Draft Conference Call Meeting Summary
November 25, 2003
Participant List
Name Affiliation
Judy Beck U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 – Lake Michigan Team
Roger Eberhardt Michigan Department of Environmental Quality – Office of the Great Lakes
Norm Granneman
Victoria Harris University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute
Paul Horvatin
John Hummer Great Lakes Commission
Bob Kavetsky
Gary Kohlhepp Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Ric Lawson Great Lakes Commission
Roger Nanney Natural Resources Conservation Service
Charlie Peters
Linda Stoll Fox-Wolf Watershed Alliance
Glenn Warren
I. Introduction
Lawson welcomed everyone on the call at 9:30 a.m. and asked everyone to introduce themselves. He also took this time to query participants on future Council meeting format. Lawson proposed quarterly conference calls and an annual meeting. Beck thought this format would work well, adding that timing was important to tie in with Binational Executive Committee (BEC) planning and monitoring schemes. She also indicated that timing was important to provide timely information to the Lake Michigan LaMP and to provide a Lake Michigan voice into Great Lakes-wide monitoring efforts. Hummer suggested tying in the annual meeting every other year with the State of Lake Michigan conference. Lawson agreed with this suggestion, adding that piggy-backing with other meetings would make the Council meetings more successful and better-attended. Peters agreed.
II. Basinwide Coordinated Monitoring
Horvatin presented a general schedule for coordinated monitoring in the Lake Michigan basin for the near future. He indicated that 2005 would be an intensive year for Lake Michigan monitoring, thus the need for coordination. The Lake Michigan Mass Balance (LMMB) results should be available by summer 2004, the release of which will spur discussions with all interested parties. Through such discussions, detailed planning will occur for 2005 monitoring. Lawson stated that this will bode well for the Lake Michigan tributary monitoring project, culminating in a synoptic monitoring event in the 2005 sampling season. (See below for more details.) Horvatin added that the U.S. EPA-Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) considered the tributary monitoring project as a factor in 2005 planning, especially in terms of using LMMB results to guide the ’05 monitoring. Beck indicated she would like to see the Council as a co-sponsor of a meeting at which the results of the LMMB project are rolled out. Horvatin supported the idea, indicating the LMMB results will have an important impact on the direction of future Lake Michigan monitoring efforts.
Horvatin stated that the BEC charged GLNPO and Environment Canada as lead agencies for Great Lakes coordinated monitoring efforts. They were charged with three primary activities: 1) Conduct baseline monitoring where feasible; 2) Develop an inventory of what monitoring is taking place binationally. This would result in the release of a downloadable, searchable, web-based inventory; and 3) Develop a schedule for all five Great Lakes to identify priorities for major monitoring activities. Horvatin indicated that a major challenge would be in the development of common methodologies with the Canadian agencies.
III. Lake Michigan Tributary Monitoring Project introduction
Lawson gave a brief overview of the Lake Michigan Tributary Monitoring project (“tribs project”). The intent of the project is to coordinate existing surface water monitoring programs in tributaries to Lake Michigan and supplement with additional monitoring for a synoptic event. The purpose of this monitoring event would be to accomplish two main goals. First, the synoptic monitoring event would serve as a validation of forecasting and update of results from the Lake Michigan Mass Balance project. Second, the intensive event would serve as a pilot effort to intensively sample each of the Great Lakes on a rotating 5-year basis. As an added benefit, the project could provide enhanced monitoring resources to assist a few participating Areas of Concern (AOCs) in measuring progress as they move toward delisting. Beck confirmed that the Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) management committee chose the year 2005 for lakewide monitoring.
Lawson indicated the project has a $60,000 budget and is coordinated under the auspices of the tributary workgroup of the Council. He indicated next steps were to: 1) identify monitoring event options; 2) select the options; 3) schedule conference calls and/or meetings to plan and coordinate specific activities for the 2005 monitoring event; 4) conduct the monitoring activities; and 5) compile data and issue a final report. Lawson added that the $60,000 is a modest budget to pull off the project and would seek additional funds and/or use current funds to leverage match from participating agencies. Beck indicated there should be a “Level 1” plan and a “Level 2” plan if additional funding becomes available. She added that since the General Accounting Office (GAO) is interested in enhancing Great Lakes monitoring, that could potentially free up some more funds earmarked for monitoring activities.
Stoll indicated her Fox-Wolf Basin project currently has a $1.5 million budget for a three-year project, mainly focused on nutrient monitoring. Beck stated that if the Fox-Wolf Basin can coordinate with this project, the Council could leverage more funding. Stoll added that the University of Wisconsin—Green Bay is running their monitoring component. They are primarily using their data for public information and education. She suggested that the tribs project might possibly want to consider using monitoring data from the upper reaches of the Fox-Wolf Basin. They will have data from 2004-06, but want to make sure their data fits with the “bigger picture.”
Harris asked what “enhanced monitoring” includes. Beck replied that is covers a wider array of constituents. She added that she also got management directives to include AOC monitoring opportunities.
Vail added that Grand Valley State University is beginning a long-term monitoring program on Muskegon Lake through an endowment, and are working with local Public Advisory Council (PAC).
Kohlhepp commented that there are a lot of different parameters to look at, and suggested using surrogates to analyze more expensive ones such as PCBs. Warren added that a minimum amount of contaminant monitoring might be required.
Lawson summarized that for this call, he wanted to garner potential interest in the project. A “show of hands” indicated there was consensus to move forward. Lawson stated GLC staff would schedule a conference call regarding the project and prioritizing monitoring options in late January or early February.
IV. Update on Lake Michigan Tributaries Summary Report and Western Lake Michigan NAWQA
Before giving a report on this item, Peters announced that the 4th National Monitoring Conference would be taking place in Chattanooga the week of May 17. Vail asked if there was a volunteer monitoring component to the conference. Peters indicated that many abstracts were submitted by volunteer groups.
Lake Michigan Tributaries Summary Report
Peters stated there are two databases this project is tapping: STORET and USGS’ own database. The intent of the project is to look back at trends and gaps since 1970 for the entire Lake Michigan basin. He is currently working on the project report.
Western Lake Michigan NAWQA Study
Peters reported that the Western Lake Michigan NAWQA project has two cycles: high-phase and low-phase trend sites. One of the main components is a mercury study looking at factors that influence methylation. There are three Lake Michigan sites under the study.
Urban Drainages Study component. This consists of 30 sites in Milwaukee and Green Bay and includes a wide range of parameters. The main goal of the study is to determine at what percent urbanization does biota decrease, while identifying the chemical and physical factors.
Groundwater component. A “flow-path” study is being conducted in the Stevens Point (WI) watershed. Sixteen major aquifers were sampled during 2002-03; trends are currently being looked at.
Ag Land Use study. Peters also reported that this study was conducted in 2003, which looked at nutrient movements on agricultural lands.
Kohlhepp commented that most of the studies Peters reported on were based in Wisconsin, and asked about bringing some USGS work to the Michigan side of the lake. Peters replied that efforts have been made in this regard, but success has not been achieved as of yet. Beck indicated this problem may be either political, or a funding issue, but nonetheless needs to be worked on. She added it will result in an unequal amount of data generated around the lake. Kohlhepp indicated he may have more opportunities to work with USGS in Michigan and asked which projects might lend themselves to getting more information from the Michigan side of the lake. Peters indicated that possibly the “Friends of the St. Joseph River” project may provide an opportunity. Kohlhepp added that MDEQ has contractors on retainer and has some flexibility to acquire samples. They can work on short notice and possibly go to sites 4-5 times per year.
V. ANS Early Detection Monitoring Update
Hummer gave a presentation on the Lake Michigan ANS (aquatic nuisance species) Early Detection and Monitoring project. The purpose of the project is to produce a set of guidelines and recommendations for a coordinated system to detect new invasions of nonindigenous ANS and track the spread of established ANS populations in the Lake Michigan basin.
This project will advance the development of a Great Lakes region-wide ANS monitoring program. Early detection of ANS introductions and monitoring of established populations will increase chances for their effective elimination and control. A survey instrument is being used to evaluate the degree of monitoring for ANS currently being conducted in the Lake Michigan basin. Most importantly, the project will assess the potential for existing monitoring programs to predict and detect the introduction of new ANS invasions, as well as monitor their potential spread throughout the basin. Hummer stated he will seek input from some Council members on the ANS early detection and monitoring survey. The final guidelines and recommendations are slated to be released in the fall.
VI. EPA Watershed Grants
Lawson reported that the deadline for submitting a proposal for an EPA watershed grant was mid-January. He indicated that the proposal submitted by a Lake Michigan partnership under the name of the LMMCC last year was not funded. He raised the question whether the group should submit a proposal again this year. Stoll commented that this year’s Request for Proposals (RFP) has a major focus on market-based incentives and concrete, measured results. Hummer brought up the possibility of tying it in with the tributary monitoring project. Stoll stated this could be an initiative to expand the tribs project. Vail agreed. Beck indicated that if NAWQA funding was spread around the lake more, this could potentially leverage more funding for the tribs project. She added that through the implementation of the 2002 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Annex includes mention of “diversions” and “trading”, and can be tied in with “market-based” theme of this grant program. Lawson countered that this diverges from LMMCC’s monitoring focus. Beck suggested that the groundwater issue brings up the need for better mapping relates to diversions; and that someone needs to look at the nexus between groundwater and surface water. Grannemann stated there are projects being discussed in some Great Lakes states that would “knit” groundwater and surface water models together; he suggested that perhaps Lake Michigan is a good place to get something like this off the ground. Lawson suggested something like this would need more time to develop. Grannemann agreed, adding that if funded through USGS, there may be more opportunity to extend the planning phase. Peters suggested there may be a way to work toward, or build off, a regional project. Lawson asked if anyone was interested in leading this initiative. Peters suggested that maybe Grannemann and other USGS staffers can discuss. Grannemann replied affirmatively, stating he would do what he can to move this idea forward. Hummer indicated that in lieu of the EPA watershed grant opportunity, we should keep our eyes open for other funding mechanisms for this initiative.
VII. Monitoring Random Design Demonstration RFP
Kohlhepp reported that this demonstration project is looking at several parameters including aquatic invertebrates, woody debris, instream canopy, streambank erosion, etc. There is $4M available, but he Kohlhepp wasn’t sure it would be relevant at the Lake Michigan scale. Kavetsky indicated it might be a useful tool to identify gaps. Kohlhepp added that sites will be randomly selected. Kavetsky stated there could possibly be match from ongoing projects (Muskegon, Newaygo, and Antrim Cos.) Lawson asked Kohlhepp to send out an announcement or information to the LMMCC listserv.
VIII. LaMP Indicator Refinement
Beck reported on an effort to cross-walk SOLEC with Lake Michigan LaMP goals. She indicated that the State of Lake Michigan Conference in fall 2003 was used to gather public input. The Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium (the Consortium) and EPA STAR projects would be used for wetlands; she is looking to the Council for input. Lawson indicated that the Consortium’s work is a scientifically thorough assessment of coastal wetland indicators. He added that it took a lot of work to develop and test the indicators in the field, including a collective implementation of methods, which are still being evaluated. He stressed you need the right people working with sound methodologies and the desire to share data. He stated that many SOLEC indicators do not get down to this level of detail; that more information is needed on many of them to make sound conclusions. Beck agreed, citing a three-step process they are using: 1) Identifying what we need to know; 2) Scientific testing of relevant indicators; and 3) Applicability in the field. She stated that we need to narrow down which indicators are the most important for the Lake Michigan basin, and need to “back into them” from a monitoring perspective.
Lawson mentioned that the Lake Michigan Monitoring Inventory (LMMI) is a basic assessment of who is looking at what indicators, but needs further investigation and follow-up, adding that it needs broader community input beyond the Council to prioritize indicators.
Kavetsky stated SOLEC hasn’t always worked and hasn’t developed fast enough. Lawson indicated that SOLEC suffers from a lack of funding and relies on projects the Wetlands Consortium to assess indicators when feasible. Kavetsky added that there were larger expectations for SOLEC than what is actually doable. Lawson suggested that the LaMP community identify indicators that the Council can assist with.
IX. GAO Reporting and Legislation
Lawson reported that the General Accounting Office (GAO) had released a report on Great Lakes restoration progress. The report criticized overall coordination and monitoring efforts. Lawson mentioned that the Great Lakes Commission and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality were both interviewed for the report. Kohlhepp stated, when interviewed, he brought up the efforts of LMMCC and monitoring programs in the State of Michigan. His view is that the report will bring more attention to monitoring and could bring more resources to bear on monitoring programs. Beck added that EPA is getting “slammed” by the report, but agreed that the report ultimately will bring in more funds for monitoring. Kohlhepp added that he spoke favorably about SOLEC, but indicated the problem is that it is a voluntary program. Lawson brought up GLOS – the new Great Lakes Observing System – funded through NOAA. He stated the GLOS project includes a broad array of stakeholders; GLNPO’s Paul Horvatin is on the steering committee. The project is in its first year of developing plans, building up inventories, and pulling together databases from across the Great Lakes basin.
X. Volunteer Monitoring Coordination
Lawson broached the subject of volunteer monitoring coordination at the Lake Michigan basin level. He wanted to gauge interest for a potential future project. It would include defining common standards, data collection and storage, and working with programs at the state level. Beck mentioned that Sarah Lehmann of her staff participated in the volunteer monitoring conference in March 2002; there was a great deal of interest in getting states connected with volunteer programs. Kohlhepp stated it would be a beneficial and worthwhile initiative to establish such networking. He mentioned that the State of Michigan is in the process of initiating a Michigan Clean Water Corps to be administered by the MDEQ, a program to expand volunteer monitoring opportunities in the state. Vail mentioned the Lake Michigan Forum has interest in such partnerships and suggested the LMMCC could serve as a data clearinghouse.
XI. Future Workgroup Discussions/Projects
Lawson indicated that the immediate focus of the Council is on the Lake Michigan Tributary Monitoring project and the ANS Early Detection and Monitoring project. He suggested an emerging workgroup of focus will more than likely be groundwater. Grannemann stated he would like to see if the states of Illinois and Wisconsin groundwater projects get funded, which would impact any workgroup strategy. Beck indicated that the Lake Michigan Watershed Academy and related land use discussions are also moving in the right direction.
There was consensus to hold the next Council meeting in conjunction with a Lake Michigan tributary monitoring workshop and possibly along with an ANS early detection and monitoring workshop. Lawson will arrange a call for the tribs project as previously discussed in the interim.
IV. Adjournment
The call/meeting adjourned at approximately 12:30 p.m.
Action Items:
1. GLC staff will schedule a conference call the Lake Michigan Tributary Monitoring Project in late January or early February. Discussion will focus on prioritizing monitoring options for a 2005 synoptic monitoring event.
2. Hummer will seek input from some Council members on the ANS early detection and monitoring survey.
3. Grannemann and other USGS staff will explore possibilities of “knitting together” state groundwater and surface water monitoring programs.