Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team Meeting Minutes

23-24 February 2000     Ann Arbor, MI

Welcome and Introduction

Review and Approval of Agenda

Committee Breakouts
11:00 AM Outreach, Great Lakes Islands, Lake Sturgeon
3:30 PM Migratory Birds, Invasive Species

Introductory Comments from Geographic Assistant Regional Directors (GARDs) John Christian, GARD - Region 3: John was not able to come to this meeting because he is attending the technical committee meetings of the Mississippi and Atlantic Flyway Councils to inform them about the status of the whooping crane reintroduction project in the eastern United States.

Sherry Morgan, GARD - Region 5: The GARDS from Reg 3, 4, and 5 recently had a meeting to talk about coordinating ecosystem team issues among regions. If you have concerns about coordination among the regions, please let Sherry or John know in order that they can address them jointly. Scott Johnston was recently hired as the national ecosystem team coordinator; he will be stationed in DC. Sherry presented a STAR Award to Tom Busiahn for his dedication and enthusiasm in serving as the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team Leader, 1999-2000.

Presentation: National Resource Damage Assessment - Frank Horvath, Lisa Williams, Dave Warburton Refer to NRDA packets that were distributed (factsheets etc.) for a summary of the presentation. Frank, Lisa, and David gave an overview of the program, with case studies from the St. Louis Harbor and Saginaw Bay.

Discussion: The ecosystem teams may have opportunities to provide input on restorations after a settlement, especially if ideas or plans for restoration of a site or directly related natural resources already exist. In some cases, restoration can't occur on the site; the teams could also make recommendations for where restoration could occur. Ecosystem focus areas could help the staff focus NRDA settlement efforts. A GIS of NRDA data and settlements basin-wide would be excellent idea, but at this time there is no money to do a GIS. The national NRDA program is currently building a database of NRDA cases which may be useful in the future.

Region-3 Team Liaison Update - Leslie TeWinkel

National Fish Wildlife Foundation's (NFWF) Great Lakes (Fisheries) Conservation Fund: This fund receives monies from court settlements in the Great Lakes Region that have resulted from USFWS law enforcement activities. A procedure is being established by which team members will be able to access these funds. When this process is finalized, team members will be informed of fund availability and proposal guidelines In general, the proposals will be brief and need to show how the proposed project will benefit the affected resource.

Leslie is available to assist team members with grant submissions to the NFWF and other grant sources. This assistance will consist of keeping the team informed of upcoming grant deadlines and assisting in constructing the grant proposal.

The Team's kitty money total is about $12,000. The total will probably increase when Field Stations receive their Office Fund Targets.

If you haven't been receiving e-mails regarding the Team's activities, please let Leslie know so that she can add you to her email group.

A new journal is coming out this summer entitled "Conservation Biology in Practice." This journal is a counterpart to the journal "Conservation Biology;" the new journal will feature case studies, tools and techniques, and policy notes, but not full research manuscripts. This journal may be a great opportunity for field stations and the Team to submit case studies etc.

Great Lakes Discovery Center - Doug Spencer This project has many partners. Private funding must be used to construct the building; estimated costs for the building are $5-6 million. There is an immediate need for funding for a feasibility plan; this funding could be an item for the Team kitty. The Fish and Wildlife Service will own the building and land.

Focus Area discussion: One of the primary purposes of the Team's focus areas is to improve cross-program coordination. In general, the issue focus areas including lake sturgeon and cormorants are working well and have been beneficial, although some of the issue areas are still trying to get off-the-ground. The geographic focus areas may also be working, but in a different way. Of the 13 Midwest Natural Resource Group's focus areas, seven are located in the Great Lakes basin. In addition, some of the International Joint Commission's 43 Areas of Concern overlap with the Team's geographic focus areas. The geographic focus areas can be useful in partnering and leveraging funds.

One of the newer focus areas is the St. Louis Harbor. There has been discussions among team members in that area of having a focus area coordinator. This coordinator would enhance communication between the focus area and the field and also back to the regional office.

The Great Lakes ecosystem covers such a large geographic area that in some ways other ecosystem teams are functioning as Great Lakes focus areas. In many cases, de facto coordinators already exist (i.e. Maureen Gallagher for the Superior Coastal wetlands project). In other cases, the focus area group may be able to hire a coordinator with private funds.

Perhaps the larger issue is whether the focus area group is accomplishing what it intended, and, if not, the group needs to determine what needs to done to start accomplishing its objectives. One idea that the team could discuss is having two full team meetings a year and a third meeting for geographic focus area groups.

Action item: Before the next team meeting, team members within a geographic focus area need to check to make sure that communication is happening, and if it isn't, the group should determine what needs to be done to enhance communication .

Introduction and Comments on The Nature Conservancy's future directions from the new state director of TNC's Michigan chapter - Helen Taylor

Flex Fund Process: Brief review of Region 3 and 5 processes in the past fiscal year Region 5 requested proposals and formed a team of regional and field personnel to rank them. The Region viewed the process as a way to get money for projects that wouldn't normally get funded. The process may have been more work than was envisioned . One of the region's ecosystem teams suggested getting a defined amount from the regional office with guidelines about how to spend it. Nine people were on the ranking team, and they received over 100 proposals.

In Region 3, over a million dollars were available for the proposals from five pots of money, clean water, fish habitat, joint venture, non-game bird, and challenge cost-share. Some of the proposals that were submitted did not adhere to the guidelines. After the fund managers had reviewed the proposals, they went over the results with the program supervisors. It is uncertain if review and ranking of the proposals by ecosystem teams added value. Next year the ecosystem teams may be asked to submit proposals unranked to the fund managers in two categories: project/field station level and ecosystem team. It will be interesting to find out if there will be many ecosystem team projects. The Clean Water Action and Fish Habitat Restoration programs are relatively new (started in FY1999), and there is little history about how it should be spent. Perhaps, the Team should focus its projects on these monies

Region 5 also received some proposals that were station-specific, but there were others that crossed program boundaries and were appropriate for ecosystem-level proposals.

Presentation and discussion: Should stream and watershed restoration be a Team priority? - Tom Busiahn and Maureen Gallagher

During the flex fund process in Region 3 during the past year, many of the 65 proposals submitted addressed stream and watershed restoration. Some of the benefits of having this as a team issue are training, coordination, quality control, sharing knowledge, funding, restoration, and accomplishments. Funding for stream and watershed restoration could be obtained from Clean Water program, Fish Habitat program, Partners in Flight, GLBET kitty, EPA Great Lakes National Program Office, EPA Coastal Environmental Management Funds, and EPA 319. Potential accomplishments include benefits to trust resources, flood reduction, erosion reduction, etc. The committee could organize training, do demonstration projects, develop criteria for restoration projects, and seek funding primarily through sources outside the Service. Now that there is Clean Water Program and Fish Habitat money available, Service employees should know how to develop good projects to apply for this money. The state of Michigan would welcome technical assistance in this area. The team consensus is to go ahead with the issue because there are interested individuals and money to be obtained.

Action item: An ad-hoc group will be formed to address the issue of stream and watershed restoration. Committee members include Kofi Fynn-Aikens (chair), Russ Peterson, Heather Enterline, Maureen Gallagher, Jim Hudgins, and Craig Czarnecki. In addition, others may join at any time. This committee will develop a strategy and work-plan and report at the next meeting.

GIS/DSS Committee Status Report Several packets of information were distributed at the meeting regarding this presentation including the results of the GIS capabilities survey. Great Lakes islands represented a good cross-program issue and were chosen as a demonstration project on the short-term. Fifty-three pieces of information were identified that would be appropriate for an island GIS. The next step is to decide which pieces are the most critical. Data layers include archeological, floral, historical, colonial waterbird occurrence, and neo-tropical bird occurrence. Some of the many uses of DSS are the identification of random points for sampling and determination of the habitat type with the highest number of Regional Conservation Priority species.

Action item: Team members interested in getting a CD with data layers should give Jason Rohweder a business card with desired data layers written on the back.

Action item: The committee will develop a long-term plan, but also get moving on the short-term with the island demo.

During the next meeting, the committee will give an update on their long-term plan and a progress report on the Great Lakes island demo.

Selection of team leader elect: Jim Hudgins is the team leader elect. Craig Czarnecki volunteered to be a candidate for the next team leader elect.

New directions for the team kitty? - Jim Hudgins In general, this discussion focuses on the idea of whether there is a project that the team can spend a larger amount on, as opposed to ranking smaller projects that are proposed through the committee. In some ways, the current method is similar to giving money to a ecosystem kitty and then giving it back to specific on-the-ground projects, instead of an overall project important to the ecosystem. In the Ohio River Valley Ecosystem, the GARDs are providing funding for a GIS position in Cookeville, which is money that they would likely otherwise contribute to the kitty. The Team would need to reserve some of the kitty money to accomplish smaller projects, such as brochures.

There's been an evolution among ecosystem teams in Region 5 to only fund projects that are truly ecosystem projects, which otherwise wouldn't get funded. The two regions have different funding levels for the GARDs. In particular, the Region-5 GARD doesn't have as much funding and has more ecosystem teams in her geographic area.

Perhaps, this process should be driven by the project instead of the amount of kitty money that is available. Next October proposals will be solicited and distributed to team members before contributions to the kitty are solicited.. In this way, field stations can contribute according to how strongly they feel about a project.

Action item: During the next meeting, the team will devote a significant portion of the meeting looking at different ways in which to use the team's monies in future years.

Action item: Before the next meeting, the ExCom will flesh out the issue and tailor an agenda item.

Kitty Project Selection 1) Existing database inventory of Great Lakes islands in U. S. - $7500 (submitted by two committees) (potentially a grad student) 2) lake sturgeon brochure printing - $6000 (ranked second by committee) 3) Great Lakes Discovery Center Marketing Plan Study - $2,000 4 ) GL lake sturgeon webpage maintenance - $2000( staff time and equipment) (1st ranking by committee) 5) Materials for cormorant traveling table top displays and slide show - $1000 6) Duluth-Superior focus area NRDA contract work at 2 Superfund sites - $2000 (of the $27,000 total)

Un-scored: Travel costs to make certain Service is well represented in the sturgeon video $800 (ranked 3rd by the committee)

Current kitty total: $12,150

Future project for the team to consider. A consistent basin-wide coastal wetland classification tracking system (Cowardin) to achieve compatibility across the Great Lakes states. This system could be used to prioritize drained wetlands for restoration, for example. This project could be one to develop for future funding by the Team and others (EPA etc.).

Presentation: The Nature Conservancy's review of Great Lakes bird populations - Dave Ewert

Great Lakes Symposium at the Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference The conference was well attended and a success due to the efforts of several individuals. Awards were presented to Tracy Hill, Larry Martin, and Michael Johnson and previously to John Rogner for their work on the symposium.

Committee Updates Lake sturgeon - Chris Lowie

The genetics workshop held after the Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference was a great success. It was funded through Region 3 Federal Aid, Great Lakes Team's kitty, and the Great Lakes Fishery Trust. Most of the money was spent on travel of presenters. About 40 people attended. One of the results of the workshop was a 4-year package that included a genetics inventory of Great Lakes lake sturgeon. The committee is currently restructuring research needs and is addressing the items listed in the Team's biennial plan.

Cormorants - Larry Martin Some of the committee members has been participating in the National Cormorant Management Plan. Five public meetings are planned for the Great Lakes basin in April and May. A slide show is being developed for the meeting. Region 5 factsheets are almost completed; the factsheets for Region 3 are in process. The video is also close to completion.

Migratory Birds - Larry Martin for Mike Tansy A chunk of money became available for migratory birds in Region 3. Common tern and black tern status surveys will be coming out soon. A Region-3 Partners in Flight (?) coordinator will be brought online in the future.

Outreach - Jim Hudgins and Joan Guilfoyle The Great Lakes Team display is almost complete; the committee still needs lake trout, lake sturgeon, refuge, and threatened and endangered species photos in order to supplement existing display photos. The display will be available to stations on a first-come first-serve basis for the cost of shipping. The display will be shown at the upcoming Outdoorama in Detroit.

The Outreach Committee will be having a one-day meeting on March 29 in Minneapolis. Other team members are invited to join the committee and/or attend the meeting; additional participants from Region 5 would be especially helpful.

Great Lakes Islands - Patti Meyers Since the last meeting the group developed a working relationship with the GIS group, as was described in the GIS presentation. The committee is developing a list of criteria for use in consideration of acquiring islands. The committee's workplan includes contributing an item to the web-site; to fulfill this task, the committee will be putting information on the web-site about the GIS project.

Presentation: The LaMP (Lakewide Management Plan) Process - Judy Beck, EPA (via telephone)

Judy Beck is the Lake Michigan Team Manager for EPA, responsible for the LaMP process and is Technical Coordinating Committee Chair. The planning stages for the LaMPs need to be completed so that more on-the-ground projects can be started (some projects have already been done). Each lake is in a different stage of the planning. The Lake Erie document is out for review and comments are due by Feb 29. The Lake Superior comment period is open to March 15; no specific needs were identified. There is an ftp site containing the Michigan and Superior LaMPs that all GLBET members were notified of on 2/1/00 by Bob Kavetsky and no comments were received. As the Service representative to the LaMP Management Committee for Lake Michigan and the Task Force for Lake Superior, Craig Czarnecki will sign off on a letter of support for these 2 LaMPs as no "show stopping" comments have been received.

Action item: Rich Greenwood will send the sub-basin chairs information about how to comment about the LaMPs, and the sub-basin chairs will coordinate the comments within their sub-basin. Sign off on a support letter for Lakes Michigan and Superior will be by Craig Czarnecki.

Next meeting location and date: Location: Thousand islands area of New York (1/2 day field trip) Date: 1st choice: May 31-June 1; 2nd option of 17-18 May

Summary of Action items:

• Team members who receive kitty money for their projects need to remember to submit a project completion report to the Team before the February 2001 meeting.
• The GIS/DSS committee will pursue both short-term (islands) and long-term strategies and will give a status report on both at the next meeting.
• Team members interested in getting a CD with data layers should give Jason Rohweder a business card with the desired data layers written on the back.
• Before the next team meeting, team members within a geographic focus area need to check to make sure that communication is happening, and if it isn't, the group should determine what needs to be done to enhance communication. In particular, the Green Bay focus area will evaluate the quality of communication and coordination and consider improvements, if necessary.
• Kofi Fynn-Aikens will complete and submit the profile for western Lake Erie, and Tom Jasikoff will submit the already-completed profiles on the Montezuma and St. Lawrence areas to Leslie electronically. These profiles will be put on the web site.
• A stream and watershed restoration ad-hoc committee was formed, chaired by Kofi Fynn-Aikens. This committee will develop a strategy and work-plan and report at the next meeting.
• The ExCom will discuss how to structure the kitty discussion at the next meeting.
• Team members will share meeting results with their offices.
• The next team-leader elect is Jim Hudgins.
• Team members will submit good-quality cormorant slides to Fred Caslick in Region 5 within two weeks.
• The team members who still intend to contribute to Team kitty will do so ASAP, after the Office Fund Targets have been distributed.
• Team members will send good-quality slides to Jim Hudgins for the Team outreach display especially photos of lake trout, lake sturgeon, refuges, and endangered or threatened species.
• The Outreach Committee will meet on March 29 in Minneapolis for a one-day meeting.
• Rich Greenwood will send the sub-basin chairs information about how to comment about the LaMPs, and the sub-basin chairs will coordinate the comments within their sub-basin.
• Rich Greenwood will be contacting the team's invasive species committee for existing briefings to be used in preparation for the Great Lakes Congressional breakfast and meeting in March.
• Leslie TeWinkel will send out memos about kitty money awards by the end of March.

Agenda items for the May/June meeting:

• field trip
• GIS/DSS report
• Discussion: Future of the team kitty (1/2 day)
• Ecological presentation of the St. Lawrence focus area - (30 minutes)
• Presentation by the Canadian group involved with the 1000 Islands Park
• R5 coastal program presentation on regionally significant fish and wildlife habitats
• Discussion of SOLEC 2000 indicators
• Urban Migratory Bird Treaty update - Rogner and Duda
• Committee updates
• Discussion: How many meetings should the team have each year?
• Discussion: The Greater Cleveland /Ashtabula Harbor area: A potential new team focus area
• Team Effectiveness Survey Results

Meeting Evaluation - Bob Krska
Positives:

• next team leader elect identified.
• continued attendance of team partners
• breakout sessions earlier in the day

Aspects to change:

• longer breakouts and earlier in the day
• prepare kitty proposals before the meeting
• make it clearer to our partners that we'd like them to attend

Meeting participants: Fred Griffiths, Joe Dowhan, Tom Jasikoff, Chris Lowie, Kofi Fynn-Aikins, Henry Quinlan, Frank Horvath, Lisa Williams, Karen Vigmostad, Cheryl Crosson, Trevor Walsh, Kasia Mullett, Michael Fodale, Rick Westerhof, Faber Bland, Roderick May, Russ Peterson, Dave Warburton, Ellen Kiley, Paul Seelbach, Leslie TeWinkel, Bob Krska, Tom Busiahn, Helen Taylor, Mike Penskar, Jim Hudgins, Greg Brown, Rollin Siegfried, Patti Meyers, Dave Pederson, Larry Martin, Heather Enterline, Sherry Morgan, Cyndi Duda, Brian Lubinski, Maureen Gallagher, Craig Czarnecki, Ken Stromborg, Rob Elliott, Dale Bast, Roger Gordon, Rick Nelson, Mark Maskill, T J Miller, Jim Ruhwaldt, Bob Adair, Steve Kahl, Kent Kroonemeyer, Jason Rohweder, Carl Korschgen, Bob Lumadue, Greg Kennedy, Kurt Kowalski, Doug Spencer, Rich Greenwood, Dave Ewert, Bob Kavetsky

Draft minutes prepared: 29 February 2000

Final minutes prepared: 22 March 2000