December 12, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary 1 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee (FRRCC) Meeting

December 12 , 20 11

10:00 a.m.

– 12:00 p.m. EST

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios North Building Washington, DC



### E XECUTIVE 

### S UMMARY

Call to Order and Welcome Dr. Steven Balling, Committee Chair Alicia Kaiser, Designated Federal Officer (DFO)

Ms. Alicia Kaiser (FRRCC DFO ) ca lled the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and welcomed the Committee

members

.

Dr. Steven Balling ( Del Monte Foods ), Chair of the FRRCC

, also greet e d the Committee members and commented on the Committee’s positive work ethic and ability to achieve constructive results with such a diverse g roup of individuals.

Discussion of the Meeting Agenda

Dr. Balling stated that Committee members should make comments on content or language alterations that are of concern regarding the Executive Summary (ES) or workgroup reports . He commented that there was minimal opportunity to make changes because the report had to be finalized by the end of the meeting; however, he wanted all Committee members to be comfortable with the content, given that their

name s appear on the report. If a c onsensus on language and wording cannot be reached by the end of the meeting, an alternate version of the ES could be constructed and submitted. Mr. Lawrence Elworth (EPA) added that alternative concerns could be integrated into the report as well

.

Formal Approval of the Final FRRCC Report

Mr. George Boggs (Whatcom Conservation District) stated that in the ES and workgroup reports

, the language for stewardship level vacillates between “acceptable level of stewardship” and “reasonable level of stewardship.” The Resources Workgroup proposed that in the ES and workgroup reports

, the language be consistently changed to “reasonable leve l of stewardship.” Mr. Lawrence E. Clark (Farm Pilot Project Coordination) concurred and Mr. Boggs added that this language occur red in three locations in the report
documents.

Dr. Janis McFarland (Syngenta Crop Protection) wanted to add a reference to a table attachment in the Science Workgroup report. Dr. McFarland also suggested a discussion for clarification concerning the first Science Workgroup recommendation in the ES (i.e., “Ensure that nutrient criteria and new suspended and bedded sediments ( SABS) criteria developed by states, or where appropriate, by EPA are science

based and demonstrate that one or more of these factors in fact causes an adverse biological effect on the designated use for the water body”). She questioned if it i s within EPA ’s jurisdiction to declare that the2 December 12 , 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary

states’ criteria have to be science

- based because EPA develops guidance. Mr. Elworth commented that the preceding sentence could be altered where it states that “the Agency take the following steps.”

A participant co mmented that if a state develops numeric nutrient criteria (NNC), the NNC are reviewed by EPA. Mr. Elworth stated that total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) are reviewed based on the science and this review is delegated to authorities on the subject matter. This does not mean that EPA must act differently, but it does mean that EPA has the responsibility to act. Dr. McFarland reiterated that her intent was to ensure the Agency was acting within its authoritative bounds. Mr. Tom McDonald (JBS

Five Rivers Cat tle Feeding) thought that the Science Workgroup recommendation makes it clear that the states have primary authority. Dr. Balling said that EPA does have some authority and ultimately is held responsible.

Dr. McFarland stated that although the recommen dation reads, “...science

- based and demonstrate that one or more of these factors in fact causes an adverse biological effect...,” the scientific process works to establish criteria based on nutrients or SABs. The Science Workgroup therefore recommended altering the language to state, “...science

- based and demonstrate that the nutrient or sediment in fact cause s an adverse biological effect...

. ” Ms. Kaiser confirme d this alteration to the ES

, and Mr. Elworth added that this does not need to be changed in th e other locations where it occurs in the document.

Dr. Robert Burns (University of Tennessee) pointed out that the first recommendation fr om the Resources Workgroup in the ES suggest s t hat EPA “connect more effectively to the Land Grant University (LGU)

s cientists.” He proposed that “LGU scientists” be replaced by “LGU system” because many Extension

staff members regard themselves as educators and altering this language will help to engage everyone.

Dr. Lori Berger (California Specialty Crops Council) added that in many states LGU work is accomplished by other schools, and so this recommendation could be modified to encompass that by stating, “connect more effectively to the LGU system and other partners” or “other institutions.” Dr. Larry Sanders (Ok lahoma State University) concurred that a portion of LGU work is being outsourced to other institutions, while universities and LGUs focus on theoretical efforts. Dr. Burns cautioned that such a language adjustment would open up the recommendation for too large a group, and the intent of the recommendation was for EPA to work effectively with LGUs. Dr. David Petty (Iowa River Ranch) and Mr. Omar Garza (Texas Mexico Border Coalition) pointed out that EPA connecting more effectively with other agricultural groups is addressed in the second Resources Workgroup recommendation. Dr. Burns added that the Resources Workgroup report provides more detail about EPA working with other institutions and partners ; the first Resources Workgroup recommendation was intended to be

focused on LGU s

.

Dr. Balling noted that

, in California

, the first Resources Workgroup recommendation would appear to be

limited

. He also commented that the second Resources Workgroup recommendation is more general, but

the first recommenda tion focuses on technology transfer. Ms. Martha Noble (National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition) suggested that the third bullet point under the second Resources Workgroup recommendation could be altered to extend beyond curricula development. It could state, “...through partnerships with LGUs, community colleges, producers, etc...” and this would adequately capture groups beyond LGUs. Mr. Elworth commented that without altering the recommendations, a fourth bullet point could be added to the first Resourc es Workgroup recommendation that explains that exclusivity is not intended. The Committee gave general assent.

Mr. Petty expressed concern about the first bullet point of the third Resources Workgroup recommendation. He said that it was pointing out sta te and local level stewardship and he was unsure

about the inclusion of this on the national level. He added that national penalties on regional issues areDecember 12, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary 3

nonsensical. Dr. Balling agreed and stated that there had been general consent to remove the natio nal level from that bullet point previously.

Mr. Archilus Hart (North Carolina Department of Agriculture) mentioned that in the third paragraph of the ES, EPA working with underserved groups (e.g., limited

- resource and minority farmers, 1890 and

1994 LG Us , Hispanic colleges and community

- based organizations) is mentioned and in fact, a

memorandum of understanding exists between USDA and EPA to promote a relationship with 1890

LGUs . This memorandum indicates the potential for what EPA can accomplish, but is not being followed; Mr. Hart said he hoped it was the Agency’s intention to reinvigorat e its outreach and engagement efforts with the 1890 and 1994 LGUs , tribes, Hispanic colleges and so forth. Dr. Balling commented that many states have more than one LG, although 1862 and 1890 LGU s are just one LG per

state. He continued that in a fourth open bullet point, it is proposed to “encourage operations with non

LGUs (for example, state universities, private colleges, nonprofit organizations and so forth) to develop effective technology transfer programs.” Mr. Hart commented that this is being done, but should be expanded. Dr s . Burns and Balling questioned altering the language to say “other universities,” “non

LG Us” or “non

- LGU institutions.”

Mr. Steven McNinch (Western Plains Energy) and Dr. McFarland questioned whether there would be adequate staff to do the work in resource

- limited situations

. Dr. Burns suggested a sub

- bullet point discussing specific liaisons and staff wor k. He clarified that the intent is not to exclude any individual or group, but to point out that the system is broken and recommend that it be return ed to functionality.

Dr. Berger proposed movin g this to its own bu llet point. Dr s . Burns and Balling suggested different wording and agreed to change the fourth open bullet point to “... institutions

, universities and organizations, for example LGUs, state universities, private universities, etc...

. ” Mr. Daniel Botts (Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association) advocated making tha t point the first open bullet point under that heading. There was general Committee consensus on this suggestion

.

Dr. McFarland proposed adding “help identify” to the second bullet point under the second Science Workgroup recommendation in the ES because there are vulnerable lands that might not be identified. There was general consensus on the revision and Mr. Elworth pointed out that this must be changed in the Science Workgroup report as well.

Mr. Boggs stated that the first bullet point of the thi rd Resources Workgroup recommendation in the ES

was modified earlier ; to maintain consistency, the third bullet point of the third Resources Workgroup

recommendation in the related workgroup report should be removed. There was general FRRCC

agreement to this alteration.

Dr. Balling questioned if Committee members were fundamentally comfortable with the ES and workgroup report documents . Do the documents appropriately represent the FRRCC discussions ?

The Committee members expressed affirmative support and consensus for the contents of the report

.

General Discussion

Ms. Peggy Beltrone (Exergy Integrated Systems) questioned if there was an appropriate “sound bite” that could be used to capture how far the Committee has progressed on the issues

. Mr. Boggs commented that

the FRRCC members represent diverse experience and education levels. He thought that the ES embraced heartfelt recommendations for how EPA can progress and address agricultural pollution effectively and with less conflict. Alt hough the FRRCC cannot compel EPA to act, the Committee ha s given a voice to an alternate pathway that includes resources and authorities that can be effectively utilized. The FRRCC offers solid principles that, if embraced, could make serious progress wi th minimal4 December 12 , 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary

litigation. Due to the diversity and non

- partisan nature of the Committee, the recommendations are resilient and provide a solid foundation for advancement.

Ms. Martha Noble (National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition) said that there are exam ples available of

issues that occu r

r ed where two agencies with two different models produce d effective results. Discussions between the agencies, however, were not enough to achieve these results; inclusion of

affected communities was essential. The FRRC C recommendations consider this adequately by emphasizing the need for improved overall communication to achieve better understanding from farmers and the public.

Mr. G. Douglas Young (Spruce Haven Farm and Research Center) thought that the second paragra ph of the ES concisely expressed his sentiments, with the following sentence being at the core , “ Such actions, along with the additional recommendations detailed in this report, will help the Agency move forward with the public and private support it needs to accomplish its mission.”

Dr. Balling stated that if farmers, ranchers and dairy workers we re provided credible, trustworthy

, and transparent science, then they would understand that wha t they are being asked to do has very real,

material effects on improving the water quality, and then they would “step up” and wholeheartedly

answer the call. T o achieve this result, there must be an up

- front, concerted effort to develop trust and credibility with such communities. EPA should engage the agricultural community in discussions about

the issues and work with them so that they understand the science.

Mr. Boggs noted that the FRRCC cannot control the actions of the administration or the outcome, but the

Committee members can resolve to adopt a consensus and return to their respective organizations and advance these recommendations to effect change.

Mr. Lee McDaniel (Harford Soil Conservation District) commented that EPA is not the only agency or organization working on the clean water issue ; there are many other organizations (e.g., states, local groups) and individuals (e.g., farmers) working on this issue. The ES report mentions the opportunities available for partnerships to work toward a common goal when addressing the same problem . Although EPA has a singular role in enforcement, there are many opportunities for others to address the same is sue through other means.

Mr. Clark commented that the Committee examined models from around the United States , some of

which were successful and some of which were not. T he FRRCC report elaborates on those models that

were successful. EPA should be conf ident in embracing the recommendations because they are not new

ideas ; instead

, they are replications of models that already have prove d to be successful.

Mr. Garza shared that many years ago EPA discussed the Clean Water Act (CWA) with a S oil

C onservat ion D istrict that did not support the CWA. He applauded EPA’s efforts for striving to have

conversations with such local communities. In the FRRCC report, there are elements that move in a positive direction regarding such conversations, such as a certainty program. Mr. Garza also supported the inclusion of an economic analysis because resource use and growth is relevant to all organizations and

individuals involved.

Dr. A. Richard Bonanno (University of Massachusetts) thought that the point of th e FRRCC report was to accomplish a goal. There are individuals working on water quality issues

, and EPA needs to work with

these individuals to advance appropriate changes.

Dr. Burns questioned what will occur following the release of the FRRCC report

. He added that the report may generate some initial excitement, but unless it is followed quickly by implementation, theDecember 12, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary 5

forward momentum will stall. Dr. Balling replied that the FRRCC ’s current membership stands until May 2012 and a response should be app arent by that time. Dr. Sanders commented that EPA ’s

administration should show its support by providing feedback to the Committee

.

Dr. McFarland observed that it is a unique time at EPA because Agency leadership has a strong grasp of

science and can mel d that with available resources and partners hips. This is an optimal period of time to move to the next stage of the CWA, and th e FRRCC report will assist with that if the recommendations

are heeded.

Mr. Young remarked that Spruce Haven Farm and Research Center is holding a meeting of the farm partnership on December 21, 2011

, to begin the process of learning how to effectively run the farm in an ecologically sound manner. EPA can contribute to this process. Any change made to farming methods

that occur at this farm will have a substantial benefit in demonstrating for farmers the need for and requirements of such change.

Dr. Balling acknowledged the efforts of Ms. Abby Dilley ( RESOLVE ) in leading the FRRCC so ably and

Ms. Kaiser for her hard work . He also thanked Dr. Ann Sorenson (American Farmland Trust) , Ms. Suzy Friedman (Environmental Defense Fund)

, and Dr. Sanders for their extra time and effort on the ES report.

Discuss the Briefing Schedule for Senior EPA and USDA Officials

Dr. Balling explained that following the current meeting, the FRRCC would adjourn to lunch, followed by a meeting with EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson to present and discuss the FRRCC report

. At th e meeting with Administrator Jackson

, Mr. Boggs will rev iew the Resources Workgroup recommendations,

Mr. McDonald will present the Partnerships Workgroup recommendations

, and Dr. McFarland will

summarize the Science Workgroup recommendations. Dr. Sanders then will make some conclud ing

remarks.

Dr. Balling s tated that Committee members should be aware that the meeting is limited to 30 minutes thus necessitating brevity and clarity. He emphasized the preference of adopting a conversational tone rather

than the tone of a rehearsed speech. Mr. Elworth remarked that individuals from the Office of Water will be in attendance and Ms. Kaiser added that regional administrators also will be in attendance

, via

teleconference.

A meeting with individuals from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will follow the me eting with EPA Administrator Jackson. Robert Bonnie ( Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Environment and

Climate ) and others from the USDA will be in attendance. This meeting will follow a similar format as the meeting with Administrator Jackson; however, it should be USDA

- oriented.

Discuss Ideas for the Future of the FRRCC

Mr. Elworth said that the FRRCC membership is for 2 years

, at which time the charter must be renewed and membership is reconstituted in May 2012 . In considering the fate of t he FRRCC, Mr. Elworth asked

Committee members to consider the value of the FRRCC. He also remarked that the current iteration of the FRRCC had a narrow focus; however, there are many other areas under EPA ’s purview that affect agriculture. FRRCC members should consider these areas and identify those that the Committee may

want to examine. The FRRCC also should consider whether the level of time and energy invest ed by the

current Committee was appropriate. Mr. Elworth added that it would be useful for th e FRRCC to have similar conversations with other EPA groups (e.g., Office of Air and Radiation , Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response) . There are several possible Committee6 December 12 , 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary

configurations that could be used in the futu re
, and members should consider what worked and what did

not work in the current FRRCC.

Dr. Berger asked if the Committee could request a teleconference in 4 to 6 months to hear what EPA is considering for action items in response to the report . At that point

, the Agency will have had sufficient

time to review the report and plan the Agency reaction. Ms. Roberta Parry (EPA) responded that the Agency’s response will be impacted by budgetary constraints. Mr. Elworth indicated that he would pos i t
the tele conference suggestion to Ms. Nancy Stoner (EPA Acting Assistant Administrator for Water ) for

consideration.

Dr. Sanders commented that the FRRCC is beginning to consider that EPA should function similar to the

USDA. There is a historical cultural differ ence between the two (i.e., the USDA model garners more grassroots input and advisory interactions , while EPA was established under a different model) and one possible future focus for the FRRCC could be consideration of the USDA model and the possibility of incorporating and modifying some USDA model elements into the way that EPA operates

.

Dr. Burns concurred and added that C ommittee recommendations for the USDA are sent individually to the Secretary of Agriculture for consideration and response. This m odel allows for incremental

, genuine progress. He continued that the fundamental difference between EPA and USDA is in the command structure. The USDA functions like the military with a clear chain of command. Ms. Noble commented

that the state technolo gy committee structure is strong and EPA should be represented in every state.

O ngoing dialogue at the state level helps maintain participant interest.

Mr. McDaniel questioned how a metric for the current recommendations can be applied to the future of

t he Committee. He suggested that each EPA region create an advisory group to tackle the

recommendation s . The FRRCC can request feedback from these groups periodically to observe follow

through of the recommendations. Mr. Elworth wondered if the best tactic is to have FRRCC members meet with regional agricultur al admi nistrators to describe the C ommittee ’s findings and recommendations or if regional agricultur al advisors and regional administrators should attend an FRR CC teleconference.

Mr. Clark commented that when the FRRCC report is made available to the public , individuals will observe opportunities to make improvements. He queried how these expectations should be managed.

Mr. Botts said that he ha d been in conv ersations with an individual who ha d been in litigation with EPA

and if the recommendations contained in the FRRCC report had been in place 3 years ago, this litigation would not have occurred. He indicated that when this report is officially released

, it should be implemented by individuals in regional and sub

- regional areas

, and not s ole ly at the Administrator’s level.

Conversations about the recommendations must occur at the local levels to achieve local actions. Mr. McDonald agreed and added that ti me is required to effectively converse at the local level

, gain trust

, and increas e knowledge. He thought that there is merit in re

- chartering the FRRCC because the achieved product is a good one and there are further issues that need to be address ed

.

Dr. McFarland thought that the current time is optimal to transition key lessons into projects and standard operating procedures (SOPs). People must be engaged and resources allocated to education, materials

, and demonstrations. Dr. Balling suggested tha t EPA create and compile SOPs regarding the FRRCC

recommendations. Mr. Elworth commented that many of these conversations should occur on the regional level and although EPA functions differently on non

- point source water issues than on point

source or ai r issues, that does not preclude the ability to conduct productive discourses on these issues. Dr. McFarland clarified that general practice guidelines based on the recommendations are sufficient ; SOPs may not be necessary

.December 12, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary 7

Mr. Petty stated that results are the desired goal. He pointed out that environmental changes in response to

modified policies and regulations usually require an extended amount of time. It is encouraging to see EPA progress, and the longevity of the FRRCC will be determi ned by the commitment of the Committee

members. The present members have demonstrated such a commitment.

Mr. McDonald supported the idea of presenting the FRRCC findings and recommendations to the regional administrators. He suggested that Committee members meet with individuals in each region, including agricultur al advisors. He contended that FRRCC members should go out to the regions in a proactive fashion because they will present the recommendations with passion and enthusiasm.

Dr. B alling concurred and thought that this concept afford s the FRRCC the ability to exhibit the type of proactive behavior that is desir ed of the regions. Mr. Elworth agreed to assist the Committee by providing regional contacts.

Mr. Botts asked when the final FRRCC report will be published. Ms. Kaiser explained that she would send copies of the finalized report to each FRRCC member via e

- mail and that the report will be posted

on the EPA FRRCC W ebsite as soon as possible

.

Mr. McNinch reminded the Committee members that in politically charged environments

, it is necessary to give consideration to whom and how a presentation of the FRRCC information will occur. Mr. Elworth responded that politics are ever

- present, but individuals from differen t political backgrounds have met with Administrator Jackson previously

.

Dr. Balling reiterated the Committee’s consensus on desiring closure and advancement of the FRRCC

recommendations. He indicated interest in re

- chartering the C ommittee. He suggested that members

consider further ideas on what the FRRCC can examine in the future and send these to

Ms. Kaiser via e

- mail. Mr. Elworth affirmed these general sentiments.

With regard to future topics for the FRRCC to consider, Mr. McDonald suggested foc using on “hot issues” of the day. He thought it would be prudent to examine the issues of agricultural dust or pesticide permits, listen to agricultural community members

, and comment back to the Agency on these issues. Mr. Elworth supported the idea of engaging with local communities earlier in the process and suggested an additional possible focus on reactive nitrogen.

Dr. Balling commented that it is not necessarily the job of the FRRCC to determine what should be

examine d ; the C ommittee must ask what EPA needs advice on and examine that issue

. Dr. Burns stated that the Committee should focus on any task that is necessary , but maintain the flexibility to respond to

additional issues that arise.

Ms. Kaiser adjourned the meeting at 12:07 p.m. E S T

.

Full Committee Action Items

 On Monday

, Decem

ber 12 , 2011, the FRRCC will present its recommendations to EPA Administrator

Lisa Jackson.

 The recommendations of the Resources, Partnerships

, and Science Workgroups will be presented by Mr. Boggs, Mr. M cDonald

, and Dr. McFarland, respectively, followed by conclu ding remarks from

D r. Sanders

.

 Following the meeting with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on Monday, December 12, 2011, the FRRCC will present its recommendations to USDA officials.8 December 12 , 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary

 FRRCC members will identify topics for future consideration by the Committee and send them to

Ms. Kaiser.

 Mr. Elworth will provide EPA regional contacts to the FRRCC members

.

 Mr. Elworth will posit the suggestion of holding an FRRCC teleconference in 4 to 6 months on the actions being contemplated by EPA to Ms. Nancy Stoner for consideration.December 12, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary 9



### Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee (FRRCC)

December 12 , 2011 Meeting Participants



Committee Chair :

Steven S. Balling, Ph.D.

Del Monte Foods Walnut Creek, CA

Deputy Chair :

G. Douglas Young Spruce Haven Farm and Research Center Union Springs, NY

Members :

Peggy Beltrone Exergy Integrated Systems Great Falls, MT

Lori A. Berger, Ph.D. California Specialty Crops Council Tulare, CA

George J. Boggs

Whatcom Conservation District Ly nden, WA

A. Richard Bonanno University of Massachusetts Methuen, MA

Daniel A. Botts Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Maitland, FL

Robert T. Burns, Ph.D. University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN

Lawrence E. Clark Farm Pilot Project Coordination Alexandria, VA

Omar J. Garza

Texas Mexico Border Coalition San Isidro, TX Archilus L. Hart North Carolina Department of Agriculture Raleigh, NC

Lee McDaniel

Harford Soil Conservation District Darlington, MD

Tom McDonald JBS Five Rivers Cattle Feeding Dalhart, TX

Janis McFarland, Ph.D. Syngenta Crop Protection Greensboro, NC

Steven R. McNinch Western Plains Energy Colby, KS

Martha L. Noble National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition Washington, DC

David D. Petty

Iowa River Ranch Eldora, IA

Larry D. Sanders, Ph.D. Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK

Ann Sorenson, Ph.D.

American Farmland Trust DeKalb, IL

Dennis H. Treacy

Smithfield Foods Smithfield, VA

Designated Federal Officer :

Alicia Kaiser Special Assistant for Agricultural Policy

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency10 December 12 , 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary

EPA Participants :

Karma Anderson U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 ( via tele conference)

Sona Chilingaryan U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 (via teleconference)

Lawrence Elworth

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Agriculture Counselor to the Administrator

Kristina Heinemann U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 (via teleconference)

Cynthia Jones

- Jackson U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Advisory Committ ee Management and Outreach

Stephanie McCoy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Roberta Parry

U.S

. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

Jeff rey Potent

U.S

. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

Toni Rousey

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Kelly Shenk U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 (via teleconference) Andrea Szylvian

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 (via teleconference)

Eugene Thilsted, Ph.D. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 (via teleconference)

Other Participants :

Abby Dilley

RESOLVE

Sarah Gonzalez Agri

- Pulse Communications, Inc.

Tarah Heinzen Environmental Integrity Project

David LaRoss

Inside EPA

Support Contractor :

Erinn C. Howard, Ph.D. The Scientific Consulting Group, In c

.