach plans.

 

Jon Duyvejonck asked whether the floodplain reach objectives will be, or have been, prioritized.  Wilcox said the Upper Impounded Reach objectives are not prioritized, but that projects will likely be prioritized and/or sequenced from an ecological perspective.  Clevenstine, Johnson, and Plumley said that objectives were not prioritized in their respective reaches, though Plumley noted that the Illinois River Basin Comprehensive Plan does articulate those priorities. 

 

In terms of what to include in the NESP Implementation Report to Congress (IRTC), Dan McGuiness asked the POCs for each reach to submit updated versions of their objectives, characteristics, and stressors information.  Chuck Spitzack said that the IRTC should include a status report on what has been accomplished in the objective-setting effort to date.  Duyvejonck suggested including a list of common stressors and characteristics that apply systemically.  Schlagenhaft said that a mechanism should be developed for prioritizing projects at a systemic level.  Barr agreed with the importance of this step, but said it is a task for the Advisory Panel, NECC, and River Management Teams.  Wilcox said that the IRTC should emphasize the ability of reach planning to increase accountability and scientific credibility of UMRS ecosystem restoration programs, with specific attention to measureable outcomes, natural processes, etc.  Fischer said the multi-partner buy-in should also be emphasized in the report.

 

Initiating Reach Planning

 

Ken Barr outlined the following components of geomorphic reach planning, though he emphasized that the process is not limited to these elements.  He noted that the planning will be done on a four-year cycle, to correspond with the required IRTC.

·      NESP ecosystem restoration planning by the twelve geomorphic reaches.

·      Identification of NESP mitigation actions by reach.

·      Identification of NESP cultural stewardship actions by reach.

·      Adaptive management by geomorphic reach and project.

·      Collaboration with other programs —e.g. EMP HREPs and Section 519 on the Illinois River Mainstem.

 

Dan Wilcox said that efforts to identify environmental mitigation actions since the Feasibility Study have included refining the scope of likely impacts, and identifying locations of impacts and candidate sites for mitigation actions.  Barr said the only pending report is the fleeting impacts analysis.  He also observed that a synthesis report on mitigation needs would be helpful.

 

Barr said that NESP’s general restoration target for the first planning cycle amounts to approximately $500 million, or one-fourth of the overall NESP restoration authority.  This will fund about 50 projects, or an average of four projects per geomorphic reach.  In addition, special-authorized projects totaling about $100 million are planned, including fish passage at two dams, dam point control for Pool 25, and 3 floodplain restoration projects.  Tim Schlagenhaft said that objectives set for the Upper Impounded Reach above Lake Pepin are lower than current conditions below Lake Pepin.  He suggested that this is an example of the kind of challenge that will need to be considered systemically, as well as on the reach scale.  Barr said that each river management team will need to articulate its recommended areas of emphasis.  Then systemic priorities will need to be established.

 

Marv Hubbell said that EMP has approximately $155 million of activity in the HREP and LTRM pipeline, including 18 HREPs that will be ready for construction within the next five years.  He asked how those projects/efforts could be integrated should the EMP-NESP transition occur during this first four-year cycle.  Barr said that LTRM would be funded at its authorized level of $10.42 million per year, assuming NESP receives robust funding.  Barr deferred the incorporation of any habitat projects beyond what is currently in NESP’s design to the River Management Teams.

 

Barr reported that the NESP authority includes $200 million for mitigation.  In the first four-year implementation cycle, $50 million worth of mitigation projects has been identified, including bankline stabilization, vegetation, backwater/sidechannel, fish, and cultural projects.  Duyvejonck asked whether mitigation actions could be integrated into restoration projects, in an effort to make the projects more effective.  Barr said that this would be possible, if the project elements are accounted for separately to ensure appropriate cost-share compliance.  He noted that integrating fish mitigation activities with restoration projects would be particularly difficult, since the mitigation to address larval fish impacts will not be site-specific.

 

Barr said that NESP program costs are relatively high, while NESP is receiving relatively low levels of PED funding.  As funding ramps up, program expenditures will be a relatively small percentage of overall spending.  Barr said specific projects should be identified for which expanded monitoring could be utilized.  He said that adaptive management questions will be identified by geomorphic and floodplain reach, and also at the system level.  Barr emphasized the need for the System Team and Science Panel’s activities to be very transparent.  Mike Jawson asked whether the proposed involvement of the Science Panel in the identification of adaptive management projects has been vetted with the Panel.  Barr said that Corps staff has worked with the Science Panel, and that this function will be reflected in a draft Panel charter that will be released soon for partner comment.

 

Barr reviewed the First Increment Plan for ecosystem restoration, explaining that 227 projects totaling $1.46 billion are included.  He reviewed the range of project types as well.  Janet Sternburg asked how EMP projects would fit into the Plan should a quick EMP-NESP transition occur.  Barr said that projects at the fact sheet stage would be integrated into reach planning.  Projects that are further advanced would be completed in the same fashion as NESP projects for which planning was advanced under PED.  Sternburg expressed concern with the potential for an overload of projects under limited funding scenarios, such as $35 million.  Barr said that NESP would not be possible at that low level of funding. 

 

In response to a question from Gretchen Benjamin, Barr said that drawdowns for Pools 5 and 9 are no longer likely to happen within the next four years.  Thus, they will be considered in the next reach planning cycle, as will fish passage at Lock and Dam 3. 

 

Barr said that Corps staff has estimated 20 percent attrition of projects that will not be implementable, but said the list of projects for this first four-year cycle makes allowances for this.  Although there is a list of mature projects ready for construction, Barr said he expects a new round of project planning will be needed as those projects are completed.  Hubbell acknowledged the need for EMP to also identify new projects for planning.

 

Barr presented a proposed timeline for the development of reach plans.  In an effort to balance the need to move forward with reach planning and with workload considerations, the schedule was modified and is as follows:

 

·      August/September 2009 — Reach Planning Teams will complete draft Reach Plans for action by the respective River Management Teams.

·      December 2009 — Draft System Plans, developed by the Regional Support Team, will be distributed to the NECC, EMP-CC, UMRBA, and stakeholders for review and comment.

·      February 2010 — A final System Plan will be presented to NECC and EMP-CC for consideration at the February quarterly meetings.

 

Bob Clevenstine expressed concern that the necessary resources may not be available to support stakeholder engagement in the reach planning effort.  He urged that financial and logistical needs be addressed.  Barr said that stakeholder engagement would be the responsibility of the individual reach planning teams, but that Corps staff will work with those teams to meet their needs.  Hubbell requested an estimate of the financial and logistical needs expected for effective stakeholder engagement.

 

Development of a Mussel Community Index

 

Jon Duyvejonck described the need for a freshwater mussel community assessment tool to help inform management efforts on the UMRS.  Currently, the Service is concerned that there is no consistent methodology or uniform criteria for assessing mussel populations and habitat.  Duyvejonck noted that obtaining mussel community information is identified as an additional monitoring component in the FY 10-14 LTRMP Strategic and Operational Plan.  The need for mussel indicators was also recognized at the May 5-7, 2009 UMRBA Biological Indicators Workshop.  Duyvejonck proposed a reconnaissance study that would analyze both a multi-metric index and a series of statistically-derived curves that plot the frequency distribution of various mussel metrics.  He estimated the cost for Phase I of such a study at approximately $60,000.

 

Charlie Wooley asked NECC and EMP-CC members to provide Duyvejonck with feedback on the idea of a reconnaissance study.  Duyvejonck said he would like to have a refined proposal available for NECC and EMP-CC’s potential endorsement in August.  Barr asked members to provide their input to Duyvejonck by July 6, 2009.

 

Karen Hagerty asked how this effort might relate to the Mussel Coordination Team and its database.  Duyvejonck said that data could be utilized, but that this research would more specifically assess the health of mussel populations and habitat.

 

Dan Wilcox noted that the need for more mussel data is a frequent issue in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) context.  Duyvejonck said the minimum threshold of data required for ESA determinations has not always been consistent.  However, Barry Johnson clarified that this effort would not be geared to the endangered species context.

 

EMP-NESP Transition

 

Marv Hubbell reported that, in response to a directive included in the FY 2008 and 2009 appropriations measures, the three UMR Corps districts have drafted an EMP-NESP Transition Plan for submission to MVD.  He noted that this Congressional directive is somewhat at odds with the Administration, which has thus far declined to budget for NESP and thus does not necessarily see the need for a transition plan.  Hubbell said it remains to be seen how the draft plan will be handled in the Corps Headquarters and the Administration.  Hubbell said the draft plan highlights three key principles:

 

·      That no reductions occur in restoration and monitoring capabilities as a result of transition.

·      That all current projects in planning, engineering, design, and construction under EMP seamlessly transfer into the new Title VIII authority.

·      That scientific and monitoring efforts currently carried out under EMP integrate into the Title VIII authority.  The mechanism to facilitate this integration will be the recently completed and adopted FY 10-14 LTRMP Strategic Plan.

 

Hubbell summarized the following key recommendations and assumptions for a successful transition:

 

·      Adequate and stable funding for Title VIII will be sufficient to support transition.

·      Annual funding for EMP will continue to be between its historical level of $20,000,000 and its authorized limit of $33,170,000 until transition.

·      Transition at funding levels lower than $100 million is possible in compliance with the “Key Principles,” but would fall short of achieving full implementation under Title VIII.

·      Prior to transition and in consideration of actions taken to ensure smooth transition, EMP should be returned to full functionality, allowing for selection of new projects, planning of selected projects, and construction of approved projects.

 

Hubbell said that EMP has begun seeing impacts in FY 09 from the prohibition on EMP new starts.  The language will have a greater impact in FY 10 and will be very acute in FY 11, if the constraint is not lifted.  Chuck Spitzack described transition scenarios at $100 million, $50 million, and $35 million funding levels, which are presented in the draft plan.  He said a minimum of $100 million in annual funding is required in order to move to lock construction.

 

Janet Sternburg asked whether Corps staff is assuming that a transition would be abrupt or would occur over multiple years.  Spitzack and Hubbell said that it is uncertain how Congress will direct a transition, especially since NESP has not yet been included in the President’s budget.  Spitzack said the transition plan is intended to provide decision makers with sufficient information to understand the implications of various choices they might make.  Hubbell said a multi-year transition would be preferable, but stressed the uncertainty regarding what decisions will be made on this.  Bill Franz said that the draft plan does not reflect an intent to transition over multiple years.  He suggested that the plan describe what events should occur over a proposed timeframe.

 

Bernie Schonoff asked whether lock design would continue under the $50 million and $35 million scenarios.  Spitzack said that design efforts would continue on two initial locks.  He said the Corps would like to construct the locks simultaneously to lessen navigation impacts over the long run.

 

Mike Jawson asked what the likelihood is that the Administration will forward a transition plan to Congress.  Elizabeth Ivy said it is not yet known whether the Administration is prepared to forward the plan.  She advised keeping the plan brief and conceptual.  Spitzack said the process of developing the draft plan has been valuable, regardless of whether the plan is ultimately submitted to Congress.  In particular, he said it has prompted Corps staff and program partners to address key issues surrounding transition.

 

Ivy questioned whether 50/50 splits between navigation and ecosystem restoration at the two lower scenarios would be realistic at a $35 million or $50 million overall funding level. Spitzack explained that such an allocation represents a reasonable approach to comparable progress and efficient implementation under a very low funding scenario.  Ken Barr said that navigation improvements will need considerably more than 50 percent of the annual NESP appropriation in some years.  Overall, Spitzack and Barr emphasized that the goal is to maintain comparable progress.  Paul Rhode stressed the importance of communicating about the transition plan with Congress.  He said that, currently, the perception is that EMP and NESP are competing for resources.  Rhode said a succinct, clear transition plan will be very valuable in clarifying the relationship between EMP and NESP.  He said a list of EMP projects in various phases would be helpful, but advised against including it in the transition plan.

 

Jon Duyvejonck expressed concern with using the FY 10-14 LTRMP Strategic Plan to facilitate a transition between the two programs.  He suggested developing a set of principles to guide the use of the Strategic Plan under NESP.  Charlie Wooley reported that USFWS articulated these concerns in a letter sent to the NESP Program Manager.

 

Hubbell asked partners to submit any further comments on the draft transition plan as soon as possible.  The Corps staff anticipates having a draft plan available prior to completion of the FY 10 appropriations process.

 

Gretchen Benjamin urged the Corps to eliminate the $35 million scenario from the draft plan, explaining that a transition consistent with the identified principles is clearly not feasible at this funding level.  She noted that the EMP alone would consume $20 million of that $35 million.  Bernie Hoyer said that the intention for EMP to continue to function fully until NESP is adequately funded should be clarified in the draft plan.  Spitzack said that $100 million is desired for a smooth transition, but that Congress may well direct transition at a lower funding level.  With sufficient funding, Spitzack said he does not see the need for a multi-year transition.

 

Schonoff moved and Sternburg seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 4:15 p.m.  It was approved unanimously.

 

 


Joint Session Attendance List

May 20, 2009

 

EMP-CC and NECC Members

Elizabeth Ivy

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVD

Ken Barr

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR

Charlie Wooley

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3

Mike Jawson

U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC

Butch Atwood

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Bernie Hoyer

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Bernie Schonhoff

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Tim Schlagenhaft

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Janet Sternburg

Missouri Department of Conservation

Jim Fischer

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Bill Franz

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5

 

 

Others in Attendance

COL Robert Sinkler

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR

Terry Birkenstock

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVP

Jeff DeZellar

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVP

Jon Hendrickson

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVP

Don Powell

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVP

Chuck Spitzack

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR

Karen Hagerty

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR

Marvin Hubbell

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR

Marshall Plumley

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR

T. Leo Keller

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR

Brian Johnson

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVS

Jon Duyvejonck

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, RIFO

Bob Clevenstine

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, RIFO

Don Hultman

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, UMR Refuge

Rick Frietsche

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, UMR Refuge

Barry Johnson

U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC

Dru Buntin

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

Dan McGuiness

Dan McGuiness and Associates

Heather Schoonover

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

Brad Walker

Izaak Walton League

Tom Boland

MACTEC

Mark Gorman

Northeast-Midwest Institute

Gretchen Benjamin

The Nature Conservancy

Todd Strole

The Nature Conservancy/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Christine Favilla

Sierra Club

Paul Rohde

Waterways Council, Inc.

Barb Naramore

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association

Peg Donnelly

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5

Dave Hokanson

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association

Kirsten Mickelsen

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association