Minutes of the

Upper Mississippi River System

Navigation Environmental Coordination Committee


November 18, 2009

Quarterly Meeting


Holiday Inn

Rock Island, Illinois



Ken Barr of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers called the meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. on November 18, 2009.  A complete list of attendees follows these minutes.


Minutes from the August 6, 2009 Meeting


Janet Sternburg clarified her statement on page A-2 of the August 6, 2009 draft minutes.  She is concerned that land managers are not well represented on the river management teams, rather than all on-the-ground managers.  Gretchen Benjamin moved and Bernie Schonhoff seconded a motion to approve the draft minutes of the August 6, 2009 meeting, with the clarification offered by Sternburg.


Program Funding


Scott Whitney explained that there was considerable uncertainty for NESP during the FY 10 appropriations process, significantly challenging the development of this year’s work plan.  While the Senate approved $9 million in preconstruction engineering and design (PED) funding, the House did not include any funding for NESP, leaving the likely conference amount very uncertain.  Whitney reported that the FY 10 Energy and Water appropriations measure (P.L. 111-85), passed on October 28, 2009, included $6.276 million in PED funding.  He noted that NESP appropriations have been declining over the past five years, placing significant constraints on project planning.  MVR staff had also anticipated that NESP would receive some of the 2009 stimulus funds for planning or construction.  However, NESP was not allocated any such funds.  With $494,000 in unobligated FY 09 funds, NESP’s total FY 10 obligation authority is $6.770 million.  Whitney explained that MVR staff had previously thought carry-over from FY 09 would be far higher.  Though the continuing resolution that extended into March 2009 delayed contract awards, NESP was ultimately able to obligate about 94 percent of its FY 09 total obligation authority, leaving the relatively small amount in unobligated carry-over funds for FY 10.


Advisory Panel Update


Chuck Spitzack reported that, in an October 14, 2009 memo to General Walsh, Tab Brown, head of the MVD Regional Integration Team (RIT) at Corps’ HQ, indicated that HQ will not be submitting the General’s Advisory Panel proposal to ASA(CW) until an adequate funding stream for project design or construction is established.  Janet Sternburg asked whether the next MVD Commander could potentially alter the Advisory Panel (AP) proposal, or if there is higher level staff support that would continue to advocate for the current proposal.  Elizabeth Ivy explained that MVD RIT offered some minor comments, but did not express concern with the proposal’s content.  MVD RIT suggested that, in the interim, partners continue to address NESP implementation issues via the NECC.


Doug Blodgett expressed concern that significant inefficiencies will result if the Corps waits to establish the AP after NESP is appropriated construction funds.  Spitzack said NESP staff can continue to work with the Corps’ vertical team to ensure that elements are in place to begin construction as soon as possible after receiving funding.  Blodgett observed that coordination with top level state and federal agency staff requires sufficient lead time. 


Rick Nelson asked if the Corps has an internal staff contact in Washington who serves as an advocate for the UMR ecosystem restoration programs.  Spitzack said Zoltan Montvai is the Deputy Chief of the MVD RIT and is the current point of contact for MVR and MVD.  However, because of competing demands, he is not able to serve in the same capacity as the previous HQ UMR contact, Rich Worthington, who retired in 2009.  Elizabeth Ivy reported that Beth Marlow, previously with the Jacksonville District and earlier with the USFWS, was recently hired to serve a similar role to Worthington, but will work under Montvai’s direction.


Tim Schlagenhaft expressed concern that a delay in establishing the AP and involving director-level staff will be counterproductive.  In particular, he said it will impair efforts to increase the program’s visibility, one of the General’s primary stated reasons for elevating the level of representation on the AP.  Spitzack agreed and suggested that MVR staff continue to have discussions with HQ regarding the AP’s potential roles and benefits to the program.  In response to a question from Jon Duyvejonck, Ken Barr said NECC will continue to serve as a discussion forum for partners in the interim.


Partners discussed the possibility of calling for the AP’s establishment in a letter to the ASA(CW), similar to UMRBA’s March 2, 2009 letter to General Walsh, either from UMRBA or NECC.  Schlagenhaft said, if partners want to request that UMRBA submit a letter to MVD and/or ASA(CW), NECC members should coordinate with their respective agency’s UMRBA representative(s).  Gretchen Benjamin suggested that a potential letter include all state, federal, and non-governmental agencies as signatories.  She said there might be a possibility to present such a letter in person to ASA(CW) Jo Ellen Darcy, with whom representatives of UMRBA, TNC, Waterways Council, and the Audubon Society will be meeting on November 30, 2009.


Janet Sternburg said she favors such a letter.  However, she questioned the AP’s actual ability to heighten focus on NESP, regionally and nationally, particularly if it meets only once every four years.  Spitzack said an outreach working group would likely be tasked with actively promoting the program and educating stakeholders.  In lieu of a letter, Ivy suggested that partners attending the upcoming meeting with Darcy highlight the partners’ collective concerns regarding the absence of the AP.


First Increment Plan Review


Chuck Spitzack said Corps staff continue planning the first increment of NESP’s implementation strategy.  While NESP received authorization in WRDA 2007, the Chief’s Report is still pending.  Spitzack explained that the Report’s transmission to OMB is necessary for the program’s inclusion in the President’s annual budget, and is critical to ensuring a consistent and adequate funding stream.  Jeff Stamper said the Corps anticipates that, as some issues such as the Inland Waterway Trust Fund (IWTF) situation, the lack of implementation guidance, the Chief’s Report’s status, and NESP appropriation levels are resolved in some fashion, it will be possible to develop a more refined implementation strategy.  Spitzack said that, as these major issues are addressed, Corps staff will continue to develop short and long term implementation scenarios that maximize efficiency. 


Spitzack said a successful First Increment Plan will provide for efficient delivery, minimum disruption to navigation during construction, and maximum economic and environmental benefits.  To achieve this success, NESP must have strong, effective relationships with its partners; a steady, adequate funding stream; efficient and effective contracting; and a fluid planning process for ecosystem restoration projects.


Spitzack said Corps staff are currently developing implementation strategies for unconstrained, moderate (maximum annual appropriations of $300 million), and low (maximum annual appropriation of $200 million) funding scenarios.  He explained that intense investment through large, comprehensive design and construction contracts will lend the greatest value to the navigation component.  On the other hand, consistent, moderate-level investment, balanced with adaptive management, will lend the greatest value to the ecosystem restoration component.  Spitzack recommended the following sequence of lock construction for the most efficient implementation under constrained funding scenarios: 1) simultaneous construction of Locks 22 and 25; 2) La Grange Lock; 3) simultaneous construction of Locks 20, 21, and 24; 4) Peoria Lock. 


Spitzack presented possible implementation scenarios for both the navigation and ecosystem restoration components, with implementation of the navigation measures lagging the ecosystem restoration component by either three or six years.  In both scenarios, the level and timing of investment in the navigation component would be the same.  However, implementation of the ecosystem restoration component would be more intensive in the beginning of the six-year lag scenario, rather than a more steady investment in the three-year lag scenario.  Spitzack noted the difficulty in estimating future construction costs and impacts on navigation because there are several unknown variables — e.g., NESP’s future appropriations stream, inflation rates, traffic levels, etc.  Stamper noted that Olmstead Locks and Dam is scheduled for completion in six years.  At that time, MVR staff anticipate a potential shift in the Corps’ inland navigation construction priorities, with a higher probability of NESP receiving substantial construction funds.  Spitzack acknowledged that future funding is still very unclear, requiring Corps staff to develop implementation strategies that are flexible, and can ensure efficient operation of the navigation system during construction.


In response to a question from Mark Gorman, Spitzack said Corps staff and partners have indicated that the unconstrained funding scenario is not realistic.  Stamper said it is important to remember that Congress authorized a package of navigation projects to enhance system efficiency, not simply a series of lock-by-lock improvement projects.


Spitzack said the First Increment Plan scenarios were presented to industry stakeholders at the August 4, 2009 meeting of the Navigation Interests Coordinating Committee (NICC).  However, the Corps has not yet received any feedback from the industry representatives on those scenarios.  He reported that the Corps and the Inland Waterway Users Board, representing navigation interests nationally, have formed the Inland Marine Transportation System (IMTS) Investment Strategy Team.  The Team is currently developing a long-term capital plan for the nation’s inland waterway system.  Rick Nelson asked if the Team has a target date to release a prioritized list of projects.  Spitzack explained that the Team will first assess all of the nation’s inland waterways capital needs, and then identify alternatives and an investment plan.  In response to a question from Nelson, Spitzack said the Team will recommend a prioritized sequence of capital needs as a part of the plan, and will present the criteria used to prioritize those needs.  Stamper said the Inland Waterways Users Board is scheduled to consider the Team’s recommendations on December 15, 2009.


Spitzack observed that low funding scenarios also affect ecosystem restoration projects.  He said Corps staff are eager to implement a first round of projects to better understand the ecosystem, including the short and long term responses to various management techniques.  Spitzack said that, with the level of uncertainty surrounding NESP appropriations, there is little guidance to provide PDTs, besides to strive for the best value delivery.  He added that, until the future is clearer, NESP will continue to complete project plans so they are ready to implement when the program receives construction funds.  Spitzack expressed concern that the Corps will not be able to contract effectively for major navigation projects, causing delays and inefficiencies in project delivery.  He said Corps staff will develop estimates showing the effects of delaying construction of NESP’s planned navigation and ecosystem restoration projects in certain out-years.


In response to a question from Nelson, Ken Barr explained that systemic mitigation projects will be constructed concurrently with navigation projects, as required in NESP’s authorization.  Nelson asked for an update regarding the Inland Waterway Trust Fund (IWTF), and whether there might be Congressional action to resolve the Fund’s revenue shortfalls in the near future.  Jeff Stamper said Congressional action would be needed to change the Fund’s revenue system and other policy-related issues, such as cost-share formulas.  He noted other budget issues still remain, such as NESP’s inclusion in the President’s budget.  Mark Gorman said the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is holding a hearing today addressing issues and proposals for consideration in a possible 2010 WRDA, in which the IWTF’s policy issues could be addressed.  He also noted that the Administration has proposed legislation to replace the IWTF’s fuel tax with a lock fee.  However, Gorman questioned the support behind the proposal, suggesting that it will not likely be approved.


Christine Favilla asked whether, if small scale navigation features significantly improve navigation on the UMRS, the Corps would reconsider its proposed level of investment in large scale navigation projects, possibly reducing total navigation construction costs.  Barr said NESP staff have several designs complete for small scale navigation projects, which are ready for implementation once NESP receives construction funding.  Jeff Stamper said Corps staff are also continuing to identify nonstructural alternatives for small scale navigation improvements, as required in NESP’s authorization.  Barr reported that NESP’s authorization includes a provision to employ a full scale reevaluation after the first seven locks are constructed.  Brian Johnson and Stamper said adding new 1,200-foot locks at the seven authorized locations will add efficiency and reliability to the UMRS’ navigation operations that cannot be provided solely through small scale measures.  This comes from a combination of increased lock size and having the current 600-foot locks continue to serve in an auxiliary capacity.


Brad Walker suggested that, if initial construction funding only covers small scale navigation projects, Corps staff reassess the benefits from small scale projects to the overall navigation system.  In response to a comment by Spitzack that these benefits were addressed in the 2008 Reevaluation Report, Walker said his suggested analysis would address questions still unanswered from the 2004 Feasibility Study.  The results could then be used to further refine the estimated benefits of major navigation projects.  In turn, this could be used in making the case for funding those projects.  Barr clarified that the Feasibility Study calls for the Corps to address questions regarding economics.  This is not a requirement included in NESP’s authorization.  However, Walker noted that the economic issues are highlighted in the Chief’s Report.


In response to a question from Barr, Stamper said a monitoring plan will be developed for the switchboat project.  Currently, Corps staff envision the plan including monitoring for safety, efficiency, and overall acceptability.


Walker suggested that the Corps revisit the entire 2008 Reevaluation Report to address the Administration’s concerns.  He added that submitting such a reevaluation might be another trigger for Congressional action.  Spitzack said a reevaluation would be more productive after models are better developed and there is more certainty on key variables.  Jim Fischer observed that completing small scale measures before beginning lock construction would allow partners to properly assess the benefits of small scale improvements without interference from the large scale navigation measures.


Stamper suggested including a discussion of the 2008 Reevaluation Report at the February 25, 2010 NECC meeting, including background on the high, medium, and low traffic estimates.


Project Delivery Teams


Leo Keller said the 2006 Project Stakeholder List, provided in the meeting packet, is the most recent Project Delivery Team (PDT) membership list.  Keller asked NECC members and other stakeholders to provide him with their current contacts for each PDT on which their agency/organization wants to be represented.  The Corps will then distribute an updated list of PDT members. 


Joyce Collins requested that Corps staff first distribute a revised list organized by PDT to facilitate internal coordination.  Janet Sternburg expressed appreciation to the Corps staff and partners for their time in updating the list, noting the value of having correct contact information.  Ken Barr said the Corps will continue to maintain the PDT lists in the future.


Jim Fischer encouraged the Corps to provide partners with sufficient time to submit their updated information.  Sternburg suggested that the Corps also include contact information for NEPA reviewers.  Bill Franz asked how the Corps plans to seek updated information for state water quality staff — i.e., will the Corps request the state NECC members or the UMRBA’s Water Quality Executive Committee (WQEC) or Water Quality Task Force (WQTF) members to coordinate with their respective states’ UMR water quality agencies?  Rick Mollahan said he would prefer the Corps coordinate with the WQEC.  In response to a request from Franz, Barr said he and Keller will supply the WQEC with project fact sheets.  Robert Stout requested that the Corps also include the Missouri DNR in its requests for current contact information.


In response to a question from Doug Blodgett, Barr and Keller said they will send a revised membership list, organized by PDT, to NECC members and other stakeholders with a formal request to submit their PDT members’ contact information within about a month.


FY 10 Work Plan


Scott Whitney reported that Corps staff developed FY 10 work plans for $9, $11, and $13 million scenarios because they anticipated NESP having about $9 million in appropriations, possibly $2 million in stimulus funds, and $2 million in carry-over funds from FY 09.  Whitney explained that, with the total FY 10 obligation authority at $6.77 million, Corps staff are now seeking ways to reduce the budget across most of the projects, rather than eliminating funding for some projects.  This strategy is designed, in part, to ensure implementation readiness when NESP receives construction funding.  He said Corps staff will distribute a revised budget once project allocations are finalized.  Whitney said the FY 10 work plan will include:


·         An FY 10 project reference guide, identifying all programmatic, navigation efficiency, and ecosystem restoration projects and the lead district and staff for each project and the district program manager

·         Draft FY 10 project budgets

·         Descriptive work plan tables for each program component

·         A summary of additional PED capabilities

·         A list of expected challenges to program implementation


Whitney reported that designs for mooring cells and buoys are complete, and designs for switchboats are nearly complete.  Corps staff anticipate completing designs for Scheniman Chute within the next three to six months, and for Buffalo Island and Herculaneum in FY 10 and 11.  Whitney said there have been several recent staff turnovers within the navigation and ecosystem restoration PDTs.  He said the Science Panel’s FY 10 activities include working with the fish passage PDTs for L&D 22 and 26 and the side channel restoration PDTs.  Whitney reported that feasibility and NEPA documents have been finalized for the Pool 2 wing dam and dike alteration project.  Corps and Minnesota DNR staff hope to finalize a cost share agreement for the Root River floodplain restoration project proposal.


Whitney reported that Corps staff plan to initiate scoping on one new ecosystem restoration project in each of the four floodplain reaches in FY 10.  Ken Barr said they have allocated $60,000 to scope the four new projects.  He explained that Corps staff intend to select and prioritize about 16 projects, four in each reach, in May, and to begin planning this summer.  However, Barr said Corps staff will seek input from the reach planning teams regarding readiness to implement.  If the teams agree that the schedule does not permit project selection by late spring/early summer, Corps staff will redistribute these scoping funds to other projects.


In response to a question from Rick Nelson, Barr said the authorized NESP ecosystem restoration component is $1.8 billion, which includes adaptive management costs.  In response to a question from Janet Sternburg, Barr said estimated construction costs for fish passage projects are about $50 million each.


Gretchen Benjamin suggested increasing the proposed allocation to reach planning in order to ensure the best possible projects are selected.  Barr suggested that the relative priority of reach planning versus other program activities should be discussed at an EMP-CC/NECC joint session.  He said this might be possible at today’s joint session, after the reach planning teams present their current status and future plans.  Spitzack stressed the importance of completing plans for the L&D 22 and 26 fish passage projects.  Barr suggested including a discussion of the Feasibility Study in a future NECC meeting to review priorities and estimated costs. 


Whitney reported that Corps staff are currently developing a five-year work plan with various funding scenarios.  Corps staff anticipate updating the work plan annually.  Whitney said a five-year work plan will facilitate planning under constrained situations, provide more specific guidance to PDTs, and enhance program readiness.


In response to a question from Jim Fischer, Barr suggested he contact Jeff DeZellar for the current status of the Pierce County floodplain restoration project agreement.  Elizabeth Ivy reported that the Root River project agreement was forwarded to HQ for approval.  In response to a question from Tim Schlagenhaft, Ivy said she anticipates HQ will send MVD a response within two to three weeks.


Program Updates


System Mitigation


Ken Barr reported that the Corps, as part of the NESP Cultural Resources Mitigation Program, will develop an Upper Mississippi River curriculum guide book to help students understand the UMRS’s multiple uses.  Corps staff will seek input from educators via three regional workshops.  Barr said the workshops are scheduled for December 14 in Alton, Missouri; December 16 in Pleasant Valley, Iowa; and December 18 in Fort Snelling, Minnesota.


Todd Strole asked if the guide book will focus on the River’s cultural resources and/or biology.  Barr said the book will describe how to mitigate effects on both cultural and ecosystem resources.  In response to a question from Brad Walker, Barr said those interested in getting more information should contact him.  Barr also suggested having the mitigation PDT present at a future NECC meeting regarding this effort.


Fish Passage


Barr reported that a draft project implementation report (PIR) for L&D 22 fish passage has undergone independent external review.  MVR staff anticipate sharing a revised version with partners within the next few weeks, finalizing the draft report in early January, forwarding the Report to HQ this spring/summer, and conducting a formal public review by the end of FY 10.  With input from meeting participants, Barr scheduled a webinar for January 19, 2009 from 9 to 11:30 a.m. to discuss the draft PIR for L&D 22, including the external review comments; the Corps’ FY 10 fish passage work plan; and other monitoring and design issues related to fish passage.


Science Panel


Draft Charter


Ken Barr reported that Corps staff have finalized a draft Science Panel (SP) charter for partner review.  The charter describes the relationships of partners internal and external to the SP, including general protocols and procedures.  In response to a question from Tim Schlagenhaft, Barr said the process for developing and approving the SP’s annual work plans will be similar to other NESP project work plans — i.e., developed by Corps staff and presented to the NECC for partner input.  Schlagenhaft suggested adding language to the charter clarifying that process.


In response to a question from Schlagenhaft, Barr clarified that the SP will not be a decision-making body.  The draft charter includes voting and reporting processes simply to give structure to the SP.


FY 10 Work Plan


Barr outlined several scheduled activities for the SP in FY 10, as detailed below.  If funding allows, the SP may hold up to three webinars on various topics, a meeting with fish passage PDTs, and a workshop on landscape metrics/LTRMP landscape analysis.


·         October 2009 — Reach Planning conference call

·         December 2009 — Secondary Channel Restoration PDT webinar

·         January 2010 — Secondary Channel Restoration PDT workshop

·         February 2010 —Webinar to prepare for an upcoming meeting with the Illinois Science Advisory Committee (SAC)

·         March 2010 — Illinois SAC and NESP Peoria Backwater PDT Workshop


Marv Hubbell asked what area of LTRMP’s landscape analyses NESP staff are interested in for the workshop — e.g., Nate De Jager’s research, a particular Administrative Program Element (APE) project, and/or LTRMP’s land cover/land use data.  Barr said the hope would be to address all of those aspects in the interest of using landscape metrics to measure biological response.  He explained that this workshop would further the exploration of biological indicators for ecosystem restoration and water quality programs.


Janet Sternburg asked if the SP has a website for partners to obtain its meeting minutes and PowerPoint presentations.  Barr said the SP has been using USGS’ Learning Tree website for internal information sharing.  The site does not allow for public access.  He said that partners are welcome to request any particular documents.  Sternburg requested that Corps staff set up a SP website for partner access to all of the SP’s-related documents.


Draft Water Level Management Report


Barry Johnson reported that SP members are currently reviewing the Panel’s draft report on water level drawdowns.  The SP anticipates distributing a revised draft report to partners for review in January.  Johnson said some uncertainty regarding key considerations still remains, including the optimal frequency to implement drawdowns, long term effects, and longitudinal variation.  He described the following three primary direct effects of drawdowns, as well as the associated indirect effects:


·         Decreased water levels in summers

§        Increased exposure of shallow areas, leading to increased aeration and compaction

§        Increased tilt of water surface

§        Decreased ground water table

§        Unknown effect on short-term water level variation

·         Decreased water volume in summers

§        Increased velocity in major channels

§        Decreased velocity in off-channel areas, leading to increased retention time and temperatures, and lowered dissolved oxygen in backwaters

§        Changed sediment erosion and deposition

·         Increased light penetration to the river bottom in areas that were formally too deep to receive light (i.e., littoral area shifted further offshore)


Johnson said the SP’s research goal was to better understand drawdowns as a tool for achieving ecosystem goals and objectives.  In response to a comment by Jeff Stamper, Ken Barr said PDTs address the social effects from drawdowns at each individual site.  Joyce Collins suggested the SP also consider assessing the benefits from drawdowns in pools with dam point control versus hinge point control.


Partner Reports


Tim Schlagenhaft said the Minnesota DNR and partners are seeking Outdoor Heritage Funds to acquire private lands along the lower reaches of the Cannon, Zumbro, and Root Rivers, and to reconstruct islands and employ drawdowns in Pools 2 and 3.  Schlagenhaft said a hearing is scheduled in mid December with the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council, which is responsible for allocating the funds.  If the proposal is funded, work would begin in July.


Todd Strole reported that the Floodplain Restoration System Team (FRST) held its second webinar on October 19, 2009.  The webinar included presentations about the Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative (MRBI), the Root River project, the NESP decision support system, and a potential 2010 National Great Rivers Research and Education Center conference focused on floodplain and bottomland forests.  Strole said the next FRST webinar will be scheduled for January.


Rick Frietsche announced that Kevin Foerster is the new project leader and supervisor for the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge.


Christine Favilla reported that a bill providing financial incentives to development projects with at least 30 percent of the project area in a 100-year floodplain has been reintroduced in Illinois.  Projects would require a total area greater than 600 acres.  Favilla said the Sierra Club opposes the legislation.


Eric Schenck said the Ducks Unlimited is acquiring an average of approximately 300 to 400 acres annually in lands and easements along the Illinois and Middle Mississippi Rivers.


Jim Fischer reported that MVP received 2009 stimulus funds to design and construct navigation improvements for L&D 3.  Wisconsin DNR has issued permits for the Corps’ navigation safety and upper embankment project proposals.  However, Fischer said the Wisconsin DNR has not yet issued a permit for the lower embankment work and is concerned that fish passage has not been addressed.


Other Business


Ken Barr proposed that the NECC convene a virtual quarterly meeting once annually, in place of a face-to-face meeting.  Rick Nelson expressed his support for Barr’s proposal.


Jeff Stamper asked if Corps staff have ever considered holding a quarterly meeting near MVD.  Nelson cautioned that travel expenses will likely be very high.  Tim Schlagenhaft noted that additional travel costs to MVD may be relatively small since most people are already traveling to the meetings.  He suggested that Corps staff coordinate with UMRBA to determine whether that would be feasible.


Mike Jawson acknowledged that there are many distractions when working at your office.  Barr agreed, and said a virtual meeting beyond two hours would be difficult.


Bernie Hoyer moved and Jim Fischer seconded a motion to schedule a virtual quarterly meeting for August 2010.  The motion carried unanimously.


Janet Sternburg encouraged Corps staff to consider holding only three meetings per year, as opposed to four meetings.


The upcoming quarterly meetings are as follows:


·         February 2010 — St. Louis

§         UMRBA — February 23

§         EMP-CC — February 24

§         Joint EMP-CC and NECC — afternoon of February 24 (if needed)

§         NECC — February 25


·         May 2010 — St. Paul

§         UMRBA — May 18

§         NECC — May 19

§         Joint EMP-CC and NECC — afternoon of May 19 (if needed)

§         EMP-CC — May 20


·        August 2010*Webinar (Date and time have yet to be determined.)


*  The August UMRBA and EMP-CC quarterly meetings will be held in La Crosse on the 3rd and 4th, respectively.



NECC Attendance List

November 18, 2009


NECC Members

Ken Barr

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR

Rick Nelson

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, RIFO

Butch Atwood

Illinois 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

Elizabeth Ivy

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVD

David Potter

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVD

Don Powell

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVP

Gary Meden

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR

Chuck Spitzack

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR

Scott Whitney

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR

T. Leo Keller

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR

Jim Homann

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR

Marv Hubbell

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR

Karen Hagerty

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR

Brian Johnson

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVS

Charlie Henneken

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVS

Jeff Stamper

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVS

Rick Nelson

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, RIFO

Kevin Foerster

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, UMR Refuge

Rick Frietsche

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, UMR Refuge

Bob Clevenstine

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, RIFO

Joyce Collins

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marion Sub-Office

Jon Duyvejonck

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, RIFO

Scott Yess

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, UMRCC

Mike Jawson

U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC

Barry Johnson

U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC

Rick Mollahan

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Robert Stout

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

John Curry

Audubon Minnesota

Eric Schenk

Ducks Unlimited

Brad Walker

Izaak Walton League

Mark Gorman

Northeast-Midwest Institute

Gretchen Benjamin

The Nature Conservancy

Doug Blodgett

The Nature Conservancy

Todd Strole

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

Christine Favilla

The Sierra Club

Cynthia Drew

University of Miami Law School

Kirsten Mickelsen

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association