I Welcome and Introductions

Ric Lawson, Council support staff with the Great Lakes Commission, opened the meeting. He briefly reviewed the progress from the last meeting, focusing on the tasks accomplished by the workgroups. Lawson then asked the participants to introduce themselves.

II Council Business

Inauguration of Co-chairs

After introductions were complete, Lawson officially announced the results of the election of Council Co-Chairs. In a close election, Charlie Peters, U.S. Geological Survey, and Gary Kohlhepp, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, were elected to co-chair the Council for the first two years of its existence. Lawson then turned control of the meeting over to Peters and Kohlhepp.

Review of Agenda

Kohlhepp briefly reviewed the meeting agenda, indicating that he and Peters would take primary responsibilities for different portions of the meeting. He also indicated that the meeting was designed to be open to comment at any time to meeting attendees.

Acceptance of Council Charter

Peters presented the most recent draft of the Council Charter for final review and acceptance by the Council membership. Lawson pointed out that the version of the Charter that was sent out prior to the meeting included language that was supposed to have been struck out. He explained that this was a computer error and that he would rectify the errors and resend the proper version of the Charter. Peters asked if the membership felt comfortable accepting the Charter under these circumstances. Several members objected and it was agreed that they would approve the Charter at the next meeting. Peters asked if there were any suggested changes to the Charter. Judy Beck, U.S. EPA, indicated that she would like to see specific reference to the Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) in the mission. After some discussion, it was agreed that some language would be added to the first objective.

Outreach

Peters presented the progress made by the Benefit Analysis and Outreach workgroup. First, Peters presented a few slides to illustrate the format and content of the Council's website. He suggested that members visit the site and suggest additions or improvements.

Next, Peters distributed draft copies of a informational brochure for the Council. The brochure presents a condensed overview of the Council organization, purpose, and strategy and then highlights several national, regional, and local efforts to coordinate monitoring. The final section solicits additional membership in the Council. Peters asked participants to provide comments on the brochure and specifically solicited a discussion about how to increase membership. Several comments were made on the content of the brochure. Peters asked that further comments be submitted to him by April 21 so that he could distribute copies at the IAGLR conference. Several other suggestions were made regarding distribution of brochures. It was suggested that the brochure be included on the Council and Forum websites. Brochures should also be sent out to volunteer groups to solicit greater participation from them. Each agency should also get copies for internal distribution. Peters indicated that he was planning for a limited printing of 5000 copies, since the brochure should become dated in a short amount of time.

Finally, Peters discussed an idea to schedule a regional monitoring conference in the Great Lakes basin. He explained that the National Water Quality Monitoring Council (NWQMC) has discussed the possibility of conducting regional conferences in the years between the biannual national meetings. Peters and Lawson discussed the possibility of the Council hosting a conference to cover the Great Lakes basin or even the Northeast region. The conference could be held in Milwaukee or Chicago to place it in the Lake Michigan basin. Spring of 2001 would be the likely timing for such a conference. Victoria Harris, Wisconsin Sea Grant, pointed out that the International Associaton of Great Lakes Researchers (IAGLR) conference will be held in Green Bay next June. The IAGLR conference is five days long and is attended by 500 participants, mostly from academic fields. The Council could host a special session at this conference. Many agreed that this would be a good idea, but most believed that there was a need for a regional conference dedicated to monitoring. There are many issues related to monitoring that could be covered through such a regional conference. Peters suggested a conference planning committee. Beck, Harris, Janet Vail, and Sarah Lehmann volunteered for a committee to be made a subcommittee of the Outreach workgroup.

Data Inventory and Analysis

Kohlhepp explained that the focus of this workgroup was to comment on and offer advice on the development of a monitoring inventory being conducted by the Great Lakes Commission. He acknowledged that the Commission had completed a draft report on the inventory. Lawson presented the format and general framework of the inventory report, which was distributed to members prior to the meeting. He explained that the report contained sections on 14 tributary watersheds and a separated section on the open lake and basin-wide monitoring efforts. He emphasized that the report is in draft form and comments are encouraged. Lawson also explained the plans for future development of the inventory. Following a comment period, the report will be revised and resent to project participants and Council members for final review. The final report will then be released primarily via the web in a colored PDF format. Once that is complete, phase two of the project will begin. The inventory will continually be updated, as information is obtained, and a web interface will be developed. This interface will be geographically-based and searchable across a variety of database fields.

Kohlhepp presented four issues that the workgroup has discussed related to the inventory. First, there is a need for an assessment of the gaps in monitoring coverage. An assessment for each watershed would be helpful. Lawson explained that the draft report contained a table that assesses each of the LaMP indicators by ability of the monitoring coverage to provide data for indicator assessment. Comments on this section would be welcomed. Second, some discussion needs to take place regarding barriers to information collection. The inventory project was conducted with a limited budget, had a large scope, and relied on the voluntary submittal of monitoring metadata. In order to improve the content of the inventory, agencies will need some further encouragement to include information on their programs. Third, the report recommendations need to be more fully developed. Several members agreed that the recommendations needed to be more specific. Finally, the Commission will need advice and feedback regarding phase two of the inventory project. Specifically, how will the inventory be maintained and updated, and what is the best way to link monitoring project information with actual data sources.

Tom Trudeau, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, asked what metadata would be included in the inventory. Lawson answered that he had asked data sources to supply information about specific aspects of their data, via a survey form. Most survey fields correspond to standard metadata fields. However, the survey responses

and other data collected, contained metadata of widely variable quality. He envisioned the inventory as a roadmap to direct users to monitoring information. The data sources themselves are responsible for maintaining acceptable metadata. Trudeau advised that the metadata be standardized with acceptable formats.

Kathy Evans, Muskegon Conservation District and inventory project participant, volunteered to join the Data Inventory and Analysis workgroup.

Monitoring Objectives

Peters introduced the goals of this workgroup. He acknowledged that the Commission's survey for the monitoring inventory obtained some general information about monitoring objectives, but more specific information is needed. Therefore, the workgroup agreed to develop a supplementary survey. Peters carried out this task and distributed a draft survey to all in attendance. He explained that he would like to test this survey on the Council members before attempting to collect information from others. Also, this survey is more directly focused on surface water quality monitoring. He asked members to complete the survey by June 15.

Beck suggested that this survey be distributed with the next draft of the inventory report. Peters replied that he wanted the survey to go to Council members first. Doug Knauer, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, asked if there was an interest in obtaining information from academics. Harris indicated that IAGLR maintains a website database of Great Lakes academic research projects.

Peters also explained that the workgroup discussed several examples of monitoring networks throughout the basin. One is being established in the Grand Traverse Bay watershed. It is in early stages and could possibly use some help from the Council. Also, the Council could learn from the assessment of Lake Michigan fisheries. Chris Goddard, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, distributed several documents including a "Lakewide Assessment Plan for Lake Michigan Fish Communities." This document, written jointly by authors from Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois DNRs, as well as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USGS-Biological Research Division, presents a plan to jointly monitor the condition of fish communities in Lake Michigan.

Watershed Pilots

Kohlhepp presented the work of the Watershed Pilot workgroup. The group worked through several suggested possibilities for pilot projects and decided that an examination of the Lake Michigan Mass Balance project would be most helpful. The overall goal of this pilot would be to determine what work should be carried forward after the project officially ends. Kohlhepp developed a set of possible pilot projects related to aspects of the LMMB, which were previously distributed to members prior to the meeting. He explained these pilot ideas to the group.

It was pointed out that the proposals only covered surface water monitoring. Would groundwater be included? Kohlhepp responded that his career focus was on surface water, but groundwater would be included to the extent that it impacts surface water in tributaries to the lake near their outfalls. Since the focus is on lake impacts, it seems logical to leave primary responsibility for groundwater monitoring to states and locals.

Harris suggested a study of air deposition of PCBs into Green Bay. Green Bay has been overlooked despite the fact that a separate mass balance study has been conducted there. Beck announced that a new air deposition project was being conducted with the help of the Delta Institute. Also, there is another project on either the Milwaukee River or Muskegon River. Beck also mentioned that LMMB data would be included throughout the LaMP. The full report on the LMMB will be released later, however. There still is work to be done to improve the models.

It was further pointed out that quite a bit of LMMB data was collected regarding atmospheric deposition from urban centers like Chicago and Milwaukee. Therefore, the fifth proposal would be a lower priority. It was suggested that the first proposal be used as a framework for the other three proposals. Kohlhepp suggested that the fourth proposal could be done quite quickly and should happen regardless. Beck suggested that the same could be done for air deposition data.

There arose some discussion about the purpose of the pilot project. Kohlhepp responded that they would be looking for areas within the LMMB framework where states or other entities could carry the monitoring work forward. This way, the LMMB baseline data could be leveraged, and issues such as data compatibility, cross-use, and joint efforts could be addressed narrowly on a pilot basis. Peters suggested that people from the LMMB project be brought into the next meeting.

It was also suggested that an additional pilot possibility was to conduct a comparison of each state's 5-year monitoring plans to see if they are consistent. Essentially, this pilot would determine if it would be possible to create a lakewide network by linking together the 5-year plans in a way that would create a virtual 5-year plan for that would meet the needs of entire lake. Peters pointed out that he developed a proposal to develop such a network for surface water quality monitoring. It was agreed that the workgroup would review this proposal and add it to their discussions about selecting a pilot project.

Next Council Meeting

Beck announced that the next Lake Michigan LaMP Forum meeting would be held November 8-9, tentatively in the St. Joseph River watershed. She suggested that the Council plan its next meeting for this time as there will be a focus on air deposition. After some discussion it was agreed that the following would be the schedule:

Wednesday, November 8 PMConcurrent meetings of Council workgroups and the Forum public meeting

Thursday, November 9 AMAir Deposition presentation

Thursday, November 9 PMLake Michigan Monitoring Coordination Council meeting

Council Membership and Participation

Peters suggested that the Council discuss overall membership and participation. He felt there were some vacancies in key areas. For example, there is no agricultural group represented. It was suggested that an analysis of membership groups be conducted prior to the next meeting.

Long-term Workgroups

Lawson reminded the Council that they originally established the current workgroups to carry out short-term tasks. He asked them to consider if they wanted to keep the current workgroups, or if new, longer-term workgroups needed to be formed. It was agreed that the current workgroups were making progress, but still have substantial work to complete, so they should remain as they are.

LaMP Update

Beck provided a update on the progress of the Lake Michigan LaMP. She explained that staff in many areas were working hard to achieve the release deadline of the end of April. She described the framework for the document and explained that it would be a living document that would continually be updated, with new releases every two years. She further pointed out that the Council is mentioned in the monitoring section, and the future release of the monitoring inventory is emphasized. Finally, she mentioned that the final section highlights the needs for future work in the basin. Suggestions for items in this section are still being accepted.

Funding

Peters explained that current funding for Council support staff was running out and continued funding has yet to be established. There is a need to establish more secure funding. Beck explained that the Coastal Environmental Management budget that supports the Council has been significantly cut at the federal level. She indicated that she would look into other funds which may be available, and this was listed as a priority in the LaMP. Kohlhepp mentioned that there are Clean Michigan Initiative funds available for results-oriented projects, but it would be difficult to use any of this funding solely for staff support. If matching funding could be located, it may be easier to capture CMI funds. Also, there is funding available for volunteer monitoring under the CMI. Kohlhepp agreed to examine this possibility further. Paul Geiselhart, Waukegan Harbor Citizens Advisory Group, suggested that the Council look into some form of corporate sponsorship. Businesses may be willing to provide some funding if they can see the benefit of coordinated monitoring standards. Geiselhart agreed to draft a concept paper on this idea.

Member-initiated Issues

Ronald Baba, Lake Michigan LaMP Co-Chair, indicated that the Forum was interested in better utilizing local and volunteer monitoring efforts. The Forum had three recommendations. 1. To recognize the Forum as the representative of the public stakeholders on the Council. 2. Expand the Tributary Monitoring project and include all of Lake Michigan's tributary watersheds. These local groups should be brought into the Council process. 3. Target groups should also be expanded to include more industries, metropolitan sewage districts, and other local monitoring agencies. 4. Develop a comprehensive set of protocols for volunteer monitoring to enhance data usage by decision-makers. Baba and Tim Brown, Delta Institute, agreed to draft a concept paper to get these ideas moving forward.

It was agreed that volunteer linkages would be addressed through the Monitoring Objectives workgroup. Sarah Lehmann, U.S. EPA, Region 5, indicated that she conducted a meeting with state representatives regarding state involvement with volunteer programs. She will send minutes and other materials related to this meeting to those who are interested.