Name Affiliation

Judy Beck U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 – Lake Michigan Team

Leslie Dorworth Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Institute

Laura Evans U.S. EPA, Region 5 – Water Division

Norm Grannemann U.S. Geological Survey

Cheryl Guster Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore

Victoria Harris University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute

John Hummer Great Lakes Commission

Gary Kohlhepp Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Ric Lawson Great Lakes Commission

Steve Lozano NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

Mike Miller Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Greg Mund Michigan Agricultural Stewardship Association

Melody Myers-Kinzie Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians

Jim Nicholas U.S. Geological Survey

Charlie Peters U.S. Geological Survey

Susan Russell S.E. Russell Consulting

Bob Schacht Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Rachel Schwarz Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians

Alan Steinman GVSU Annis Water Resources Institute

Jana Stewart U.S. Geological Survey

Don Uzarski Grand Valley State University

Janet Vail GVSU Annis Water Resources Institute

Glenn Warren U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO)

Chris Wright Watershed Center Grand Traverse Bay

Monday, May 21, 2000

I. Welcome and Introductions

Lawson opened the meeting and introduced chairs Kohlhepp and Peters. They asked all participants to introduce themselves.

II. Council Business

Charge to Participants

Peters and Kohlhepp emphasized the need to focus on making concrete progress within the workgroups to isolate where coordination is necessary and possible.

Review of Agenda

Lawson briefly reviewed the meeting agenda, and there were no suggested changes.

Review Action Items

Action items from the Spring LMMCC meeting were reviewed as follows:

1. Beck will talk to state representatives next fall prior to the SOLEC conference. She will develop a short questionnaire on LMMB follow-up possibilities. Warren stated that once the results are in on the models, he will assess what level of follow-up monitoring would be useful. He will then solicit feedback for ideas for future sampling.

Beck reported that there have been funding glitches in the LMMB program. Warren stated that funding has been cut for further modeling work. Both indicated that there would be a “tour of the states” in the spring to announce and clarify the results of the LMMB project.

2. A strategic plan should be developed, modeled on the GLFC plan for fisheries, for monitoring in the Lake Michigan basin. This needs to be a consensus plan that supports the needs of management policies.

Lawson stated this task is ongoing and that strategic plans are being developed through the workgroups.

3. Lawson will develop an online newsletter template and a system for collecting information.

Lawson reported that Hummer has taken on this task. Deferred till later in the agenda.

4. The Council will produce a letter of support for the GLC resolution, stating that the “Council’s goals are aligned with the goals of the resolution” to be signed by Council co-chairs, and forwarded to the GLC.

Lawson reported that the letter was drafted and circulated to Council members. It will be signed by Council co-chairs and kept on file at the Great Lakes Commission (GLC).

At this point, a discussion ensued about how a lack of federal funding for monitoring should encourage states and provinces to support monitoring efforts. Beck mentioned that this was discussed at the beaches session of the State of Lake Michigan conference. She stressed that budget people need to understand the full needs and costs for monitoring. She pointed to a document on needs for sediment clean-up published by the GLC. Lawson injected that there is a definite need to quantify monitoring needs and that such numbers need to come out of the Council workgroups. Peters agreed and stated the point of monitoring coordination is to address gaps and overlaps and enhance monitoring efficiency. Kohlhepp added that there is a definite value to putting numbers on monitoring needs. The Michigan DEQ has developed report on this for state needs. Action: The workgroups will make an effort to associate costs with monitoring needs.

5. Beck will circulate final SOLEC indicator report to the LMMCC when it comes out.

Lawson reported that he received the SOLEC indicator report in the mail. Beck stated that it is online at www.binational.net. Action: Peters will provide a link to the SOLEC indicator report on the LMMCC website and Beck will mail a copy to those interested.

6. The Council agreed to reformulate workgroups into two types: Monitoring Networks, and Collaboration and Outreach. Ten Monitoring Network workgroups were specified including: Air, Aquatic Nuisance Species, Fisheries, Groundwater, Land Use, Open Lake, Recreational Waters, Tributaries, Wetlands, and Wildlife. Collaboration and Outreach workgroups will include: Communication, Conference Planning and Technical Coordination.

Lawson reported that the workgroups were “up and running” and that several have draft strategic plans taking shape.

7. It was agreed that Monitoring Network workgroups should begin summarizing monitoring collaboration in each network using the workgroup questionnaire. Conference calls will be conducted for each network, to include key representatives from each network field.

Lawson reviewed contact people for all workgroups, with a special focus on getting someone in place for those in question. He indicated that a status report on workgroups is scheduled for later on the agenda.

8. A status summary for each network should be forwarded to Lawson within the next three months.

Lawson did not receive any status summaries from the workgroups, but he has kept informed on the progress of all groups and will provide a status report later.

9. Lawson will line up speakers for the IAGLR panel and formulate a set of questions for discussion. Suggestions should be forwarded to Lawson as soon as possible.

Lawson reported that he attended the IAGLR conference in Green Bay and that the presentations went fairly well. He would have liked to have had more discussion, but because the session was during the last half of the last day of the conference, the participation level was low. Action: Lawson will have the IAGLR presentations linked to the LMMCC website.

10. After reviewing the minutes, Peters will update the Council brochure and circulate to the LMMCC list for review.

Peters updated the brochure and it is now in circulation. Beck commented that, because the design looks the same as the original brochure, Council members need to make people aware that it is different.

11. Peters will talk to Donna Myers, Great Lakes Coordinator, USGS about funding opportunities.

Peters did speak with Donna Myers. This item was deferred until later in the agenda.

12. Lawson will work with Janet Vail to coordinate the scheduling of the next Council meeting in conjunction with the State of the Lake Michigan Conference, November 6-7.

Lawson thanked Vail for her gracious assistance in helping coordinate the facility arrangements for the meeting. Vail commented that the Lake Michigan conference was well attended – about 250 people. She primarily used the IAGLR and GLIN listserves to get the word out. She indicated that conference presentations would be put on CD. Beck added that LaMP worksheet results/indicators will also be added to the CDs and that the CDs should be a valuable training and outreach tool.

12. Lawson agreed to condense the new Council workgroup framework into a one-page summary for general distribution.

Lawson completed this task and distributed the new one-page summary to the Council. He stated that he cut the previous draft and framed it according to the current workgroups. He encouraged members to send it out to potential new members. Mund suggested adding some language to the summary that ties costs to monitoring needs in each area.

Announcements

Steinman offered his experiences in working with the South Florida Restoration Project and how it is a model of research integration to the Council.

Beck announced three upcoming monitoring conferences to be held in the basin:

1) Great Lakes Monitoring Conference – Chicago, IL – Jan. 29-30. Among other activities, the conference will review the Great Lakes International Surveillance Plan (GLISP), an IJC document developed in 1986 which was never fully implemented. It was to have formed the basis of an open lakes monitoring program. Schacht pointed out that managers focused on fish contaminants in Illinois use part of GLISP. The conference will develop action items to carry to the National Water Quality Monitoring Conference in Madison in May 2002.

Note: Peters suggested breaking the GLISP document up for workgroups to utilize. He said it should be online by the end of the year and will post notice of it through the Council listserve. Action: Peters will post notice to the Council listserve of GLISP being available online.

2) Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Conference – Zion, IL – March 19-20. Beck passed around flyers for this conference.

3) National Water Quality Monitoring Conference – Madison, WI – May 20-23. A Great Lakes “pre-conference session” will take place on the 20^th, prior to the national conference.

Lawson stated he has been on the planning calls for the NWQMC. Beck invited more help from Council members in planning that conference.

Beck stated she took a monitoring proposal to the Binational Executive Committee (BEC) approximately six months ago (May). She has been encouraging networking, but said there is quite a bit of debate centering around funding problems. She stressed that it is important for a wide range of agencies to be represented at BEC meetings. Harris stated that they need to use the lessons learned from GLISP.

Other Business – No other business was discussed.

III. Summary of State of Lake Michigan Monitoring Session

Beck reported on a portion of the plenary session of the State of Lake Michigan conference entitled Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP): Measuring Progress. One of her main topics was LaMP indicators. She shared a handout with the Council used at the conference framed around the six major LaMP goals. Each goal includes specific actions to help achieve status improvements with specific timeframes. It also lists criteria for measuring progress toward achievement of the goals. Beck asked attendees of the conference to vote on which of the goals and indicators are most important and useful so the LaMP team could comprehensively report about the status of the lake’s resources. Additionally, the goals and milestones will be used to more effectively target agencies’ programmatic work at the national, state, tribal and local levels as well as the work of the private sector. Additionally, the results of the State of Lake Michigan conference votes are being reported back to the LaMP committees to help guide decisions on narrowing a list of priority indicators and monitoring for reporting the basin’s status. LaMP 2002 will provide this list for public comment.

Beck reported briefly on each of the six goals. Each goal was broken down into four components: 1) stress on system, 2) actions needed, 3) measuring our progress, and 4) proposed indicators. (See document Measuring Our Success: Goals, Indicators, and Monitoring – 2001 State of Lake Michigan Conference for further details.)

Goal 1: We can all eat any fish. This goal focuses on clean-up of contaminated sediment sites and prevention of toxic air pollutants, as well as ballast water strategies. A strategy is being finalized that will include input from both the U.S. Policy Committee and the BEC, which both meet before the end of calendar year 2001. The framework for the LaMP indicators under this goal is the same as for SOLEC, with the same reference points and indicators/#s. Most of the indicators were voted on equally at the conference, however lake trout stocking was an issue and will go back to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for further discussion.

Goal 2: We can all drink the water. Through SOLEC, EPA will track and report on raw source water for 80% of the basin population. A source water assessment must by completed by 2003 – a Safe Drinking Water Act mandate.

Goal 3: We can all swim in the water. The new National Beach Act requires additional monitoring which will result in much more data on E. coli and fecal coliform levels, as well as nearshore land use intensity. In the past, this information was strictly voluntary. New beach monitoring responsibilities will be given to local beach managers. A shortage of money to deal with Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) is still a major problem.

Goal 4: All habitats are healthy, naturally diverse and sufficient to sustain viable biological communities. This includes identification of critical ecosystem features and enhancement, restoration and/or protection efforts. Included in this goal are fish spawning areas, both system and isolated wetlands, dunes, and stream buffers. Ballast water issues were an additional item of concern/indicator proposed by conference attendees.

Goal 5: Public access to open space, shoreline and natural areas is abundant and provides enhanced opportunities for human interaction with the Lake Michigan ecosystem.

This goal includes public involvement in preservation and stewardship of special natural areas, coupled with public access for sport and recreational activities.

Goal 6: Land use, recreation and economic activities are sustainable and support a healthy ecosystem. This goal revolves around providing and accessing information and tools available to make decisions that support stewardship of the ecosystem. Devoting ample financial resources to Great Lakes programs was a top priority of conference attendees.

For purposes of LMMCC, Beck concluded that workgroups can address some of the needs and gaps in relation to monitoring of the indicators proposed for the LaMP.

Mund asked if the Senate Great Lakes Task Force is involved in the LaMP process. Beck said the process mainly involves agency people, and that they usually wait for cues from EPA headquarters before bringing political people into the process. Vail added that a list of Task Force members was included in State of Lake Michigan conference packets. She also mentioned that the Northeast-Midwest Institute continually tracks the work of the Task Force.

IV. Council Workgroups

Workgroup Progress and Draft Strategic Plans

Lawson gave a quick report on the status of each of the workgroups:

Air: The Council is still seeking a chair for this workgroup, possibly from the International Air Deposition Network (IADN). Tom Sheffy (WDNR) has been contacted as a potential person to fill this role, but he has not shown great interest. Lawson is also looking into interest from the steering committee for the Regional Emission Inventory of Toxic Air Contaminants. Action: Lawson will follow-up with potential leads on leaders and members for this group.

Aquatic Nuisance Species: The Council is still seeking a chair for this workgroup. Ron Martin (WDNR), chair of the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, has been contacted as a potential person to fill this role. He indicated that the Panel has not formally addressed monitoring, so this may be a gap. Pam Thiel (US FWS), also with the Panel, expressed interest in being involved, but was unable to make the meeting. Roger Eberhardt (MDEQ) is the Michigan representative to the Panel and has also expressed interest. Action: Lawson will follow-up with potential leads on leaders and members for this group.

Fisheries: A draft strategic plan was developed by GLC staff, largely from information produced by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Tom Trudeau (Illinois EPA) and Schacht provided comments that will be incorporated into a future revision of the plan. Action: The fisheries plan will be revised to emphasize communication and reporting links between the LMMCC and Lake Michigan Team.

Groundwater: Grannemann volunteered to chair this workgroup. He mentioned there are other groundwater networks in the country, including one in the high plains, which may serve as existing models. Action: Grannemann will follow-up with various groundwater networks throughout the basin, and establish a framework for this workgroup.

Land Use: Beck (workgroup chair) reported that the workgroup is in the forming stages and that she is trying to get some regional planning commissions on board. A few mentioned were the NE Illinois, the NE Indiana and Milwaukee area planning commissions. Vail offered the services of the GIS lab at the GVSU Lake Michigan Center as a resource. She also suggested using the recently completed Lake Michigan Federation study on local land use ordinances that Tanya Cabala spoke about at the State of Lake Michigan conference.

Open Lake: Glenn Warren (USEPA-GLNPO) volunteered to chair this workgroup.

Recreational Waters: Beck established the need for a Great Lakes beaches monitoring network through a session at the State of Lake Michigan conference. Richard Whitman (USGS) is leading this group. The workgroup will carry on through this forum, utilizing local “pods” for input. The network hopes to establish state coordinators. Vail suggested that the network include inland lakes that feed to the Great Lakes/Lake Michigan. Beck also mentioned that a beaches listserve has been started by GLC through a grant from EPA-GLNPO.

Tributaries: A draft strategic plan has been completed, largely accomplished through a session at the spring LMMCC meeting. Peters will continue to chair this workgroup. He asked for names of contacts in which to circulate tributary monitoring information.

Wetlands: GLC staff completed a draft strategic plan and a document summarizing the work of the “Big Three” wetlands projects (Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium, R-EMAP, and STAR). Further comment and revision is needed on the strategic plan. Uzarski, part of the GLCWC project, will provide input.

Wildlife: Draft priorities (a Summary of Monitoring Priorities for Relevant States and Agencies) and species lists have been compiled by GLC staff as a starting point. Laurie Rounds, chair (IN DNR), developed a potential contact list for membership in this workgroup. Rich Greenwood (USFWS) committed to assist Rounds with this workgroup. Action: Rounds and Greenwood will work on a plan to further develop the wildlife workgroup.

Tributary Workgroup Case Study

Peters and Kohlhepp gave a presentation on the progress of the Tributaries workgroup (contact Peters for a copy of their slides). Peters stressed the need for those involved in monitoring to break down barriers and be open to change, including the consideration of using others’ monitoring methods. Kohlhepp showed how it is possible to integrate different monitoring protocols and drew comparisons between NAWQA (National Water Quality Assessment) and CMI (Clean Michigan Initiative) objectives. He stressed the importance of looking for gaps and overlaps when comparing monitoring programs. Kohlhepp and Nicholas indicated that an assessment of MDEQ and Lake Erie NAWQA monitoring successfully resulted in coordination and data sharing. Peters and Miller indicated that a similar effort was being developed for the Wisconsin DNR and NAWQA programs.

Discussion of Strategic Planning Approach/Future Outlook

This discussion was held as a follow-up to the morning’s review of the workgroups’ progress. Nicholas stated that the Council needs to be sure to keep in mind the economic benefits inherent in monitoring and advised to stay away from water quantity monitoring (i.e. diversion issues) because other systems are in place to do that. He also suggested to follow through strongly with one of the workgroups for use as a model of coordinated monitoring. Beck suggested such a strategy could be highlighted in the LaMP, which would need to be written up by February for the April release of LaMP 2002. Steinman suggested the use of GANNT charts or some type of project software to help workgroups organize workplans. Nicholas added that the funding is out there; the Council needs to find a way to encourage coordination activities to be part of managers’ regular job activities. Action: Peters, Miller and Kohlhepp will examine the possibilities of developing an assessment of USGS, WDNR and MDEQ tributary monitoring programs.

V. Workgroup Sessions

During lunch, participants split up into three of the Council breakout groups to focus on the following combination of workgroups: wetlands and land use, groundwater, and open lake. Members discussed strategic plan development and short-term goals for the workgroups. Following the breakout sessions, a representative from each of the three breakout groups reported out as follows:

Wetlands: The primary function of this workgroup will be to coordinate with the three Great Lakes groups in this area: the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium, the U.S. EPA STAR grant team headed by Gerald Niemi (University of Minnesota), and the Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (REMAP) initiative led by Tom Simon (US FWS). Action: GLC staff will communicate with all three groups, revise the strategic plan to emphasize communication and reporting, and report on the progress of the groups at the next meeting.

Land Use: Over a more long-term timeframe, it was suggested that the workgroup summarize as many land use/land cover layers as possible through available sources of data; also summarize restrictions of use for such data. The following five steps were developed as short-term goals:

1) Summarize LaMP indicators for land use using SOLEC descriptions.

2) Brainstorm data users and providers.

3) Send out above to workgroup for review and comment.

4) Action: Beck (chair) will convene a conference call to discuss above.

5) Establish an inventory of data. Action: GLC staff will develop an initial framework for the inventory focusing on data needs, scales and potential sources.

Groundwater: The group developed the following list of monitoring issues and other items to address:

· Groundwater level

· Groundwater quality

· Recharge rates

· Use of data

· Data sharing

· Information sharing – list of groundwater studies (Action: Grannemann will send a few publications and regional aquifer studies he has to workgroup members to establish a common base of knowledge.)

· Network design – need for an inventory

· Membership ideas: NGWA, MSPE

Mund suggested tying the need for a groundwater inventory to the Michigan Rivers Inventory conducted by the MDEQ. Peters suggested developing a proposal to fund conducting of a literature review on groundwater monitoring.

Open Lake: The group developed the following list of monitoring issues and other items to address:

· Include both littoral zones and deeper waters of the lake and include water quality, fish, and benthos.

· Identify the relationship between monitoring and research.

· Tie in LaMP and SOLEC indicators.

· Include research institutions, key agencies & IAGLR

· Identify models to use: Chesapeake Bay and EMAP were mentioned.

· Several potential workgroup contacts were identified.

· Action: Warren (chair) will convene a conference call to discuss above.

VI. Council Communications and Outreach

External Workshops

Lawson stated he is on the planning committee for the National Water Quality Monitoring Conference to be held May 20-23 in Madison, WI. The Great Lakes session will likely be held May 20. Lawson submitted an abstract for the workshop on behalf of the LMMCC. It was suggested that representatives from Council workgroups could report out at the Great Lakes session. Volunteers and suggestions for members of a planning committee for this workshop include Beck, Donna Myers (USGS), Linda Green (University of Rhode Island, volunteer monitoring leader) and a member from the beaches group. Action: Lawson will convene the planning committee to develop the agenda and solicit presentations/participation for the workshop.

Council Website Development and Use

Peters reported that the website is seeing increased traffic. He would like members’ thoughts on ways to improve the website. Action: Peters will develop workgroups portion of website.

Use of Council Listserve

Lawson reported that there has been minimal use of the listserve, aside from his output. He said he would like to see it used more as an interim discussion device. Action: Lawson will re-send the welcome and purpose of the listserve to everyone on the list.

Electronic Newsletter

Hummer reported that the first Council electronic newsletter went out Nov. 5 to the Council listserve. He thanked members for contributing material for the newsletter. Discussion ensued regarding possible expansion of the newsletter’s target audience. Consensus was that distribution should be limited to those subscribed to the Council listserve. However, Council concurred that, as the newsletter develops, it should eventually become designed for the website. Hummer proposed that the newsletter go out quarterly on a February-May-August-November schedule. Council members were favorable to that distribution schedule. Hummer then asked Council members to continue to send him newsletter material as progress and news takes place. He will also monitor other news sources such as GLIN for material. Action: Council members send Hummer material for the February LMMCC electronic newsletter by Jan. 31 to jhummer@glc.org.

New Council Brochure

Peters announced the revision of the Council brochure and asked members to distribute it widely.

VII. Council Funding

USGS Funding Opportunities

Peters reported that Donna Myers is working to get money in the USGS 2003 budget for a dedicated person to work on coastal issues. He also stated that the Western Lake Michigan Drainages NAWQA liaison budget can possibly fund LMMCC travel, meetings, etc. Vail suggested using the Lake Michigan Forum as a model for how it is funded.

Implementing Funding Ideas Raised at Spring Meeting

Due to time constraints, discussion was limited to thoughts on membership. Vail suggested sticking to the bylaws. Lawson clarified that LMMCC is open to members and other interested parties. New members are always welcome! Action: GLC staff will update the LMMCC membership list and post to the website.

VIII. Next Steps

Review Action Items

Lawson quickly reviewed the action items from the meeting. See attached “Action Items – Draft”.

Next Meeting Dates

The next meeting of LMMCC will be in conjunction with the Great Lakes session of NWQMC. Details will be worked out and sent out via the listserve.

IX. Adjourn – The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m. EST.

Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordination Council

Action Items – Draft

Fall Meeting

November 8, 2001

Lake Michigan Center

Grand Valley State University

Muskegon, MI

1. The workgroups will make an effort to associate costs with monitoring needs.

2. Peters will provide a link to the SOLEC indicator report on the LMMCC website and Beck will mail a copy to those interested.

3. Lawson will have the IAGLR presentations linked to the LMMCC website.

4. Peters will post notice to the Council listserve of GLISP being available online.

Workgroup Action Items:

5. Lawson will follow-up with leads on potential workgroup chairs and members for the Air and Aquatic Nuisance Species workgroups.

6. The fisheries plan will be revised to emphasize communication and reporting links between the LMMCC and Lake Michigan Team.

7. Grannemann will follow-up with various groundwater networks throughout the basin, and establish a framework for the Groundwater workgroup. He will also send publications and regional aquifer studies he has to Groundwater workgroup members to establish a common base of knowledge.

8. Rounds and Greenwood will work on a plan to further develop the Wildlife workgroup.

9. Peters, Miller and Kohlhepp will

Participants List