Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team Meeting Minutes

The meeting of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team (GLBE Team) was convened at 8:00 am (CDT) on November 4 at the Brown County Library in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Doug Spencer (Team Leader) opened the meeting with a welcome to participants. He referenced Region 3's Monday morning staff meeting that includes ecosystem team leaders - Doug requested Team members to provide him with input, which he will take to these meetings. He also mentioned that he and Tom Busiahn gave an overview of the GLBE Team at the Refuge Conference in a formal 15-minute presentation, as well as a poster display - their presentation was well-received. Doug reminded the Team of activities associated with the Environmental Roundtable, which includes six focus areas throughout the Great Lakes. Although this is primarily a Federal agency exercise related closely to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) for now, other stakeholders will be brought in over time. Doug also mentioned the American Heritage Rivers designation of the Detroit River and activities related to Humbug Marsh. Finally, Doug welcomed Horicon NWR, represented by Patti Meyers, to the Team.

After introductions of meeting participants, Bob Krska (Team Facilitator) reviewed the purposes and desired outcomes of the meeting and the agenda - several items were added before the Team approved the agenda. He also thanked Janet Smith and those who assisted her in arranging for the hotel and meeting room.

John opened with a summary of the Refuge Conference, which was attended by 600 participants, underscoring the positive light in which Doug and Tom portrayed the GLBE Team in their presentation. John presented a quick overview of Region 3's Regional Resource Conservation Priorities, mentioning that the priorities are species-based. The draft priority document is currently out for comment by the field and Regional Offices. John also provided an overview of Region 3's diversity initiative, which stresses development of relationships; ongoing stabilization-related activities; and the FY1999 budget. John stated that the Ecological Services and Endangered Species budget is up $30 million, with $20 million designated for the State of Washington. Other increases were noted for refuges (up $18 million), Private Lands activities associated with the Clean Water Action plan (up $3 million). In addition, $1 million has been provided for purchase of Howard Farms in Ohio, $200,000 for Darby NWR planning, and $650,000 for acquisition of property and planning related to the Whittlesey Creek NWR.

John acknowledged some the Team's accomplishments, including reauthorization of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act, though no funding has yet been appropriated; the impending finalization of the Saginaw Bay Natural Resources Damage Assessment; establishment of Whittlesey Creek NWR; establishment of the Great Lakes Fisheries Trust; Marsh Creek restoration with USGS-BRD; funding for restoration activities provided through Law Enforcement's actions; and display of the Team's Service and ecosystem message at the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference '98 (SOLEC98) in Buffalo and at the Outdoor-ama event in Michigan.

John concluded his comments with identification of some opportunities. John referenced the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act, the Environmental Roundtable, reintroduction of the whooping crane in Region 3, aquatic nuisance species, and funding opportunities provided through US EPA and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

Tony announced for those who have not yet heard that Sherry Morgan has been named the Geographic Assistant Regional Director in Region 5 responsible for the GLBE Team. He also mentioned that the Region 5 program supervisor positions have been reopened. With respect to the budget, Tony pointed out that $10 million of the $18 million refuge increase is for operations with the remainder for maintenance. Land and Water Conservation funding is down for FY1999; the Service needs to do better on partnering. He mentioned that there remains little support for providing ecosystem teams with funding other than through base, though his belief is that the GARDs need a pot of money to support their teams; "kitty" funding is not the answer. Tony referenced Region 5's priorities, which include supporting ecosystem teams, strengthening the refuge program, education, aquatic waterways, participating in designated American Heritage Rivers and in the Clean Water Action plan, and supporting declining species. Tony concluded with a discussion of the SCEP program and diversity outreach - SCEPs need to be exposed to a variety of experiences.

Bob and Tony presented an overview of the Service's Implementation Team, which is comprised of representatives of all regions and the Washington Office and represents a diagonal slice through the Service's organization. The Directorate established this Team to identify barriers to implementation of the Service's Ecosystem Approach and to make appropriate recommendations. At its last meeting, the Implementation Team recommended to the Director that she address employees' concerns regarding the impact of the stabilization on the field, which resulted in production of a video that has been circulated widely throughout the Service. The Team is currently developing guidance regarding the roles and responsibilities of ecosystem teams. A Budget Team and a Washington Office Involvement Team are also meeting concurrently. Bob pointed out that the Washington Office Team had developed a preliminary list of recommendations - the Team requested that he forward this list to Team members for review and comment.

The Team expressed concern that the Team's recommended guidance may be finalized without an opportunity for ecosystem teams to review and comment on it. Accordingly, the Team directed Bob and Doug to prepare a memo to the Implementation Team requesting an opportunity to review any guidance that may be developed by the Implementation Team. Both Bob and Tony offered to take Team members comments and/or recommendations to the Implementation Team.

Bob provided an overview of Region 3's Regional Resource Conservation Priorities (RRCPs). The priorities represent a list of 161 Federal trust species that require the Service's utmost attention in Region 3. For each priority species, several data fields are provided in the priority matrices. These fields identify the appropriate Service ecosystem in which the species occurs, its habitats, concerns, intended outcomes, obstacles, and strategies. Although this a species-by-species listing, the matrices are intended to be analyzed across species so that species communities may be addressed on a broader landscape scale. The intended purposes of the priority list are to help the field prioritize its workload, identify research and training needs, develop refuge comprehensive conservation plans, and develop budget packages.

The Regional priority list grew out of the Regional Director's request for Region 3 to develop its own GPRA plan. After meeting internally and with one of Region 3's ecosystem teams, the cross-program team of Regional employees from both the field and Regional Office assembled to develop the GPRA plan recognized the need to first develop Regional resource priorities. The Regional Resource Conservation Priorities represent the result of this team's efforts, which has been endorsed by the Regional Management Team. The priorities are being circulated for comment by ecosystem teams and RO program staff; the deadline for comments is November 13. Bob encouraged the Team to review the priorities and provide comments through Doug. [Note: the deadline was extended on November 16 to Friday, December 11]

Bob reviewed the list of action items developed at the June meeting. With a few exceptions, actions committed to were completed.

Doug reported on activities of the ExCom, which convened two conference calls since the last meeting: August 4 and September 29. Among the items addressed during these calls included and overview of the focus areas developed through the Environmental Roundtable effort; participation of outside entities at Team meetings, as requested at the June Team meeting (the ExCom decided that outside entities would not be invited to Team meetings routinely given that the size of meetings would become excessive; however, representatives of USGS-BRD would be invited to all subsequent meetings and representatives of agencies/organizations in the vicinity of Team meeting locations would be invited to present information on pertinent activities, programs, initiatives, etc.); planning the display of the Team's ecosystem display at SOLEC98; and development of the Team's FY1999 Work Activity Guidance.

Tracy Hill reported on activities of this committee on behalf of Jerry McClain who could not attend the meeting. Tracy described some of the activities this committee is pursuing actively, including development of a lake sturgeon database, compiling information on lake sturgeon genetics, verification of a Habitat Suitability Index developed by Ontario Hydro, development of a lake sturgeon web site, inventory of Great Lakes tributaries that provide sturgeon habitat and that are blocked by dams, compilation of contaminants data, and identification of criteria relative to listing the sturgeon under the Endangered Species Act.

Ken Stromborg provided an update on activities being pursued by this committee through funding provided by the Team's kitty last year. These activities include development of outreach materials, which includes a fact sheet that addresses cormorants basin-wide as well as fact sheets developed for specific locations within the Great Lakes; studies to determine foraging distances (radio telemetry) and food habits; and assessment of the status of the cormorant. Brief discussion that ensued raised the issue that we must beware to not allow politics to overrule the science. A point was made that little information to suggest that cormorants impact fisheries significantly exists. Others pointed out that there are obvious impacts of cormorants on some bird populations that nest in rookeries.

Jim Hudgins announced that Joan Guilfoyle, Committee Co-chair, could not participate in the meeting. Jim distributed photocopies of photographs of the Team's Great Lakes display taken at several of the venues. Jim mentioned that his office has acquired laminating capability for legal- or letter-sized paper through the $1,000 provided from the Team's kitty last year. He described efforts to standardize text blocks that are being used in the Team's display and requested Team members to send him suggested language for inclusion in the blocks. Jim was unable to contact the Basin Team Leaders as he had proposed at the June meeting; however, Jim committed to doing so within 30 days to solicit their outreach needs.

Tracy reported on progress that has been made so far and displayed from his laptop an overview of the web site's structure. He pointed out that this site is intended to be open to all interested in lake sturgeon work throughout the Great Lakes; however, until the web site is up and running, it is being restricted to information generated by the Service.

Bob Lumadue reported that despite the fact that funding had been reduced from the original amount of $5,000, he was able to acquire two night surveillance units, which are being put to use.

Reported previously in committee reports

Doug reported on some of the activities ongoing in this focus area, including those related to designation as an Environmental Roundtable focus area, and designation of the Detroit River as an American Heritage River.

Tom reported on activities related to coaster brook trout restoration, including conducting a fish habitat survey.

Tom reported that Lake Superior provides coastal wetlands in significant acreage and of good quality. Funding through the North American Wetland Conservation Act is being pursued for acquisition and restoration.

Tracy reported that the impending settlement under the Natural Resource Damage Assessment may provide funding for fishery related projects.

Dave Warburton reported that the Corps of Engineers is still in the process of developing a 20-year plan for dredge material management. He pointed out that this area supports a number of Service resource priority species and, accordingly, should perhaps be designated a priority area for the Service in Lake Superior. Dave inquired what the Service can do in this area - several project leaders that have Service responsibilities in this area (Ashland FRO, GBFO, and TCFO) agreed to convene a meeting to address this matter in more detail.

Tom Jasikoff reported that substantial effort is being put into matters related to the cormorant, including development of a video and the previously mentioned fact sheets. He said that law enforcement efforts related to the killing of cormorants on Little Galloo Island in Lake Ontario are underway. He also mentioned activities related to ongoing lake sturgeon work. Tom concluded with Region 5 expressing the intent to identify a couple Focus Areas in the Region 5 portion of the ecosystem and to develop focus area profiles for these areas, which will be presented at the Team's next meeting.

Given the length of the status reports, this item was bumped until Thursday morning - see below.

After lunch, Dave Pederson and Rich Greenwood provided an overview of the Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act program. This Act allocates 18 percent of the Sport Fish Restoration Account (excise tax on fishing equipment, motor boat and small engine fuels) to fund three programs: 1) 70 percent to Louisiana coastal wetlands restoration; 2) 15 percent to the North American Wetlands Conservation Act; and, 3) 15 percent to national coastal wetland conservation grants to states. Almost $10 million was awarded to the states for coastal wetland projects in FY 1998; Dave believes the amount will exceed $10 million in future years. Eligible projects include those that would acquire, restore, enhance, or manage coastal wetlands. Eligible participants include any agency designated by a governor in those states bordering the Great Lakes. The Federal match is up to 50 percent of total project costs or up to 75 percent if a coastal state has established a trust fund, from which the principal is not spent, for the purpose of acquiring coastal wetlands. Dave distributed a handout describing the program, the grant proposal narrative, grant selection criteria, and coastal wetland grant contacts in Region 3's Federal Aid.

Dave pointed out that, although Region 3 states have been awarded some grants in the past, Region 3 is not faring well in this program relative to other coastal states. Rich expressed his belief that the Service should develop a strategy for encouraging greater and more successful participation by Great Lakes states. It was pointed out that this program is not restricted to Region 3 states - Region 5 Great Lakes states may also participate in this program.

Charlie Verhoven of Wisconsin DNR (Green Bay) presented an overview of the DNR's ecosystem approach and associated reorganization. He stated that the bases for the DNR's approach, which is organized around watersheds (21 Geographic Management Units across the state), are people-pressures and politics. The DNR realized it needs to work with others to get the job done and is stressing partnerships. Charlie explained that the DNR wants projects to bubble up from partners and later provided several examples of ongoing projects, e.g., West Branch Shioc River, Rush Lake, Menominee River. A component of the DNR's approach is establishment of service centers (gateways to the DNR) to reflect the DNR's renewed focus on its customers. While some within the agency would like to return to the "good old days," Charlie pointed out that "...you can't make sausage in reverse to make a pig!"

Charlie shared what the DNR has learned from its experience so far: 1) local partners are instrumental; 2) flexibility and adaptability are virtues; 3) integrated projects bring teams together; 4) when starting out, one should undertake those projects that will likely succeed; 5) plan ahead; 6) a little cash is valuable to jump-start projects and bring teams together; and, 7) technical assistance is valuable. Partners are recognized as a strong voice that may help equalize political influence of opposing special interests. The private sector can help move projects forward more quickly than agencies because that are not burdened by bureaucracy.

Charlie identified some opportunities for collaboration with respect to the DNR's new approach, including GMU partnerships, university extension, and integrating Federal programs of the Service, EPA, US Department of Agriculture, and Corps of Engineers. He concluded by explaining that the DNR's next step includes going through another round of Integrated Environmental Management projects requiring one integrated land-water project per GMU.

Bruce Swanson of the DNR (Park Falls) provided an overview of the DNR's "Northern Initiatives." The northern portion of the state (20 northern counties) contains a significant percentage of the state's lakes, wetlands, and stream miles. This area supports 48 percent of the state's recreational properties, as well as significant timber-lands. The DNR's Secretary George Meyers directed the DNR to conduct "listening sessions" at which DNR staff sought out concerns of the public (from about 1,000 people) concerning northern Wisconsin. People from the northern part of the state expressed concerns for the change in the pace of life (for the worse), shoreline development, mining, and land use. Bruce stated that in northern Wisconsin, which remains in a fairly undeveloped state relative to the rest of the state, protection is more cost effective then later having to come back and restore developed areas.

A group to address this area's needs was formed and identified four aspects to protecting wild lakes and shorelines: 1) technical assistance; 2) education; 3) voluntary conservation; and, 4) acquisition. This group decided to focus its initial efforts on education, which is an area of the state in which the DNR would like the Service's assistance. Northern Wisconsin has 11 percent of the state's population but supports 48 percent of the recreation. Of the area's 15 thousand miles of shoreline on its 12,400 lakes, only 3,000 miles are in public ownership, and few lakes of 50 to 200 acres are protected. Since the 1960s, about two-thirds of previously undeveloped lakes 10 acres or larger have been developed. All undeveloped lakes not in public ownership could be developed within the next 20 years; it is estimated that $9 to 30 billion worth of shoreline development potential remains. It is believe that wild shoreline is the most critically impacted habitat in the state. He said the DNR has already used Region 3's Regional Resource Conservation Priorities in ranking rivers for protection (the DNR was briefed on the priorities on October 30 in the Regional Office).

Bruce concluded by stating that the DNR would like to collaborate with the Service in these initiatives. He stressed the DNR has done significant outreach with stakeholders, so agencies that would like to collaborate do not need to invest significant time and effort in this step. Janet Smith, Bob Krska, and Tom Busiahn are planning a meeting with the DNR after the first of the year to discuss the Northern Initiatives.

DNR materials distributed:

• "A decision model for ecosystem management: "Wisconsin's biodiversity as a Management Issue"
• "Northern Initiatives: A strategic guide for DNR management in Northern Wisconsin in the next decade"
  
• "Northern Initiatives: Lakes and shorelands - Strategies and goals for protecting Northern lakes, rivers, and shorelands
  
• "Northern Wisconsin's lakes and shorelands: a report examining a resource under pressure" (January 1996)
  
• "Integrated ecosystem management (IEM) project summaries, 1997-1998" (September 1997)
  
• Video entitled, "The Living Shore: Best Management Practices for Shoreland Vegetation" (17 minutes)
  

Mark provided an overview of the history of Lake Michigan fish communities, the current situation, and future challenges. Commercial exploitation of Lake Michigan, which is the most productive of the Great Lakes relative to salmonids, began in the mid-1800s. Smelt entered the Lake in 1912, followed by introduction of the sea lamprey in 1936. The surrounding states initiated stocking of coho and chinook salmon (non-native to the Great Lakes) in the mid-1970s, which did well, initially, because of an abundant pelagic prey fish - the alewife. Chinooks dominated salmonid the harvest in the 1970s and 1980s, which were the"hay days" for the salmon, yellow perch, and burbot fisheries. The chinook fishery collapsed in the late 1980s/early 1990s; a symptom of the decrease was the die-off resulting from infection with Bacterial Kidney Disease. The yellow perch population crashed in the mid-1960s, though it recovered in the early 1980s in the southern portion of the lake because of the decline of the alewife population. The decline of the non-native alewife, which was dramatic in the mid-1960s, has benefitted inshore native species, such as yellow perch and burbot. Bloaters began to dominate the prey base in the mid-1980s. The alewife has changed the structure of the zooplankton community.

Mark pointed out that there is no clear relationship between stocking and harvest rates. Initially, it appeared that the more salmonids stocked, the greater the harvest. With respect to chinooks, this species appears to be limited primarily by availability of the alewife. The chinook salmon has been feeding more on larger prey in the mid-1990s than in the mid-1980s. The substantial natural reproduction of chinook (20 to 48 percent) and steelhead trout that has been documented underscores the fact that reducing stocking rates of chinooks, which is the dominant species as far as alewife population control, to reduce the alewife population for the benefit of many native species will not be effective. There is a proposal to reduce chinook stocking rates by 40 percent from existing levels. Mark suggests that the Service should favor natural reproduction of salmon, as opposed to maintaining stocks through stocking, and maintain involvement in the fish community as a whole. He said that a sustainable fishery would decrease stresses to existing species.

Bob provided an overview of the status of the Team's research need identification process. The Team decided at its June meeting to identify research needs that support the Team plan's goals and objectives before this meeting. Bob received input from only six field stations, which was collated and organized by plan goal and distributed via cc:mail before the meeting - he passed out a hard copy of the list. The purpose of this agenda item is to determine where the Team wishes to go with research needs identification.

Nancy Milton, the new Director of the Great Lakes Science Center (Center), provided a brief status report of the Center and distributed a hand-out entitled "Great Lakes Science Center: Providing science for sound management" and "U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes Science Center Publications, 1993-1998." Nancy indicated that research products are being posted on the web to provide greater access to research findings. She stated that the Center will have a research vessel on each lake before long - a new vessel will be available for Lake Superior; she is requesting suggestions for names - although vessels have historically been named after Great Lakes fish species, she will not consider the name "The Bloater!"

Nancy mentioned that funding provided through the Great Lakes Initiative provides money for fish and habitat restoration through FY1999 and beyond. She mentioned that increases in funding are available for work on oak-savanna issues. BRD is interested in characterizing the bottom habitat of the Great Lakes, particularly in critical areas, which include northern Lake Michigan, Detroit River, and Lake St. Clair, with the potential for work in all of the lakes perhaps as soon as FY2000. She expressed the desire to develop a research proposal addressing the contaminant/genetics issues associated with restoration of lake sturgeon and to leverage it with internal (Departmental) and external sources. Nancy mentioned that the Tunnison Fish Lab has been transferred to the Center, which brings that lab's estuarine, fish nutrition, and other capabilities with it. Currently, the Center has three researchers on each of Lakes Michigan and Huron and wants to add a researcher on Lake Superior in Ashland, Wisconsin (the port of the new research vessel); the goal is to have 3 on each lake.

With respect to the "big picture" research needs process, Nancy stated that the Bureau Information Needs (BIN) process has not worked well because of inadequate interaction among research and their research customers. She believe that the best interactions are at the individual, working levels. However, a value of the BIN process has been identifying Departmental research priorities. For FY2001, bureau heads will meet and identify Departmental priorities for large-scale projects - she suggested that the Service can help push this effort and help it succeed. Regarding the Species at Risk research program, Nancy speculated that a letter of support from this Team through the Service's Regional Director to BRD's new Regional Director would help. John Christian mentioned several areas he would like to see the Center move into/maintain, e.g., wetland/upland issues, Natural Resource Damage Assessment, contaminant issues associated with lake sturgeon restoration, and maintenance of fish stock assessments. Mike Tansy raised a need for research involvement in addressing work on recreational and visitation impacts on Service lands. Nancy pointed out that BRD can help identify where to find a particular research capability if it does not have it itself.

Kofi provided his perspective on the ecosystem approach, which he believes is pertinent as the Team deliberates on how to address its research needs. In his computerized presentation entitled, "Great Lakes - Mission Impossible?," he identified some of the stressors affecting the Great Lakes, including chemical, physical, and biological stresses. In Lake Ontario, Dieter Busch has calculated that this ecosystem is functioning at 42 percent of its capacity. He pointed out that multi-species work is "harder than rocket science" and requires a multi-disciplinary approach, good communication and coordination, research, modeling, and validation of models.

Discussion of the topic of research needs was continued. There was much spirited discussion about this issue, particularly the relationship between research needs of individual field stations and research needs of the Team. John Christian pointed out that this is a valuable exercise that will be useful when BRD or others request research needs. He also mentioned that he has directed Bob to serve as the Team's Regional research contact who will represent the Team in research-related activities at the Regional Office level. Tom Busiahn developed a pictorial model of the research needs identification process, which proved helpful. It consisted of a bucket that contains all of the Team's and individual field station's research needs; at the bottom of the bucket is a funnel that consists of several filters. The filters are the Team's resource priorities, i.e., lake sturgeon restoration, cormorants, and migratory birds, and each of the Team's Focus Areas. The Team's research need priorities are those that support the Team's agreed-upon priorities (sturgeon, cormorants, migratory birds, and focus areas); these needs will be marketed and advocated as the Team's needs in appropriate venues. However, the overall pool of all research needs will be useful in responding to requests for research that may come along. Individual project leaders will continue to advocate for their station's research needs.

After reaching consensus on how the Team defines its research needs, a process to identify needs was developed. The Team directed Bob to solicit from all Team members a list of their research needs. The needs will consist of short statements (a sentence or two) and will reference the appropriate Team plan's goal. Those who wish to identify research needs will do so within 30 days. Bob will then compile all research needs received and distribute them to all Team members with a note to Basin Team Leaders and Resource Committee Chairs to, in turn, convene appropriate meetings/conference calls within 30 days to identify research needs pertinent to the Focus Areas and Committees. These needs will be developed into an expanded format that is more descriptive and comprehensive. The ExCom will develop the format for the expanded research needs description.

Bob led a discussion of this agenda item, which was bumped from yesterday. The Team agreed to continue with the Focus Area concept, which includes specific, geographical areas as well as basin-wide issues. Region 5 representatives indicated that they will be identifying Focus Areas and developing Focus Area profiles for the Region 5 portion of the ecosystem. The Team also decided to continue with the Basin Team framework.

Mike Tansy recommended to the Team that it establish a Migratory Bird Committee. He handed out a couple documents ("Region 3 Priorities for Nongame Bird Conservation Proposals - 6/98" and a copy of a September 4, 1998, memorandum from Dave Ewert concerning Ecoregion planning for birds), and identified the importance of migratory birds in this ecosystem and opportunities for working together in a committee framework. After little discussion, the Team quickly agreed to establish a Migratory Bird Committee. As was done when the Lake Sturgeon and Cormorant Committees were established, Mike volunteered to lead a core group to flesh out the new Committee's function and form. The following individuals either volunteered or were volunteered to work with Mike in organizing the Committee: Janet, Patti, Doug, Tom Jasikoff, Maureen Gallagher, Jim Hudgins, Fred Caslick, and Steve Lewis.

Rich and Dave Pederson raised the need for the Team to identify important coastal wetland areas that could help encourage the Great Lakes States to become more competitive in the Coastal Wetland Grant program. Rich recommended that a Committee be established to carry this out. Bob suggested that the Basin Teams may be a tool for gathering this information without having to establish a full committee for this essentially one-time activity. The Team agreed that Rich would lead the effort to identify important coastal wetlands by preparing a memorandum within 2 weeks to Basin Team Leaders requesting their assistance. The memo would state that Rich will set up a conference call within 30 days among the Basin Team Leaders to address this matter in more detail.

Jim Hudgins led a discussion on the issue of outreach. After some discussion the Team agreed with the value of acquiring a single 10-foot modular display that would be devoted to use by the Team. Jim explained that the 40-foot display, which has been used very effectively in several venues since its inception a couple years ago, requires much effort to transport, set up, and disassemble. In addition, the Team has had to borrow displays from those field stations that own them to set up the 40-foot display - wear and tear are taking their toll - the Team does not want to wear out its welcome. The Team agreed to acquire a single 10-foot display unit that will be used by the Team to convey its Service/ecosystem message. In addition, an outreach display group was formed to assist with developing this display. Jim will lead this group; other members who volunteered or were volunteered include Joan Guilfoyle, Dave Pederson, Becky Goche, Fred Caslick, Denny Lavis, Carmen UrferParkes, and Kim Kamke. Jim will convene a planning conference call within 30 days.

Rich Urbanek (Seney NWR) provided an overview of the status of whooping crane recovery efforts in North America. He began with an overview of sandhill crane work that has been conducted at Seney (isolation rearing), explaining that this program has been successful with respect to survival and returns. Sandhills are now breeding in the wild at Seney. Rich stated that with whooping cranes, the problem with restoration efforts is getting birds to their selected wintering grounds - this issue is being addressed by training whooper to follow ultra-light aircraft to their wintering grounds. The whooping crane recovery team wants to establish another migratory population east of the existing Wood-Buffalo population but that is isolated from the existing population (to minimize the spread of disease and other reasons). For this eastern population, a wintering area at Chassahowitzka NWR (northern gulf coast of Florida) has been selected. Phase 1 of this reintroduction would establish a breeding population in Wisconsin; currently, three potential sites (Crex Meadows State Wildlife Area, central glacial sites, and Horicon NWR) are being evaluated for suitability. Phase 2 would extend this population into Manitoba.

Rich concluded with two recommendations. First, he recommended that the Team formally endorse the reintroduction of the whooper in Region 3. The second recommendation was for the whooper to be added to Region 3's Regional Resource Conservation Priorities list. There was much discussion about these recommendations. Some viewed endorsement by the GLBE Team as a "no brainer" while others believe that there should be a clear connection between crane reintroduction and this particular ecosystem team. The Team eventually agreed that a memorandum from the Team to Region 3's Regional Director expressing the Team's support for conducting the breeding habitat evaluation and, if the results are favorable, for the reintroduction itself. The memo will be prepared by Rich Urbanek and Mike Tansy, will be forwarded to Janet for review, and then forwarded to Doug, who will sign the memo and forward it to the RD on behalf of the Team.

With respect to Rich's recommendation to add this species to Region 3's list of RRCPs, Bob pointed out that there is an opportunity for the Team to include this recommendation in the Team's comments on the RCCPs, which are currently out for review by the ecosystem teams and Regional Office until November 13 [since extended until December 11]. This recommendation will be considered by the RCCP planning group in Region 3.

Bob distributed copies of the revised ecosystem map, which provides a listing of all project leaders of member stations on the back side - this map was developed for the SOLEC98 conference.

Bob distributed copies of the Team's FY1999 Work Activity Guidance, which was developed at the Region 3 RD's direction, for the Team's information. The Work Plan was developed in October by Bob with assistance of the Executive Committee.

Bob also distributed a copy of the Team's revised FY 1999/2000 Biennial Work Plan. He has included in the Plan all specific actions identified so far by the Team's Sturgeon and Cormorant Committees. He will add other specific actions as they are developed by the Team's Committees and for the Focus Areas.

Dave Pederson volunteered to work with the Lake Sturgeon and Cormorant Committees to assess the possibility of providing support to activities of these Committees through the Federal Aid program (Administrative Funds).

The Team discussed its interest in continuing the kitty in FY 1999, which has been used to fund several projects being pursued by the Team. With little discussion, the Team agreed to continue the kitty in FY 1999. As the Department had just received its FY 1999 budget, the Team agreed that it was premature to entertain contributions to the kitty at this meeting. The Team decided that members will identify their contribution to the kitty at the next Team meeting. In addition, Committees and Focus Areas were directed to identify projects for consideration at the next meeting, as well.

The Team scheduled the next meeting for March 2 and 3, 1999, in Ann Arbor, Michigan, as these dates and location were acceptable to most Team members. Although there is interest in having Region 5 host a Team meeting, Region 5 participants agreed that it would be best to do so for the Team's summer meeting given typically snowy travel conditions in the New England area. There was considerable discussion of when the meeting should begin - some argued for starting at noon and continuing until 5:00 pm the following day. Others argued that regardless of when the meeting is scheduled, some participants will need to leave early to travel. Because no consensus could be reached, the meeting will begin at 8:00 am on the first day and conclude by noon on the second, as has been done for previous meetings. Bob Lumadue and Nancy/Guy offered to work together to arrange the meeting location and accommodations. It was suggested that a tour of the Great Lakes Science Center might be arranged either before or after the meeting for those who are interested.

Bob summarized the decisions reached by the Team during the meeting (from the flip charts and meeting notes):

• Bob will forward to all Team members for their review the e-mail message from the Washington Office Involvement Team, which outlines that Team's preliminary list of recommendations for integrating the WO with the Ecosystem Approach

• Bob and Doug will develop a memo to the National Implementation Team that expresses the Team's request for an opportunity to review draft products of that group before any guidance is finalized

• Jim Hudgins will contact Basin Team Leaders within 30 days to address the Team's outreach needs

• The Twin Cities and Green Bay ES Field Offices and Ashland FRO will meet to evaluate the Duluth-Superior Focus Area for the potential to expand collaborative efforts

• Bob will request research needs (short/succinct, a sentence or two) related to the Team's plan from all Team members, to be provided to him within 30 days; Bob will compile the list and distribute it to the Team with a reminder to Basin Team Leaders and Committee Chairs to convene within 30 days a meeting or conference call with Basin Team/Committee members to identify research needs with respect to the Team's priority issues and Focus Areas; the descriptions of these needs will be provided in an expanded format (more descriptive) to be developed by the Executive Committee

• The Executive Committee will develop an expanded research need format for use by the Team's Focus Areas and Committees in describing the Team's priority research needs

• The Team will continue with the Focus Area and Basin Team concepts

• Mike Tansy will lead a core group to identify the function and form of a new Migratory Bird Committee, and will provide the Core Group's recommendations at the next Team meeting; members of the Core Group include Mike Tansy, Janet, Patti, Doug, Tom Jasikoff, Maureen Gallagher, Jim Hudgins, Fred Caslick, and Steve Lewis

• Rich will lead an effort to identify the Team's priority coastal wetland areas for use in encouraging the States to more actively participate in the Coastal Wetland Grant program - Rich will develop a memo to Basin Team Leaders within 15 days regarding setting up a meeting or conference call within 30 days

• The Team will purchase a 10-foot display unit for use by the Team in displaying the Team's Service/ecosystem approach message

• Jim Hudgins will chair an outreach display group to develop the Service/Great Lakes ecosystem approach message; members of this group include Jim, Joan Guilfoyle, Dave Pederson, Becky Goche, Fred Caslick, Denny Lavis, Carmen UrferParkes, and Kim Kamke

• Rich Urbanek and Mike Tansy will draft a memorandum expressing the Team's endorsement for evaluating the suitability of Wisconsin for whooping crane breeding habitat and, if the evaluation is favorable, reintroducing the whooper to Wisconsin; Rich and Mike will forward the draft to Janet for review; she will forward it to Doug, who will sign the memo and forward it to the Region 3 RD

• Federal Aid (Region 3) will work with the Lake Sturgeon and Cormorant Committees relative to use of Administrative Funds from the Federal Aid program

• At the next Team meeting, Team member's contributions to the Team's kitty for FY 1999 will be identified; projects funded through the kitty will also be identified at that meeting

Bob conducted the usual evaluation of the meeting. The Team identified several positive aspects of the meeting:

• Status reports

• Facilitation

• Outside speakers

• Participation of BRD representatives

• Full participation by Team members

• Items to be changed in future meetings:

• Reduce the length of status reports

• Stick to the agenda and time allocations - Bob (facilitator) will identify time slots for agenda items and will hold firm to those times

• Breaks will be inserted into the agenda

• Speakers on the agenda will be entitled to their full time slot

• Presentations will be kept succinct

• New/old business will be added to the agenda

The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 pm.

Meeting participants:

Stewart Cogswell, Dave Radloff, Rick Nelson, David Huntly, Kent Kroonemeyer, Doug Brewer, Doug Spencer, Jim Hudgins, Tom Busiahn, Mark Holey, Rod May, Bob Lumadue, Patti Meyers, Dave Warburton, Dave Pederson, Bob Krska, Mike Tansy, Tony Leger, John Christian, Janet Smith, Gary Klar, Rich Greenwood, Guy Fleischer, Nancy Milton, Tracy Hill, Rob Elliott, Dave Stilwell, Tom Jasikoff, Kofi Fynn-Aikins, Ken Stromborg, Christina Kravitz, Bruce Swanson, Charlies Verhoven, Brian Lubinski.

Draft minutes prepared: November 13, 1998
Final minutes prepared: December 2, 1998