**DRAFT**
Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordination Council
Meeting Summary
Project Kick-Off Meeting
April 12 - 13, 1999
Metcalfe Federal Building
Chicago, IL
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 (LMMCC).
Charlie Peters from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) also welcomed the attendees. He explained that he was also a member of the National Water Quality Monitoring Council and that he envisioned that the LMMCC would be a group that could reach beyond political and organizational boundaries to gain a better understanding of the state of the natural resources in the Lake Michigan Basin.
Matt Doss, Project Manager with the Great Lakes Commission (GLC), explained that GLC staff would be providing secretariat support to the LMMCC under a grant from U.S. EPA. The GLC will be setting up meetings, providing meeting summaries, maintaining correspondence with the Council members, and generally keep the Council moving forward.
The meeting attendees next introduced themselves and specified the organization they were representing (an attendees list is provided at the end of this summary).
Following the introductions, Peters briefly reviewed the agenda for the day. Peters then introduced the concept of a monitoring council. He discussed the general idea of a monitoring council and explained that there were two important models that the LMMCC should consider: the National Water Quality Monitoring Council and the Maryland Water Monitoring Council. Peters also observed that the LMMCC would be different from both of these models since it would be the first regional effort that is not based on political boundaries.
National Water Quality Monitoring Council (NWQMC)
Peters summarized the background and functional structure of the NWQMC. Some of the relevant highlights from his presentation follow:
· In 1992, the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring (ITFM) was formed to examine water quality monitoring efforts nationally. The ITFM was a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) group, co-chaired by the USGS and U.S. EPA. The ITFM generated a report in 1995 that pointed out the need for better collaboration and comparability of monitoring data nationwide. The report pointed out that differences in data type and methodologies make it difficult to draw wider conclusions and may lead to duplication of monitoring efforts.
· In 1997, the report recommendations were put into action and the NWQMC was formed.
· The NWQMC includes federal (USGS and U.S. EPA), state, tribal, municipal, industry, non-profits, academics and other private sector members.
· There are 15 voting members and 15 alternates. The membership is split equally among federal agencies (5 members), states and tribal authorities (5), and private representation (5).
· In 1998, the Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP) again emphasized the need for the NWQMC to establish comparable data standards, resource classifications, inventory methods and protocols.
· The NWQMC convenes a national conference every two years. The first one was in July 1998 in Reno, NV (430 attended) and the next will be in Austin, TX.
· The conference attendees were divided along four tracks:
1. Monitoring design strategies;
2. Data methods and comparability;
3. Indicators and reference conditions; and
4. Linking monitoring to environmental management.
· As part of this first conference, a Council Workplan was formulated, which may be directly relevant to the LMMCC. 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.
Following Peters’ presentation, there was some discussion about the decision-making process for the NWQMC. Peters recalled that the NWQMC often settles issues through consensus. Dr. Emery Cleaves, director of the Maryland Geological Survey and chair of the Maryland Water Monitoring Council (MWMC), added that the MWMC rarely votes on issues. They try to rely on workgroup leadership and therefore are required to make few group decisions.
Maryland Water Monitoring Council (MWMC)
Cleaves was asked to summarize the work of the MWMC where it is applicable to the LMMCC. The highlights from his presentation are found below.
· Cleaves started by emphasizing that the key to having a successful council was to first establish strong and open communication links between federal agencies, expand this communication to state and local entities, and then add in volunteer and industry groups. He also emphasized that it was important to initially get a good understanding of what monitoring is being conducted.
· Information about MWMC can be found on the web at: http://www.mgs.md.gov/mwmc/.
· Discussion of the MWMC was divided into six sections: 1) What is it? 2) How is it done? 3) What are the achievements? 4) How did it come about? 5) Why is it successful? 6) What is the financial and personnel framework?
What is the MWMC?
· The purpose of the MWMC is to “serve as a statewide collaborative body to help achieve effective collection, interpretation, and dissemination of aquatic resource monitoring data used in addressing the issues, policies, and management of [Maryland’s] waters.”
· The group works through consensus-building with its members and addresses all aquatic resources.
· MWMC goals include:
· Provide a forum for effective communication, cooperation and collaboration among individuals and organizations involved in monitoring.
· Promote the development of collaborative watershed based monitoring strategies.
· Document monitoring activities in Maryland.
· Promote the use of quality assured procedures for sample collection, analytical methods, assessment and data management.
· The group focuses on environmental data and not just water quality data. They are not a research organization and they attempt to avoid emphasizing the Chesapeake Program, since there are other groups that do a good job covering that resource.
How is it done?
· MWMC is managed by a 20-member Board of Directors, which is appointed by the secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD-DNR). Each board member serves a staggered term of three years with the possibility of one reappointment. Board members are a mix of state, federal and local government representation, as well as volunteer, academic, industry, and other representatives.
· Most of the work is done through five main committees and two ad-hoc committees. The main committees include: assessment and reporting; data management; environmental indicators; monitoring methods; and planning. The two ad-hoc committees focus on watershed studies and stream gauging.
· Cleaves feels that it is important to allow these committees to determine their own membership and direction so that member interest is maintained. This is also a more efficient way to accomplish tasks.
What are the achievements?
· About 140-150 people attend the full meetings, which are organized around themes. Committee meetings are held throughout the year, as needed and one full meeting is scheduled annually.
· MWMC has worked with many local governments to develop an integrated countywide monitoring program.
· They are in the final stages of releasing a directory of monitoring efforts for the state.
· They have held a workshop on stream gauging and several forums, including one on reference conditions.
· The board members are now being asked to participate in other groups throughout the state, and the Council itself is being asked to participate in several other groups such as the Chesapeake Bay Committee, for example.
· They are currently working on a set of guidelines for standardization.
How did it come about?
· Several people throughout the state realized the need for a coordinated monitoring effort, and a number of them got together and formulated the full idea in 1994.
· In 1995, ITFM formation pushed events forward and a U.S. EPA grant was approved to provide for staff support.
· Initially, MWMC received interest from state agencies, several federal agencies, six counties, two universities, and numerous other groups, though no industry or consulting groups.
· At a MD-DNR conference, consensus was established on the need for the council. A mission, goals and volunteer support was gained at this time. Non-state members insisted that the process be “collaborative and cooperative.”
· In October 1995, the first MWMC conference was held and 103 participants attended. The mission was confirmed, the charter accepted and 50 people volunteered for committees.
Why is it successful?
· The Maryland community all felt a need for the group and they appreciated the collaborative design. The annual meetings encourage collaboration and the committees focus the work.
· Funding was supplied from both federal and state levels, assuring their buy-in. Fees are also coming from some members.
· The core members are committed to the work and the state strongly supports this work.
What is the financial and personnel framework?
· A U.S. EPA Section 319 grant supplies the funds for an executive secretary as well as a GIS coordinator. The rest of the personnel are volunteers.
· The MWMC has not gone after other grants, but they have recognized the need for a full-time coordinator. The goal is to eventually have a small, permanent staff.
· Registration fees cover the costs of meeting overhead and printed materials.
Following his presentation, Cleaves was asked a series of questions. He was first asked who is using the information produced by the council. Cleaves found this difficult to answer. He thought the counties may be using stream gauging information for water quality monitoring projects. Jeff Gagler, U.S. EPA, mentioned that Michigan also had a website with stream gauge information.
Cleaves confirmed that board members also were encouraged to serve on committees. He reiterated that they currently maintain no industry representation, though there are a few consultants. The consultants tend to be interested in workshops and other detailed activities. Finally, Cleaves mentioned that they have monitoring documents published electronically, but he was unsure how to access them.
Beck interjected that she thought the LMMCC needed to learn from the MWMC experience, but acknowledge the steps needed to bring it up to a larger scale. She thought that the neutral position of the Great Lakes Commission as executive secretary provided a good foundation to gain the support of all stakeholders. She also thought that it is important to gain industry support.
Beck introduced the next item on the agenda, explaining that it was important for LMMCC members to have a good understanding of other state and federal monitoring programs currently in existence. She also indicated that the order of presentations would be shuffled a bit to accommodate presenter schedules. She introduced Paul Bertram as the first presenter.
SOLEC Indicators
Paul Bertram, U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), presented on the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) and attempts to create a set of universal indicators for the Great Lakes. Questions can be addressed to him via email at bertram.paul@epamail.epa.gov. Highlights from his presentation appear below. Bertram also distributed a document that lists the SOLEC indicators to accompany his presentation.
· Information on SOLEC can be found on the web at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec or http://www.cciw.ca/solec.
· SOLEC arose out of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), and therefore seeks to achieve the goal of restoring the integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Specifically, SOLEC acts as the reporting arm of the GLWQA.
· Monitoring can serve several purposes: 1) to show progress toward water quality standards; 2) to meet specific objectives in Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs), Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) or other documents; 3) to establish trends; or 4) to reveal emerging problems.
· SOLEC plays a part in the following approach to solving a problem: 1) identify the cause; 2) set quantifiable objectives; 3) establish a plan; 4) set up specific actions; 5) monitor effects; and 6) adjust the previous steps.
· SOLEC is a biennial conference that began in 1994 with presentation of several background papers.
· In 1998, SOLEC began to identify indicators for consistent reporting — the Great Lakes Indicators List. This list would be used to characterize the state of the lakes.
· The original list was a database with 850 entries. The list has been distilled down to 80 indicators.
· The list also exists as a MS Access database, which includes attributes for each indicator. The list provides a basis for future monitoring. Within the indicator database, each indicator is listed with the following attributes: name; measure; purpose; endpoint, or range or outcome (reference value); features; illustration; limitations; interpretation; and comments.
· The indicators are broken up into geographic and content subgroups. The subgroups include: nearshore and open waters; coastal wetlands; nearshore terrestrial; human health; land use; societal indicators; and unbounded. Within these subgroups, the indicators are further classified into three groups: state indicators, to describe current conditions; pressure indicators, to measure changes in causes or processes; and human activity indicators, to measures direct human activities which may impact Great Lakes water quality.
· These indicators were formulated through a collaborative process and were based on a specific set of criteria for selection. The list has been thoroughly reviewed by a panel of experts. The current list is version three, and is not yet final. Some of the LaMP indicators are on the list, while others are not.
· The database has been a collaborative writing effort, and now is being professionally edited and cross-referenced to policies. The public is being notified of the list through many channels.
Following his presentation, Bertram was asked how the SOLEC indicators would work with LaMPs. He responded that GLNPO will attempt to modify the SOLEC list to fit within the LaMP framework. There is definitely a need to integrate these types of efforts. California’s effort is another example. SOLEC can serve as an organizing vehicle.
Beck indicated that she thought the organizing group should be the LMMCC. Gagler agreed and indicated that Lake Superior was starting an effort as well. He thought the LaMP process could sort out the gaps.
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Project
Glenn Warren, U.S. EPA, GLNPO, next presented on the current state of the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Project. Highlights from this presentation appear below.
· The mass balance project assumes the following equation for any substance in a given system:
Input + Generation - Outflow - Consumption = Accumulation. Thus, monitoring data can be used to show how a substance moves through or accumulates in the system.
· The Mass Balance Project is an effort to understanding atmospheric inputs of toxic chemicals for purposes of addressing the Clean Air Act Amendments, the Lake Michigan LaMP, and the Great Waters Project.
· There has been quite a bit of monitoring of air, water, and food web fate and transport for many of these toxics, which should allow for the mass balance study.
· The goal of the project is to establish a sound scientific base for making policy decisions regarding air toxics in the Lake Michigan Basin.
· Project objectives include: to establish loading rates by tributary and medium; to improve predictive ability; and to gain a better understanding of the cycling and bioavailability of contaminants.
· Some of the contaminants being studied as part of the project include: PCB cogeners, trans‑nonachlor, atrazine, and mercury.
· Monitoring is being conducted at survey stations on 11 tributaries, which were selected based on past knowledge of major inputs. Plans have been established for the monitoring effort, which include sampling during rain events since large amount of contaminants are washed into the tributaries at that time.
· Many near-shore and open-water stations have also been set up to monitor in-lake concentrations. Five of these stations are part of a food web study, which is monitoring the bioaccumulation of contaminants in different trophic levels. Several of the in-lake stations are also in areas of trout and salmon spawning.
· Some atmospheric monitoring stations have also been set up throughout the region. Also, sediment core sampling is being conducted.
· All of this work is being conducted with the support of USGS, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), various state agencies and universities.
· Currently, a large amount of data has been collected and passed through the quality assurance process. Models are now being developed. These will soon be able to support “what if” scenarios to help decisionmakers see the impacts of various policy options.
· Raw data is currently available for some contaminants (including mercury and some organics) in database format, but the user interface is not fully developed yet. It should be available in about six months. At that time, it should be available as an Oracle database on the Internet. The project will also produce data for a regulatory process.
Warren was asked if the project includes ice samples. He indicated that this was not a big concern because the lakes only freeze over once every 20 years. He also indicated that the public could find a methods compendium on the web.
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
Christine Urban and Todd Nettsheim from U.S. EPA presented a summary of a pilot project that is attempting to set TMDLs for air deposition. Highlights from this discussion appear below.
· The TMDL is the amount of a given substance that a water body can accept without impairing water quality standards.
· TMDLs were established in principle in section 303(b) of the Clean Water Act.
· TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS, where WLA = Waste Load Allocation (point sources), LA = Load Allocation (nonpoint sources) and MOS = Margin of Safety.
· 305(b) reports list water bodies not expected to meet water quality standards. These are updated every two years and the states set priorities for bringing the water bodies up to standards. The states create the lists of standards and impairments as well as develop and implement the TMDL. U.S. EPA reviews and approves the 305(b) reports and provides technical assistance to the states.
· U.S. EPA also facilitates multi-state processes and agreements applying to both pollution sources and interstate water bodies.
· Monitoring is necessary for three reasons: to determine if there is an impairment; to provide data for models; and to measure progress.
· Most of the standards are narrative — they relate to uses, but aren’t themselves measurable.
· The pilot project is looking into a potential TMDL for mercury air deposition.
· Several states have identified air deposition as a major source of water quality impairment. Mercury is a significant pollutant in this regard.
· U.S. EPA’s water and air offices are working in a joint effort to address the air deposition of mercury. The Office of Water works on the TMDL side, while the Office of Air works on residual risk.
· The goals of the project are to: 1) determine how U.S. EPA programs can best address this problem; 2) determine if sufficient tools exist to inform policy; 3) develop a TMDL for air sources; 4) determine the extent of air source contributions; and 5) suggest regulatory and non-regulatory tools for addressing the problem.
· There currently exists data from air and water monitoring as source characterization.
· Devil’s Lake, WI was selected as the pilot site because: 1) it is a lake with no major point or nonpoint sources on the land, yet there is a fish consumption advisory due to mercury; 2) there are several nearby air sources; 3) there was a food chain study conducted for mercury uptake in 1994-95; and 4) it provides a good opportunity for a regional approach.
· The pilot study approach is to combine both water and air models.
· Air Model: establishes sources, zones of influence, and potential control strategies. Monitoring data from nearby sites is used to calibrate and validate the models. Several sources of data were used.
· Water Model: links the air model to the TMDL. Determines what the impacts will be from various air reductions. Uses water column and limnological data, which mostly comes from the state of Wisconsin.
· Together the models are combined into a mercury cycling model.
· Status: 1999 workplan is in place along with a funding mechanism. The goal is to complete modeling work by the end of the summer. TMDLs are already being revised to account for early results.
· This project demonstrates an ability to create an air deposition TMDL, but it remains to be seen if the tools are adequate enough for other regions or if there are data gaps elsewhere which would create difficulties.
The presenters were asked to which standard the TMDL was set. Urban replied that the fish advisory standard was used most of the time, though there were other standards used in different scenarios.
Source Water Protection
Bill Spaulding, U.S. EPA, was asked to present the monitoring efforts being undertaken through U.S. EPA’s source water protection programs. Highlights from his presentation appear below.
· Most of the work through source water protection was originally called for in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
· The three major tasks to be accomplished through these programs are to: 1) identify drinking water sources; 2) calculating water quality at intakes; and 3) presenting this information to the public.
· They are currently working mostly to identify all potential drinking water sources.
· This information will be added to state assessments of Great Lakes intakes.
· They are also in the process of determining a process for assessing Great Lakes water intakes. A work group has been established to determine this process.
· The general protocol will be to first survey the drinking water system to inventory Great Lakes intakes; next interview water plant operators; and third determine if there are any major fluctuations in the quality of water intakes. If there are no fluctuations, then it can be determined that water quality impairments are not coming from local sources.
· The protocol is being implemented as a pilot project in three drinking water systems on Lake Michigan.
· In August, there will be a planning workgroup meeting to assess the results of the pilots. In October, the final report will be completed, and in November another workgroup meeting will be held, which may be open to the public.
· The project may eventually include U.S. EPA Regions 2 and 3, where there are Great Lakes intakes.
· After the pilot, they will continue to identify source water intakes, collect data for assessments, and make findings available to the public.
Following Spaulding’s presentation, he was asked from where the funding for public reporting is coming. He explained that the states are responsible for this reporting. Each state can use the state revolving loan fund ($4-5 million over five years) for assessments, mailings and Internet publishing.
Beck stated that now is the time to get beyond problems and begin talking about the status of the lake resource, including chemical and biological aspects. She mentioned that there will be an annual report on the state of the resource beginning in 2001.
State Monitoring Programs
Michigan
Gary Kohlhepp, on joint assignment with U.S. EPA and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), was asked to talk about monitoring programs at the state level. He explained that he would limit his comments to the recently-passed Clean Michigan Initiative (CMI) environmental bond proposal and how that will increase monitoring efforts in Michigan. Highlights from this presentation appear below.
· The CMI is a ballot proposal which passed in the last election. It sets up at $675 million bond for a suite of environmental and development projects in Michigan. Approximately half of the funds will be allocated to brownfields redevelopment projects.
· $90 million is set aside for a “Clean Water Fund.” Within this fund, half of the money will be allocated for monitoring —the “top priority.” A maximum of 3 percent of the funding can be used for administration.
· The monitoring will include several components. These include: fish contaminants, water chemistry, sediment chemistry, biological integrity/physical habitat, wildlife contamination, beaches, and volunteer monitoring. The approach and methodology will be overseen by a Citizens Advisory Group.
· Fish Contaminants: among the monitored components will be edible portion, fish trends, caged fish/mussel studies, and yellow perch trends.
· Water Chemistry: this component will include five-year basin sampling, trend monitoring, and tributary loadings. Stations will be located around the state. Stations will sample annually, biannually, or every five years. MDEQ is currently working to develop a complete strategy.
· Sediment Chemistry: this will also include five-year basin sampling along with trend monitoring and toxilogical testing.
· Biological Integrity/Physical Habitat: this will also include five-year basin sampling and trend monitoring.
· Wildlife Contamination: the species monitored will include the bald eagle, minks, herring, gulls, and the snapping turtle.
· Beaches: beaches with high swimming/bathing use will be monitoring for health-related contamination.
· Volunteer Monitoring: this will include volunteer coordination and grants to organizations. The focus will be on infrequent biological monitoring — a gap in the current monitoring regime.
Kohlhepp was asked if they had done a cost breakdown on the monitoring components. He responded that it was one of the things on which MDEQ was currently working.
Cleaves indicated that in Maryland, the legislature was working to pass bills for using oil and gas revenues for land and water conservation as well as impact assistance (which includes a monitoring component). The funding would total around $20 - 30 million.
Indiana
Kathy Luther, Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), was asked to report on monitoring efforts in Indiana. She explained that Indiana has established a set of fixed water quality stations that monitor conventional water quality indicators and also certain metals. The stations are used on a five-year rotational basis. There are approximately 2000 stations within the Great Lakes basin. Also, the state routinely monitors for fish health and contaminants, sediment contaminants, pesticides (newly added), and mobile E. coli (newly added).
On Lake Michigan, they also monitor drinking water intakes in three or four communities. Indiana has also established a Beach Closing Task Force to recommend a strategy for taking water samples at recreational areas. Also, Luther mentioned that IDEM has a new director, who seems to have a stronger commitment to Lake Michigan.
Illinois
Bob Schacht, Illinois EPA, was asked to talk about monitoring efforts in Illinois. He explained that there has been open-water monitoring near Chicago since the 1970s. There also is some special monitoring projects being conducted in association with the Waukegan Harbor Area of Concern/RAP. This data is sent annually to U.S. EPA’s Storage and Retrieval (STORET) system. The RAP also has a webpage which allows public access to the information. Fish monitoring also is conducted annually. Beach monitoring is not conducted by the state, but handled by local health departments. Finally, Schacht mentioned that the Waukegan Harbor RAP has moved into Stage III of the RAP process.
The state representatives were asked how much of the monitoring was conducted on inland waters, rather than near-shore or open-water. Kohlhepp answered that Michigan’s monitoring is conducted almost exclusively on inland waters.
LaMP Indicators
To finish the day, Beck briefly presented the work that has been done on the Lake Michigan LaMP indicators. Beck distributed two documents: 1) Lake Michigan LaMP Goals and 2) a matrix of Lake Michigan LaMP goals with beneficial use impairments (BUIs) and indicators. Beck briefly described these documents and reviewed the general status of BUIs in Lake Michigan. She submitted that all the indicators are included in the updated LaMP. She indicated that for most BUIs the lake is not wholly impaired all the time. More often the lake is impaired locally or regionally and the impairments occur as episodic events. Beck emphasized the process of moving from goals through indicators to monitoring. In order to determine when goals are achieved, one must measure positive change in measurable indicators, and this requires monitoring of these indicators. In the current Lake Michigan LaMP process, the Lake Team is working to establish new indicators. She finished the day with a general question about how to establish a strong public presence for the LMMCC. Gagler added that monitoring is a support function and not a goal in itself.
NAWQA and Lake Michigan Proposal
Peters began the second day of the meeting with a brief introduction to the National Water Quality Assessments (NAWQA) and two proposals for a Lake Michigan monitoring network. Highlights from this presentation appear below.
· NAWQA is a USGS program that seeks to examine the status, trends and cause-and-effect relationships for waterbodies throughout the country. This includes biological and chemical monitoring of both in-stream and groundwater monitoring.
· The program was originally designed to establish 60 study units, with 20 new units starting up in 1991, 1995, and 1998 each. This would cover 60-70 percent of U.S. waters.
· The design is to have each study unit start up with a three-year “high phase” of intensive monitoring, followed by a report and “low phase” of much less intensive monitoring.
· The western Lake Michigan drainages were a study site that began a high phase in 1991. This ended with a report in 1995. The high phase cost approximately $16 million.
· A problem is that funding has been running short since the beginning of the program. USGS has been forced to cut back on the number of high phase study units it operates. In 2001 — when western Lake Michigan is due to restart its high phase — the Lake Michigan study unit may be cut out of the process. Therefore, it is important to emphasize this study unit as an important part of the overall Lake Michigan monitoring framework.
· The Lake Michigan study unit is unique in that it is fairly pristine in the north, but has heavy farming use in the south.
· In order to sample sites within the Lake Michigan study unit, the research team created a set of homogenous units by overlaying land use, surface deposits and geology. Eleven sites were chosen to represent each of the eleven homogeneous sites, and three sites were selected as integrated sites which were downstream from several different homogenous sites. By examining each of these sites under base flow conditions, the team was able to determine that the sites selected were representative of the region.
Peters also distributed two proposals for coordinated networks for Lake Michigan monitoring based on the NAWQA design. The first proposal was for a surface water network, while the second was for a groundwater network. A third proposal was also distributed describing a coordinated network. Peters described these proposals as “straw men” to be used as a starting point for discussion.
Peters also mentioned that a database for the Lake Michigan NAWQA data was being established for the web by USGS and the Wisconsin DNR. Peters noted that reports on the Lake Michigan study unit and other NAWQA work was available on the web, but people could also contact him for hard copies.
Peters introduced the “working” part of the meeting. He explained that the goal was to leave the meeting with a strong starting point for the LMMCC mission, charter and a membership framework and list. He distributed a packet of materials which included draft mission statements, charters, operating procedures, and workgroup issues. The rest of the meeting consisted of discussion of the following topics: mission, charter, membership, procedures and workgroup issues.
Mission
Peters began the discussion of the mission by first asking if, after hearing all the presentations on monitoring programs, everyone still thought it was a good idea to develop a monitoring council for Lake Michigan. There was strong agreement by all present that a monitoring council was indeed needed.
It was suggested that a major problem was that almost all of the monitoring in the basin was occurring on land and there was a need to develop more in-lake monitoring.
Kohlhepp pointed out that the draft missions seemed to focus a bit too strongly on data. He thought draft mission B provided the best starting point, but that data sharing and public access aspects needed to be added. Judy Beck asked if data sharing was a recognized problem. Kohlhepp responded that the Michigan monitoring data was not publicly accessible at all. Gagler mentioned that U.S. EPA’s STORET system provides a fairly comprehensive database of monitoring information that is accessible. He suggested that what was needed was a data management activities summary—a description of who is doing what, when and where. He emphasized that the LMMCC should not be focused on the actual data, but metadata—the data describing specifics of a dataset. He claimed that a metadata clearinghouse with contact information and links to the data locations would be the most valuable service the LMMCC could provide.
Peters replied that he envisioned that the LMMCC would organize a set of core indicators and a common approach to data collection so that there would be a database of where critical and high quality data was being collected. Cleaves mentioned that many data generators (especially academics) are very possessive of their data. A virtual network of monitoring data is best because it saves electronic storage space and allows data to be developed independently. What is needed is a list of who owns the data and how to get to it. Beck agreed that what is needed is a road map to monitoring information because the vast number of users want specific information that is often difficult to find. She suggested that another important service would be to figure out the best way to turn data into useable information. Peters re-emphasized that a network of sites could be developed that listed data with a core set of criteria elements (e.g., methodology and quality standards).
Gagler specified that the LMMCC should be focused on data collectors rather than users. Users can decide for themselves what information they need and where they want to go and get it. Luther pointed out that there are different types of users of monitoring data. Both agencies and the general public need to be kept in mind.
Peters explained that STORET data included metadata. What is needed is an agreed-upon set of data standards. Sarah Lehmann, U.S. EPA, informed the group that the new STORET system was more user-friendly and did indeed include metadata. It includes data supplied by federal, state and tribal agencies.
Cleaves emphasized that monitoring is about more than just collecting data. The collector needs to interpret and assess as well as collect the data. He said that many basic collection activities support more than just their direct uses. The widespread use and value of these activities needs to be sold to funders. Beck agreed that it was important to understand where trend data exists and how to use it.
Peters directed the group back to discussing the specific mission of the LMMCC. This was followed by some discussion related to specific language in Peters’s draft missions. In the end the group agreed upon a mission which read generally as follows:
“The LMMCC will coordinate and support the implementation of a Lake Michigan Ecosystem Monitoring Strategy that will provide comparable data to be made available through the Internet and accessible across agency and jurisdictional boundaries.”
Gagler asked what the purpose of the coordination effort was. Luther reframed the question to ask if the LMMCC should be coming out with a plan or focus on coordination with what is currently going on. Peters stated that he thought the goal should be to match up the goals as much as possible to gain the greatest benefit. Cleaves stated that coordination and collaboration were both important. Peters thought the operative question was to ask how the data can best be used to improve the quality of the Lake Michigan resource.
Cleaves pointed out that most of the parties interested in the data would be interested in local watershed issues. Beck emphasized, though, that it was important to have a strong monitoring plan as part of the LaMP. The goals of the LaMP need to be coordinated with the goals of states and local organizations. Gagler asked if the LMMCC was just looking at the needs of the LaMP or if they were going beyond. Beck explained that both the LMMCC and LaMP were ecosystem based so there should not be any conflict. Lehmann suggested that the monitoring council be made part of the LaMP process. Beck explained that the LaMP carried baggage which may inhibit LMMCC progress.
It was finally agreed that the mission would be kept general and that Peters would incorporate the comments into a revised mission.
Charter
Peters presented three options for a LMMCC charter. Beck emphasized that the charter should signify the support for the organization so should be fleshed out to reflect the needs of all stakeholders. Luther indicated a preference for drafts A and B, but thought they should be more active.
Cleaves asked if the group really wanted to focus on all natural resources. Beck explained that the LaMP focuses broadly on natural resources, so that is where the LMMCC should be. Kohlhepp suggested that the group use a broad definition of water resources—one that would include forestry and wildlife. Beck emphasized that she did not want anyone to be excluded. All parties need to come together to see the big picture. Gagler commented that the group would need to show success early to gain momentum, and this would be difficult with such a broad focus. Beck suggested that the LMMCC could start with this broad focus and work incrementally on more specific aspects. Kohlhepp explained that if the group took the broad approach, they would then need to include at least two other groups from Michigan. He emphasized that it is a difficult task to try and be all things to all people. Rich Greenwood, jointly assigned to both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the U.S. EPA, explained that non-water agencies are already collecting information that would be useful to people interested in protecting Lake Michigan resources. Peters thought the group needed to decide. He said that he favored limiting the focus to water resources initially. Cleaves suggested the term aquatic resources. Beck explained that if it was limited to aquatic resources, there would be some agency personnel who would not even be allowed to attend the meetings. Also, what would the group do with air deposition? Doss suggested that the mission was inclusive enough to cover natural resources, but the charter should be more specific on what the group really wants to focus. Beck made the final point that the federal directors gave a clear directive to keep a broad focus, but she suggested the group continue to the membership discussion.
Membership
Peters suggested that the group refer to the MWMC membership framework and fit it to the desired organization of the LMMCC. It was emphasized that anyone would be able to participate as a member of the general LMMCC body, but the Board of Directors should have a smaller, fixed organization. It was agreed that there should be about 15 board members with 15 alternates, but a much wider participation in workgroups. Through discussion, the group settled on the following organization:
(4) State agencies—one representative each from the states of Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin;
(4) Federal agencies—rotating representation from U.S. EPA Region 5, GLNPO, USGS, FWS, NOAA, the Corps of Engineers, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service;
(2) Tribal representatives—one each from Michigan and Wisconsin;
(2) Consultants or industry (possibly including the Council of Great Lakes Industries);
(2) Local volunteer or environmental groups;
(3) Universities, Sea Grants, or Water Research Institutes;
(1) Lake Michigan LaMP Forum representative;
(?) At-large members.
It was agreed that one state representative and one federal representative would each be elected to jointly chair the council. The states would rotate responsibility for chairing the council. The board members themselves would be elected by the general LMMCC body. It was also agreed that the Great Lakes Commission staff would serve as executive secretary, provided appropriate funding is established.
A discussion of potential membership followed. Cleaves emphasized that it would be important to get state participation for the council to be credible and functional. Peters agreed, stating that they would have to do something to get Wisconsin involved. Luther also agreed, saying that it was very important that the states have strong input and authority in the council. Cleaves suggested subgroup meetings with state representatives to determine the level of interest. Gagler suggested that monitoring councils simply be established in each state and then give them representation on lake project teams. Beck replied that there would still be a problem of unmatched data formats. Cleaves thought that state groups may form on their own. He also emphasized that the group should be looking for a wide variety of viewpoints—the local view should be included.
Other specific groups that were mentioned included: state associations of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Purdue’s Conservation Technology Information Center, Resource Conservation Districts, [COMMENT1]SWRPAC, NIPSI, other local associations, utility operators, National Association of Utility Operators, wastewater treatment plant organizations, and land use/GIS organizations.
Procedures
Meetings: It was agreed that the Board of Directors would meet a minimum of twice per year, and the workgroups would meet as needed.
Steering Committee: This committee would include U.S. EPA, USGS, states, GLC and whoever else would be interested. The purpose of this committee would be to keep things moving forward.
Consensus/Quorum: It was agreed that the council would generally try to decide by consensus, but they need to establish a voting protocol for back up.
Finances/Funding/Commitment: Doss explained that the GLC would need baseline funding support, but it could use the council to leverage other funds for specific projects or functions. Doss agreed to write up a summary for how this works an Aquatic Nuisance Species council that GLC helps manage.
Workgroups
Peters suggested that the group focus on the number of workgroups, who would participate and how the workgroups would be organized. He referred to three organizational approaches that he had listed on the packet he distributed earlier: issues based, discipline based and resource based approaches. Doss informed the group that the ANS council formed three workgroups: policy and legislation, information and education, and research coordination. Tom Crane, GLC, clarified this further stating that those workgroups cover specific topics to help support other functions of the overall group.
Beck suggested that, with public involvement, they would rather see a resource based approach. Kohlhepp favored either a resource or issue based approach from the state point of view. Ric Lawson, GLC, suggested that the two approaches might not be mutually exclusive. A mixture of approaches might better suit the needs of the group. Luther also saw the benefit of a mixed approach. There was general agreement that a resource based approach would be better, because members could relate better to the physical resources rather than conceptual ideas.
Some of potential workgroup issues were discussed briefly, but it was generally agreed that these issues covered the full range of monitoring issues. Cleaves suggested that the council remember to let the workgroups decide for themselves how they would focus their work. The council should define a general charge and establish timelines, but then let the workgroups go.
It was decided that Peters would refine the workgroup definitions based on the meeting suggestions.
LaMP Goals
Beck explained that there is a group within the LaMP, led by Peters, to move monitoring issues into state agencies through the LaMP process. The LMMCC could essentially take over for this LaMP committee. Up to this point that LaMP committee has received limited attention. It is important that commitment come from the top management levels in the states. Peters agreed that the council needs the commitment from these key players. Beck concluded by stating that there are program linkage opportunities such as [COMMENT2]EMPACT, and potentially others in different agencies.
Peters thanked everyone for attending and said that he was optimistic about the potential for the success of the LMMCC. Beck specifically thanked Dr. Cleaves for his time and input.
It was agreed that GLC would produce a meeting summary and mail this out to participants along with any other necessary materials. It was suggested that the next meeting be scheduled around the International Joint Commission’s meeting in September in Milwaukee. Peters agreed to send out revised versions of the mission, charter, and workgroup organization. He will accept comments and then revise them into a final draft.
The first meeting of the Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordination Council was adjourned at 12:00 Noon.
|
Name and Affiliation
Judy Beck, U.S. EPA, Region 5 Charlie Peters, U.S. Geological Survey Emery Cleaves, Maryland Water Monitoring Council Bob Schacht, Illinois EPA Gary Kohlhepp, U.S. EPA/Michigan DEQ Paul Horvatin, U.S. EPA, GLNPO Danielle Tillman, U.S. EPA, Region 5 Sarah Lehmann, U.S. EPA, Region 5 Rich Greenwood, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/U.S. EPA, GLNPO Jim Snitgen, Oneida Tribe Melissa Schmitz, Oneida Tribe Jeff Gagler, U.S. EPA, Region 5 Joan Cavaletto, NOAA, Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab Percy Magee, Natural Resource Conservation Service Kathy Luther, Illinois DEM Glenn Warren, U.S. EPA, Region 5 Bill Spaulding, U.S. EPA, Region 5 Tom Brody, U.S. EPA, Region 5 Jonathan Barney, U.S. EPA, Region 5 Tom Crane, Great Lakes Commission Matt Doss, Great Lakes Commission Ric Lawson, Great Lakes Commission |
|
Telephone Number
312-353-3849 608-821-3810 410-554-5503 708-338‑7900 517-335-1289 312-353-3612 312-886-6056 312-353-4328 312-886-3853 920-497-5812 920-497-5812 312-886-6679 734-741-2356 419-245-2514 219-881-6730 312-886-2405 312-886-9262 312-353-8340 312-886-6102 734-665-9135 734-665-9135 734-665-9135 |
|
|
|
|