Name Affiliation

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

Sue Brauer U.S. EPA, Region 5 – Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division

Alex da Silva Indiana Department of Environmental Management

Roger Eberhardt Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Kathy Evans Muskegon Conservation District

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

Rich Greenwood U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/GLNPO

Cheryl Guster Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore

Victoria Harris University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute

John Hummer Great Lakes Commission

Bob Kavetsky U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Gary Kohlhepp Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Ric Lawson Great Lakes Commission

Kathy Luther Indiana Department of Environmental Management

Mike Miller Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Greg Mund Michigan Agricultural Stewardship Association

Roger Nanney USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service

Mark Pearson U.S. EPA, Mid-Continent Ecology Division

Charlie Peters U.S. Geological Survey

Susan Russell S.E. Russell Consulting

Susie Schreiber Waukegan Harbor Citizens Advisory Group

Thomas Sheffy Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Janet Vail GVSU Annis Water Resources Institute

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

Nathan Winkler Grand Traverse Band Ottawa & Chippewa Indians

Monday, May 21, 2000

I. Welcome and Introductions

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

II. Council Business

Charge to Participants

Kohlhepp noted that much time has been spent in organizing the Council and that now it’s time to move ahead and tackle some substantive issues. Peters mentioned that the National Water Quality Monitoring Council is helping to promote councils similar to LMMCC. He hopes LMMCC can help meet each member’s needs with an approach that all can benefit from. Lawson noted that the Council should stay focused on what it can do to be most effective. There is a strong need to develop products that can show a benefit to monitoring entities and decision makers in the basin. He asked participants to focus on solidifying a framework that will allow more people to participate and gain benefit from the Council.

Review of Agenda

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

Review Action Items

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

1. Lawson will work with the co-chairs regarding announcing a schedule for staggered terms.

Lawson indicated that nominations were being sought for a two-year term in one of the chair positions. Both Peters and Kohlhepp have been renominated for the chair positions are interested in continuing in their roles. No other nominations have been received.

Lawson also indicated that there has to this point been no need to formalize the membership of the Council. There is a formal procedure in place in the Charter that can be implemented if necessary. He asked if there was need for any further discussion on this.

Beck stated that the Council should push for more local participation and noted that it is more of an overall participation issue rather than a formal membership one.

2. Once the online monitoring inventory is completed, Council members will review and correct information. A form for information updates will be developed.

Lawson stated that the online version of the monitoring inventory should be completed by fall 2001 or the end of the year at the latest. Its completion will be announced widely.

3. A discussion paper on the minimum requirements for a baseline effort to follow up on the LMMB project will be developed.

Glenn Warren has yet to complete this item. Beck mentioned that 2004 is the 10-year anniversary of the LMMB project. Data has been analyzed and models are about to be tested. Her thought was to have everyone focus on “one year” (2004) to follow up on the 1994 data. Kohlhepp said would like to continue to make the models useful by developing monitoring programs for segments of the models that could use ongoing data collection. Beck added she is considering a proposal to the Binational Executive Committee next fall (2002) with the idea of monitoring one Great Lake on a five-year cycle. A larger network would establish a council (similar to LMMCC) for each great lake. Kohlhepp added that – for the model – what is coming in from tributaries, air deposition, etc. could build on LMMB data.

Action: Beck will talk to the states next fall prior to the SOLEC conference. She will develop a short questionnaire on this topic. Warren stated that once the results are in on the models, he will examine what on-going or follow-up monitoring is needed. He would like to get people together to discuss ideas for future sampling.

4. Laura Evans indicated that she would add the SOLEC numbers to LaMP indicators.

This action item was completed. SOLEC numbers were added within chapter 3 of the LaMP.

5. Summarize the objectives from projects in the Lake Michigan Monitoring Inventory. Distinguish between regulatory and ambient programs.

Lawson stated he developed a paper on the similarities and differences of the objectives in the inventory database (his “Objectives Analysis” paper). He was limited to those whom responded to his survey request. Peters noted that the short-term workgroup will get more detailed information for the next draft. Beck stated we took the inventory as far as we could and that there are still some gaps. Lawson mentioned more data may be collected through the online version of the inventory, and the Council could update the current inventory with more detailed objectives. Peters added that objectives drive actions. Lawson said the objectives could be discussed further in workgroups. Beck said she would look at the documents before they go out further. Russell suggested that Superfund data should also be incorporated.

6. 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 said this is a long-term, ongoing action item that will take additional time to develop. Elements of the current meeting were designed to address this item. It should stay on the action item list.

7. Pilot monitoring efforts will be tracked. Presentations will be scheduled on these pilot efforts at future meetings.

Lawson said the focus of this meeting is on organizational issues and getting the workgroup framework launched. It was mentioned that such pilot efforts, when in process, could be reported upon in the LMMCC newsletter, as well as at future meetings.

The discussion moved to the electronic newsletter. Lawson stated he needs more responses from members to compile an effective newsletter. It was suggested the newsletter go out on a quarterly basis. Kohlhepp stated that EPA headquarters puts out a “Water Monitor” newsletter by region and thought the Council newsletter would be a good opportunity for communicating our efforts. He suggested that individual members submit “anything” to get the ball rolling. Eventually it will develop character and focus. Peters mentioned a Minnesota river newsgroup which is a valuable tool. Lawson reiterated it would be a good communications device for member updates. Beck suggested submitting a short paragraph with contact information.

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

8. Lawson will coordinate speaker recruitment for the IAGLR session.

Lawson stated that this has been done and final arrangements are being made for IAGLR, as will be discussed later.

9. Lawson will draft a framework for enhancing information sharing between council members and other monitoring interests.

Lawson said a framework for a discussion list has been developed through the new LMMCC listserve. Beck indicated it is important for those doing research to be able to find information. Harris noted this item could be part of the strategic plan. Beck added that we need to “hook people in,” like graduate students, to do research projects. Harris responded that the Council of Great Lakes Research Managers has graduate students summarizing important findings from Sea Grant programs and collecting information from the heads of other Great Lakes research projects.

GLC Resolution

Lawson announced that the Great Lakes Comission passed a resolution at their recent semi-annual meeting that encourages the federal and state governments to provide consistent monitoring funding. He distributed a copy of the final resolution. The Commission hopes to include this resolution with other regional initiatives in lobbying Congress. The “be it resolved” section was reviewed. Harris commented that it was entirely appropriate. Beck indicated that she thought the Council could support the goals of the resolution, but might not be able to directly support the resolution itself.

Action: The Council will produce a letter of support 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.

Announcements

Beck stated she attended the D.C. Water Camp meeting – revolving around coordination, collection and assessment. She spoke about a partnership concept called an “exchange network” and that this would be applicable to the Council. There is a paper out on the concept. She also received a short descriptive paper about indicators, put together by Gerald Niemi from the University of Minnesota at Duluth (related to a three-year STAR grant project). She suggested that LMMCC communicate better with Niemi’s group. Beck also announced the upcoming Binational Executive Committee (BEC) meeting to discuss SOLEC indicators.

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

Next Beck shared a general observation that monitoring is becoming more visible and is a priority issue for increasing numbers of resource managers. Beck also discussed the Great Lakes Beaches Conference, where monitoring data was exchanged. She indicated that beaches project funding – once targeted at $30 million – has been cut back to $2 million currently. Lawson mentioned that the GLC has a proposal in to GLNPO regarding the communication of beach monitoring information. Beck emphasized the need for beach coordinators to get together. Ohio is having its own beaches conference. Beck mentioned another conference coming up on the topic of bio-accumulative toxics. Brauer added that the National Routine PBT Monitoring Workshop to be held May 22-23 was an internal EPA workshop, with an external workshop on the same subject tentatively scheduled for much later in 2001. Beck said that there was a Clean Water Act (CWA) Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) public stakeholders meeting in Indianapolis on May 15, 2001, including a discussion of the Great Lakes Lakewide Management Planning process and its relation to TMDLs.

Kavetsky distributed a brochure titled “Protecting Wetlands along the Great Lakes Shoreline” published in April 2001. Six-thousand copies were printed. It was a collaborative effort of the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) Coastal Program, the U.S. Geological Survey – Great Lakes Science Center, Michigan State University Sea Grant Extension, the Michigan Natural Features Inventory/MSU Extension, and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Kavetsky also discussed a local leveraging program as part of the Coastal Program and said they are looking for potential partnerships. Kavetsky announced that the Corps of Engineers is currently seeking comments on the Nationwide Wetlands Permit.

Vail announced the State of Lake Michigan conference for Fall ’01 in Muskegon and circulated a preliminary agenda. The organizing committee is still searching for a plenary speaker before firming up agenda. Send any speaker ideas to Vail.

Russell announced that the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has completed a basin-wide survey of their resources, and should be better connected to the Council. She mentioned that her brother works for USFS and she can work to develop some linkages with the Council. Beck added that she has a contact with the Lake Superior LaMP who may help in this regard as well.

Schreiber announced that the Waukegan Harbor group recently signed a partnership agreement with a Russian watershed group working on Lake ~~Biakal.~~Baikal. She noted that the two groups are exchanging a lot of information and are learning tremendously from each other. One of the highlights was a conference call involving students from both the U.S. and Russia. She also was enthusiastic in that many Russian researchers are “buying into” what we’re doing on the Great Lakes.

Harris announced that there are about 400-450 people registered for the IAGLR conference in June.

Peters announced that the USGS is interested in developing a GAP analysis for aquatic resources in the Lake Michigan basin. He also announced that the Western Lake Michigan Drainages intensive study phase should be conducted according to plans, however the scope of the study is dependent on some questions about funding.

da Silva mentioned that he is interested in getting the Grand Calumet on board for a GAP analysis. He is also looking for monitoring partners for the Grand Calumet Area of Concern. Send any ideas or help on these matters to da Silva.

Other Business

There was no other business discussed.

III. Council Workgroups

Lawson announced that he, Kohlhepp and Peters would provide some background on the history and progress to date for the Council workgroups and present options for a new, long-term framework. Copies of their presentation can be obtained from Lawson.

A. Introduction and Background

Lawson introduced the concept and proposed new framework. He emphasized that it was just a starting point and that it can go anywhere from here. He pointed to the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission as an example of an established workgroup network. He indicated that the purpose of the workgroups is to carry out functional tasks between meetings. They would be based on member interests; with an open membership. Each would function independently. Four initial, short-term workgroups were established: data inventory and analysis, monitoring objectives, benefit analysis and outreach, and watershed pilots. Their function was to establish clarity on initial start-up issues. Among the initial issues:

- What is the range of monitoring in the basin?

- Are there overlap/conflicts in monitoring objectives?

- Examining coordination benefits

- Establishing monitoring network pilot projects

B. Progress in Current Workgroups

Kohlhepp noted that the four initial workgroups met several times via conference call, and indicated there was some progress in each group. The watershed pilots workgroup was merged with the monitoring objectives workgroup at the last Council meeting. He gave a brief overview of progress in the three workgroups as follows:

· Data Inventory and Analysis

o Helped produce the monitoring inventory and report

o Advised on the development of the online inventory database

o Produced discussion paper on monitoring objectives

· Monitoring Objectives and Pilots

o Merged from two workgroups

o Several discussion papers

§ Continuation of LMMB elements

§ Monitoring network considerations

§ Design for a surface water monitoring network

· Outreach

o Developed several communication tools:

§ Website

§ Brochure

§ Discussion list

o Hosted IAGLR session

o External presentations (example: National Water Quality Monitoring Council)

C. A New Workgroup Framework

Peters outlined the need for a new workgroup framework. Many short-term workgroup issues have been addressed. There is a need for stronger focus on facilitating coordination. Strategic planning for the basin is also needed. Finally, increasing the value to Council members would help encourage and retain membership.

He then laid out some possible approaches for a new framework, with those listed below as possible stand-alone approaches or possibly linked together in a combined approach (see text in italics):

· Issue Based [combined approach: develop considerations/issues within and between resources(s)]

o Objectives, network design, methods, data management, indicators and interpretation

· Discipline Based (combined approach: include in resource as appropriate)

o Chemistry, biology, physical, social

· Resource Based (combined approach: facilitates appropriate coordination)

o Surface water tributaries, wetlands and lakes, fisheries, in-lake

Peters then posed the following questions to the Council: Is this the appropriate workgroup approach? Which workgroups should be included? Who is willing to lead a workgroup? How should workgroups function? What should workgroups do?

IV. Workgroup Discussion

This session took the form of a general in-depth discussion of the new LMMCC workgroup framework proposed in the discussion paper. Kavetsky asked how the new workgroups were arrived at, and about the LaMP being part of this. Kohlhepp responded that it was a process of brainstorming by the LMMCC steering committee that came up with the proposed framework. Eberhardt said he thought the habitat-related resource-based connections were good to have built in. Beck added that the LaMP was the driving force behind this. Lawson said that LaMP indicators are common among various agencies. Kavetsky brought up the issue of costs for the purposes of a workplan. Luther suggested that aquatic nuisance species should be another workgroup. Peters said that the Council should not try and form new groups per se, but should connect to already existing monitoring networks where possible. Beck commented that it’s easier to talk about coordination than to actually do it. Peters suggested that workgroups can make technical recommendations in terms of monitoring protocols, etc. Harris said it seems like more is done on an ecosystem approach. Lawson mentioned the Great Lakes Wetlands Consortium as an example. Luther suggested the possibility of even more specific workgroups – like a bird group.

Harris asked how this structure fits with SOLEC. Beck responded that it’s in Chapter 3 of the Lake Michigan LaMP, which follows the SOLEC approach. Warren said the structure should be no problem if indicators are included. Harris added that, in addition to indicators, it is important that objectives be a focus. Lawson said it is the Council’s job to make sense of salient themes that cut across agencies. Kohlhepp suggested that the Council identify common themes, and the workgroups get to the nuts and bolts. Lawson recommended a summary for each workgroup and combine them into an overall strategic plan for the full Council. Peters stressed that the Council get as many workgroups going in a positive direction as possible now. Kohlhepp emphasized an adaptive approach. Changes can be made or more workgroups can be added later.

Evans asked if SOLEC and LaMP indicators are the same. Kavetsky said there is a subset of SOLEC indicators for Lake Michigan. Nanney suggested that – for the short-term – the Council find out which networks exist and pull out Lake Michigan data. Kavetsky noted that SOLEC seems more divided by states and categories; they multiply indicators and get super-indicators. Luther suggested we list indicators and organizations for each box. Peters recommended that we start with what is currently being monitored – like fisheries and tributaries. Beck re-emphasized that no system will be perfect – it is okay to adapt later. She added that some monitoring information is more important for agencies, while some is more important for communication with the public in general.

With the above discussion coming to a close, the group decided to brainstorm and list all potential workgroups. Following is the initial list (in no particular order):

Participants List