1

Inaugural Meeting

September 22, 1999

Hilton Milwaukee City Center

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Judy Beck, Lake Michigan Team Manager from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) opened

the meeting and introduced the general purpose of the Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordination Council (the

Council) and the rationale for calling the meeting. She then introduced Dr. Michael Donahue, Executive

Director of the Great Lakes Commission. Donahue stated that there were five objectives for the meeting:

• formally establish the Council;
• adopt the Council Charter;
• identify Council priorities;
• form workgroups; and
• begin coordination activities.

He acknowledged that this was an ambitious set of objectives, but suggested that, if the group remained

focused, it could accomplish them. Donahue then reviewed the day’s agenda and asked the participants to

introduce themselves. A list of meeting participants is provided at the end of this summary.

Following introductions, Donahue introduced the Great Lakes Commission as an eight-state compact agency

mandated to promote the "orderly, integrated and comprehensive development, use and conservation of the

water resources of the Great Lakes Basin." He explained that the Commission would serve as secretariat to the

Council. He noted that, in this capacity, the Commission would be responsible for providing logistical support;

administering funding; coordinating Council reports, policy positions, and related materials; communicating

Council accomplishments and positions to external audiences; providing technical advice and guidance; and

coordinating project-specific activities.

Donahue pointed out that the Commission is involved in several other regional advisory panels, and that they all

have a common set of roles. He explained that such groups could be used to exchange information; coordinate

resource management activities to avoid duplication and gaps; develop collaborative initiatives; set standards to

ensure consistency (e.g. among policies, programs, indicators); identify and communicate regional priorities;

facilitate action on gaps and unmet needs; and sponsor fora and special projects. Donahue suggested that the

Council could produce model products to promote regional consistency; consolidate and disseminate regional

information; inventory monitoring efforts in the region; sponsor workshops or other similar networking and

information sharing events; and publish research reports or policy positions.

Donahue also pointed out several important challenges facing the Council. First, all Council members need to

ensure that they take "ownership" of the Council and participate fully. Second, Council members need to

provide value to the collective monitoring effort that cannot be gained individually. Third, the Council will

need to provide benefits to each of its members and utilize their unique skills and experience. Fourth, the

Council needs to balance the goal of an ecosystem approach with the need for focus on tangible work. Fifth,

Council members will need to work hard to achieve consensus, since it is primarily a voluntary effort. Finally,

as with most new ventures, the Council is challenged to find continued funding for general operations and

special projects.

Donahue introduced Charlie Peters, Chief Hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Wisconsin. Peters

spoke about the potential organization and work of the Council in the context of several other federal and state-level

monitoring coordination efforts. He began by speaking about the origins and background of the National

Water Quality Monitoring Council (NWQMC). Some highlights include:

1. Monitoring design strategies;

2. Data methods and comparability;

3. Indicators and reference conditions; and

4. Linking monitoring to environmental management.

• Based on recommendations from the conference, a Council Workplan was formulated, which may be directly relevant to Lake Michigan Council. Six goal groups were formed:

1. Goal-oriented monitoring;

2. Data methods and comparability;

3. Institutional collaboration;

4. Data management and accessability;

5. Public awareness and outreach; and

6. Groundwater protection.

Peters next spoke about the history and potential organization of the Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordination

Council. He explained that, in 1998, the Midwest Natural Resources Group, composed of managers from

numerous federal agencies, recommended a forum for coordinating monitoring activities in the Lake Michigan

basin. Subsequent discussions among staff from U.S. EPA, USGS and several state agencies laid the

groundwork for the Council. A preliminary meeting was held in April 1999 to discuss the Council’s scope and

to begin drafting the Council’s proposed mission, objectives, membership structure and related items. The

that Lake Michigan was selected for a regional focus area because it would simply be too overwhelming to

attempt a coordination effort for the entire Great Lakes Basin, and also because Lake Michigan is bordered only

by U.S. States so there is only one federal government to include.

Peters explained that, as with the NWQMC, the Council would serve as the administrative and coordinating

umbrella for its workgroups. The workgroups should be the organizational units that carry out the specific

monitoring coordination tasks. It should be the role of the Council to establish general priorities and formulate

workgroups. The workgroups themselves should be given the autonomy to carry out the tasks necessary to

reach workgroup goals.

Peters further explained that, at the last meeting, three possible organizational approaches were discussed:

resource-based, issues-based, and discipline-based. He pointed out that NWQMC has taken an issues-based

approach, and established workgroups based on the previously mentioned six goals. However, participants in

the previous meeting preferred the resource-based approach. With this approach, there are seven potential

workgroups — all centered around specific resources: tributaries, groundwater, wetlands, estuaries, in-lake,

terrestrial, and air.

Peters briefly described several proposals for workgroup focus. The first was a surface water tributary

monitoring network. Such a network would coordinate funding, monitoring efforts, and information sharing for

surface water monitoring in tributaries to the lake. A similar proposal was suggested for coordinating ground

water monitoring activities. Finally, Peters suggested a project to survey the existing monitoring efforts in the

basin and disseminate this information throughout the basin, most likely via the Internet. It was pointed out that

the Great Lakes Commission has concurrently started such a project with funding from U.S. EPA’s Lake

Michigan Team. The full text of these proposals can be found on the Council’s website.

Judy Beck discussed the relationship the Council could have with the Lake Michigan Lakewide Management

Plan (LaMP) process. She emphasized that the LaMP is taking a broad ecosystem approach because research

continues to show that all aspects of the ecosystem are interrelated. For example, it is becoming clear that the

greatest source of mercury inputs into the lake is air deposition. A narrow focus on water quality would miss

similar findings.

Beck next reviewed the general framework of the LaMP process. She explained that the LaMP is an on-going

process to identify problems, plan remediation, and implement action plans to restore and protect Lake

Michigan resources. This process is managed by three groups: the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC),

the LaMP Forum (Forum) , and U.S. EPA’s Lake Michigan Team. Both the TCC and Forum are made up of

state and federal agency members as well as representatives of other stakeholder groups. These groups are in

the process of rewriting the draft LaMP to cover the entire Lake Michigan ecosystem and include such elements

as air deposition, exotic species and land use changes.

Beck explained that the LaMP committees spent considerable time and effort developing the vision and goals

for the LaMP. This is all contained in chapter two of the LaMP. In the end, a vision (desired outcome), goal,

and eleven subgoals were established. (This information was included in the handout packet distributed at the

beginning of the meeting.)

Beck indicated that chapter four of the LaMP specifically addresses indicators and monitoring, and calls for a

monitoring plan for the lake. The Council can contribute greatly to the formation of such a monitoring plan.

She noted that the Council that the Great Lakes Commission has begun some of this work through the Lake

Michigan Tributary Monitoring Project. The Commission is working with local stakeholders in fourteen

tributary basins to conduct an inventory of local monitoring efforts. The Commission itself is doing an

inventory of state and federal efforts. The resulting database of monitoring information will appear on the

Internet for basinwide use.

Beck announced the latest "LaMP 2000" effort to complete the LaMP document by Earth Day 2000. In order to

do this, she hopes to gain the collaborative support from the Council and its member organizations. Beck

explained that the goal of the LaMP process is to monitor conditions of the lake ecosystem and report out

findings. The Council could be an important part of this effort. She noted that the Council is the sixth

monitoring council in the nation, but the first to be organized along watershed lines and to focus broadly on

ecosystem monitoring and not simply water quality. Beck explained that the Lake Michigan Mass Balance

project was an important part of the LaMP and monitoring process. The information gained from this project

could be used by all parties interested in lake monitoring results. Coordinating the Mass Balance data with

other federal, state and local data could be an important function of the Council and could result in a

significantly enhanced monitoring data.

Beck was asked to discuss the background of the Council with regard to the ecosystem approach and habitat

interests. She explained that the original idea for the Council was brought forth by Charlie Peters in a federal

roundtable meeting. At these meetings, the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sevice were both

heavily involved and interested in keeping better track of habitat and wildlife in the basin. They saw a

monitoring council as a good vehicle to further this effort. Beck further mentioned that these agencies were

developing an online GIS database of habitat and wildlife in the basin. They will be meeting again in

November. U.S. EPA is also contracting with the Great Lakes Commission to develop a habitat atlas. The

Council could significantly enhance the content of this atlas by assisting with locating and collecting

information for inclusion in the effort.

Following Beck’s presentation, David Michaud from the Wisconsin Electric Power Company suggested that the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) be included in the monitoring inventory effort. That agency is

required to conduct monitoring for flood prediction and prevention as well as for other disaster preparedness

functions.

Donahue introduced the next agenda item — review and approval of the Council Charter . He explained that he

would present each section of the charter and then moderate discussion as consensus was sought. Donahue then

proceeded to read and explain each of the following sections of the Charter: establishment, mission, objectives,

membership, and Council operations.

Bill Horns, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, explained that he would not be able to sign off on the

Charter for Wisconsin without consulting with other department officials. Donahue explained that the objective

was to work out the Charter language that everyone at the table could agree with. Then the members could take

the Charter back to their departments for internal discussion and final approval. It was agreed that, instead of

referring to all ". . .federal, state, and tribal agencies. . .," it will read ". . .signatory parties. . . ." This will be

accompanied by a signature sheet to be included with the Charter. This new format was acceptable to all

present.

Some members were concerned that the Charter had a broad focus that would not be practical when it comes to

actual coordination work. The Council could be spread too thin and might be unable to accomplish anything of

value. It was also thought that it would be easier to get buy-in from a wider group of stakeholders if the focus

was more narrow. The counter-argument was that the broad focus was necessary to capture the full picture of

the health of the Lake Michigan ecosystem. Peters made the point that focused work can be conducted in

workgroups. The role of the overall Council is to coordinate these groups and ensure there is no duplication.

Tom Trudeau, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, wanted to know if the primary purpose of the Council

was to share information or dictate to others in the region how monitoring should be conducted. Both Donahue

and Judy Beck explained that the role of the Council should be primarily to share information. The Council

should coordinate and showcase important monitoring efforts, and bring the results of such work to the greater

public. Trudeau explained that he was concerned that the Council could duplicate efforts of organizations such

as the Great Lakes Fishery Council. Donahue emphasized that the Council was developed to share information

duplication.

It was agreed that, for now, the Council focus would remain broad, but that workgroups would be tightly

defined. Further discussion also occurred about the inclusion of the National Water Quality Monitoring

Council in the establishment statement. It was decided that this was unnecessary. The final establishment

statement read as follows:

"The Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordination Council is established jointly by various federal,

state, tribal and other signatory parties involved in environmental protection and resource

management efforts in the Lake Michigan basin."

Several members stressed that the mission must emphasize the voluntary nature of the Council. The first part of

the statement was acceptable, but the phrase ". . .based on accepted standards . . ." was problematic. The

thinking was that the Council would be forcing standards on its members, when it should simply be suggesting

standards. After considerable discussion the following mission statement was accepted:

"The mission of the Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordination Council is to provide a forum for

coordinating and supporting monitoring activities in the Lake Michigan basin and to develop

and make broadly available a shared resource of information, based on documented standards

and protocols, that is useable across agency and jurisdictional boundaries."

Several members were concerned that a statement referring to the term "monitoring plan" obligated the Council

to develop a plan for the entire Lake Michigan basin. Beck explained that a monitoring plan was required in the

LaMP and she was hoping that the Council would want to contribute to that effort. Members agreed that it

would be a good endeavor for the Council to contribute to such a monitoring plan or related effort, but

emphasized that the charter should not specify the creation of such a specific document. It would be more

appropriate for the Council to coordinate monitoring plans, but not create them. After further discussion, it was

determined that the word "plan" would be replaced by "framework."

There were a few more concerns related to the second objective. The objective only listed federal, state and

local monitoring efforts. The concern was that non-governmental monitoring efforts should also be included.

The second concern related to the term "aquatic resources." Several members pointed out that the group had

previously agreed to focus more broadly on "ecosystem resources." The objective should reflect this. Others

believed that the objectives should be more specific than the mission, and should reflect high priority needs of

the resource. In the end, "ecosystem" replaced "aquatic."

There were no objections to the third objective. However, Peters emphasized that outreach should be an

important function of the Council so that more people could take advantage of the monitoring information.

Following discussion, it was agreed that Peters would draft an objective relating to outreach to be submitted

along with the other objectives.

The final objective raised some concern about the direction to "establish" an information network, which many

believed was beyond the scope of the Council. It was agreed that the Council could serve an important role in

supporting the development of such a network, however. The language was changed to read "support" rather

than "establish."

Finally, Chris Wright, Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative, suggested that the Council also include an

objective to promote and assist in the professional development of monitoring entities. It was his impression

that there are numerous groups and individuals who would like to contribute to the monitoring effort in the

basin, but they do not have the training necessary to collect data to meet quality standards. It was decided that

the Council would not be capable of providing training and that it should keep its focus on coordination and

data sharing.

The final language of the objectives reads as follows:

• Document monitoring activities, identify data gaps and contribute to the development

of a monitoring framework for the Lake Michigan basin.

• Establish and maintain collaborative partnerships that link federal, state, tribal, local

and non-governmental monitoring organizations and initiatives in the Lake Michigan

basin to allow for the assessment of ecosystem resources in the basin.

• Foster the implementation of monitoring activities that document data quality and are

comparable throughout the basin.

efficient sharing and updating of monitoring information.

• Provide guidance and assistance to members of the Council so they can improve

Monitoring Council’s workplan.

Several members suggested that the Council membership should not list representation from agencies that do

not sign on to the Charter. Michael Donahue suggested that the introductory statement to the membership list

express that the Council will "provide for membership from" a list of agencies and organizations. This

suggestion was accepted by the Council. A second concern was raised over the proper inclusion of agricultural

entities. The concern was that farmers and organizations that support the farming community are not

adequately represented on the Council. It was thought that their interests and monitoring challenges were

different enough to warrant a separate membership category. Percy Magee, Natural Resource Conservation

Service, pointed out that he was representing farm interests and activities throughout the Great Lakes basin, but

acknowledged that local issues are likely to vary considerably. It was also pointed out that the National

Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) was invited to send a member to the Council as a local agency,

but was unable to send someone at this time. It was also argued, however, that agriculture businesses currently

had no place for membership on the Council. It was suggested that agriculture be combined into the "business,

industry and consultants" category. After further discussion, it was agreed that agricultural interests were

diverse enough to require a separate membership category. The final membership statement follows:

"The Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordination Council shall provide for membership from the

following entities:

(8) State agencies (one representative each from the environmental protection and resource

management agencies/divisions from the states of Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and

Wisconsin);

(7) Federal agencies (a total of seven from U.S. EPA Region 5, U.S. EPA-Great Lakes

National Program Office, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the

Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission);

(2) Tribal authorities/associations;

(2) Business, industry and consultants;

(1) Agricultural groups;

(2) Local volunteer or environmental groups;

(4) Sea Grant Programs or university-based institutes;

(1) Lake Michigan LaMP Forum;

(4) Local government/planning agencies; and

(1) Great Lakes Fishery Commission.

Ex officio members will include the chair of the Lake Michigan Technical Coordination

Committee and a representative from the Great Lakes Commission.

Each entity shall appoint an alternate representative. The initial appointments shall be for one,

two and three-year terms so that no more than one-third of the Council membership changes in

a given year. Appointments thereafter shall be for two-year terms. Members shall be eligible

for reappointment. Additional individuals from the member entities shall be encouraged to

participate in Council activities, as needed."

One of the Council members asked why the Council chair was restricted to federal and state representatives.

Donahue explained that this was the suggested arrangement so that there would be balanced leadership from

both the states and federal agencies, so that neither could dictate the direction of the Council. The Charter was

crafted to ensure balanced representation from all monitoring stakeholders. There is no inherent reason why the

leadership needs to be restricted to just federal and state representatives, however. Beck noted that U.S. EPA

might have a concern over a lack of federal leadership since they are currently funding the Council operations.

elected from the entire Council membership. This alteration was accepted by the Council. The final operations

section appears as follows:

"The Council will be chaired jointly by two members elected by the full Council membership,

with an election taking place every two years. Workgroups shall be formed, as needed, to

address specific topical issues and shall report to the full Council. The workgroups shall have

the discretion to invite participation from additional entities beyond the formal Council

members. The Council shall seek to meet in full session at least twice annually, with

conference calls and workgroup meetings convened, as needed. On a two-year cycle the

Council shall coordinate contributions from its workgroups to the development and updating of

a monitoring plan for Lake Michigan. The Council co-chairs shall guide secretariat staff in

planning meetings, establishing agendas, and coordinating Council operations. The Council

shall seek to operate by consensus in all aspects of its work and all interested entities shall be

invited and encouraged to attend Council meetings and participate in Council discussions and

activities. In the event that consensus cannot be reached on a specific decision, the matter shall

be decided by a two-thirds vote of the members present. The Great Lakes Commission will

provide secretariat support to the Council and shall administer funding for Council operations

and for special projects of interest to the Council members. Council members shall be expected

to make every effort to cover expenses associated with their involvement. Limited funds may

be available to assist with meeting-related expenses for non-government Council members."

Donahue suggested that Great Lakes Commission staff would make the alterations to the Charter language by

revised draft Charter out to the members along with the meeting summary and request for nominations for

Council chairs. Members would then be given three weeks to review and comment. Barring substantial

revisions, the final version of the Charter will then be mailed along with a signatory page for members. Voting

for Council chairs will also take place at that time. This process was accepted to the Council members.

† Beck later responded to the secretariat that U.S. EPA has no problem with non-federal leadership on the

After lunch, Peters introduced the next agenda item. He explained that the important functions, results, and

actual work would come from the Council workgroups. It is therefore very important that the Council clearly

define these groups.

Peters introduced the three general approaches to workgroup formation. First, the resource-based approach

would align workgroups along resource boundaries. For example, workgroups could focus on tributaries,

groundwater, wetlands, estuaries, in-lake, terrestrial, and air monitoring issues. This was the approach that was

favored at the last meeting. A second approach would focus on specific, but cross-cutting issues. Workgroups

could be formed to examine topics such as goal-oriented monitoring, methods comparability, data management

and accessibility, analysis and reporting, institutional collaboration, and public awareness. Those are the

groups that were defined by the National Water Quality Monitoring Council. A third framework for defining

workgroups could be based on disciplines. Workgroups would focus on issues related to chemistry, biology,

physical qualities, and societal issues. Peters mentioned that additional issues for consideration include: how

many individuals should be in a workgroup; how individuals should be recruited into the workgroups; what

method should be used to bring work to the full Council; and how the workgroups can fund their operations and

projects. Finally, workgroups should develop workplans that lay out overall objectives, tasks to be completed,

resource needs, a schedule for work and meetings, and a membership contact list.

sustained funding for monitoring projects. How can trend analyses be conducted with mixed monitoring data

rife with holes and incompatibilities?

Miller thought the pilot concept was an intriguing one, but that it should be done on a geographic basis where

each state would look for an existing local example of data sharing and collaboration with multiple sources and

analyze the framework for lessons that could be translated to the regional level.

Beck suggested that another pilot could be an assessment of barriers to collecting monitoring data.

Luther explained that the states already do this sort of collaboration within the Areas of Concern. They are

looking for regional coordination monitoring related to transboundary issues.

Mark Holey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, suggested that it was more important to focus on objectives. The

Council should figure out what the regional research questions are, prioritize these questions and then work to

answer them. If the highest priorities are indicators, then focus on those.

Wright asked if there are other groups on which the Council could model its work. He was informed that

outside of the federal and state groups previously mentioned, this was a novel effort.

Miller cautioned against putting the data issues ahead of the questions. The Council should figure out what the

important questions are, determine which are already being answered, and which are not, but could be with

existing data. Then the task is to make existing data useful enough to answer the key questions.

Luther agreed, noting that all states likely have questions which they are having difficulty answering with their

current monitoring efforts.

Matt Doss, Great Lakes Commission, defined a set of suggested Council workgroups based on the above

discussion:

1. Assessing data management and exchange needs;

2. Data objective and gap assessment;

3. Data inventory;

4. Status, trends, and indicators; and

5. Watershed pilot efforts.

Trudeau explained that there are many different levels of data. Compatibility and standardization issues are

very important. There are many similarities between monitoring programs. In many cases, it might just take a

little effort and compromise to make data collection efforts compatible. Quality assurance is also an important

issue. There needs to be a minimum level of quality to consider a data set acceptable.

Holey suggested that the issues would have to be lakewide to be of regional interest. Otherwise, the states and

locals do not need regional coordination.

Several questions followed about the usefulness of some types of data in the TMDL process, and the

comparability of data collected on ambient conditions versus that collected for regulatory compliance.

Miller suggested that a benefit analysis was needed to show state and local agencies the value of the Council.

Following a break, Doss suggested that four workgroups be formed to focus on near-term (six months) issues

that can help get the Council better established. Miller helped explain what each would entail. These

workgroups included:

1. Data Inventory and Assessment – This group would assist in isolating issues and key contacts

for conducting an inventory and assessment of monitoring in the basin. The Great Lakes

Commission has started the inventory effort already, so this group will serve primarily in an

advisory capacity.

2. Monitoring Objectives – This group would focus on defining key questions and driving forces,

as well as which questions are currently being answered and which are not.

3. Benefit Analysis and Outreach – This group will collect examples of successful monitoring

coordination efforts and highlight the benefits to encourage support for further Council efforts

and establish benchmarks.

4. Watershed Pilots – This would primarily be a state effort to select local collaborative efforts

that could be instructive for regional work.

Council members agreed that these groups would be a good start for future work. It was further agreed that

Great Lakes Commission staff would further develop workgroup statements.

Volunteers were solicited for the above groups. Following is a preliminary list of volunteers. Further

volunteers will be solicited through subsequent mailings.

Workgroup 1: Bob Kavetsky, Pete McCarthy, and Rich Greenwood.

Workgroup 2: Joann Cavaletto, Sarah Lehmann, Percy Magee, Jan Miller, Patty O’Donnell, Ron Baba,

Richard Crowe, and Leslie Dorworth.

Workgroup 3: Charlie Peters, Laurie Rounds, and Chris Goddard.

Matt Doss committed the Commission to summarizing the meeting and sending out a mailing to include the

meeting summary, the revised Charter and sign-on statement, a nomination form for co-chair election, and a

workgroup summary.

It was agreed that the next Council meeting was needed in approximately six months. It was suggested that the

next meeting also attempt to "piggyback" on another meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.