Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team Meeting Minutes

April 30 - May 1, 1996

The meeting was convened at 10:00 am on April 30 by Dale Burkett, the leader and facilitator of the Great Lakes Ecosystem Team (GLET). Twenty-four Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) representatives of the GLET participated (attendance list follows the minutes), which was convened to assess the status of the GLET and plan, refine the plan, as appropriate, and select a new team leader. After meeting participants introduced themselves, Dale provided opening remarks that included the suggestion that the GLET's plan identify goals and objectives and that the team then identify "focus areas" in which the team would address the team's goals and objectives and work with partners.

John Christian provided introductory comments as Region 3's Assistant Regional Director (Geographic Area 1 and Fisheries). John stated that Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) is not a fad and that it is the future for all natural resource agencies. He emphasized the strong commitment to implementing the Service's EBM by both Regions 3 and 5 but that it is up to the team to determine how best to restart the team's efforts and to identify its strategies and products. While some individuals have requested regional guidance on implementing EBM, John indicated that the teams are empowered to decide what and how to do it.

John presented his informal guidance to the GLET, which included: 1) be a self-directed ecosystem team; 2) focus on fish and wildlife and their habitats in an ecosystem context; 3) maximize collaborative "on the ground" or "in the water" actions; 4) minimize planning and paper but have goals, objectives, and action plans; 5) keep it simple; 6) work better together and with others - partner and collaborate; 7) follow the lead of others where you can, but lead where necessary; 8) communicate at all levels; 9) solve problems and avoid blame; 10) build public support through outreach and education; 11) do things well but don't try to do everything; 12) use focus areas to bring partners together; 13) avoid reprogramming but be creative; 14) exercise leadership and empowerment; and 15) document your successes.

Relative to the GLET's activities, John identified several suggested items for the GLET to work on: 1) fine tune goals and objectives; 2) decide on focus areas with partner input; 3) work together on simple focus area action plans; 4) DO IT!; and, 5) brag about it.

The floor was then opened to questions from participants:

Q: Will "tough" base budget reallocations and budget decisions consider EBM planning efforts?

A: Region 3 will not implement inter-program reprogramming. Good, tight ecosystem plans will probably help in budgeting decisions, though there will not necessarily be a direct EBM link to intra-programmatic reprogramming efforts, e.g., Ecological Service's workload factors. Ecosystem plans may help to counter reprogramming efforts.

Q: Is there a "disconnect" between ecosystem planning requirements and programmatic decision-making?

A: The jury is still out. However, there is some movement towards the EBM process, which is occurring incrementally. While money will be coming to support EBM efforts, it will not solve programmatic budget problems.

Q: Are there still "priority" ecosystems on the books?

A: John did not know for sure, but Region 3's Regional Director is arguing against priority designations.

Paul Horvatin (Acting Director of EPA's Great Lake National Program) provided a brief introduction to three GLNP activities in the Great Lakes. These included the Binational Program to reduce Great Lakes contaminants, the State of the Lakes Ecosystem (SOLEC) effort, and the Lake Michigan Mass Balance activities.

Bob Krska, Region 3's Ecosystem Coordinator for the GLET, presented several observations and recommendations. He emphasized that his position is to provide support and advocacy for the GLET and requested input to his priority activities from anyone on the team at any time. After a brief summary of some of the activities of Region 3's Ecosystem Coordinators, Bob provided several broad recommendations to the team: 1) focus on the ground, with landscape level considerations; 2) planning should be simple and minimal, but it should be done well, from which on-the-ground activities will flow; 3) while EBM will not completely replace species-specific activities, EBM allows us to explore options that go beyond single-species management; 4) be flexible - we still do not have all the answers; 5) adopt an "adaptive management" approach - our EBM approach is evolving; 6) Project Leaders should actively involve their staffs in implementing EBM activities of the GLET; 7) work with all stakeholders, not just our partners, to find a shared vision of the future; and, 8) don't depend on new money to implement EBM, though such money may likely become available in the future.

Dave Pederson, representing Region 3 Federal Aid, provided a very brief overview of the Federal Aid program and what resources it offers the EBM approach. Dave indicated that Federal Aid is able to provide a means for sharing information and serving as a liaison with the states. While the Service cannot direct the states as to how they spend their Federal Aid funding, we may be able to use the states' Federal Aid priorities to guide us in identifying shared needs and priorities. Dave mentioned efforts initiated in March 1996 to better integrate the Federal Aid program with the Service's EBM approach. Further, Dave mentioned that Region 3 Federal Aid has identified, at least on an interim basis, staff-level liaisons for each state to facilitate Federal Aid participation in EBM activities. The contacts are: Michigan - Dave Pederson; Wisconsin - Michael Vanderford; Ohio - Dan Licht; Indiana - Lucinda Corcoran; Illinois - Jeff Gosse; and, Minnesota - Cynthia Osmundson. Kelly Burch was identified as Region 5's contact for Pennsylvania, while the contact for New York was not known.

Dieter Busch (Region 5, Buffalo FRO) gave a brief overview of Region 5's sub-team efforts relative to the GLET, stressing the positive inter-regional cooperation that has occurred on a variety of issues, including reauthorization of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act, Lake Erie Lakewide Area Management Plan efforts, Great Lakes Fishery Commission activities, Great Lakes Commission activities, and exotic species activities. He indicated that a variety of EBM projects, which are being implemented without additional funds, included addressing wetland and water levels, threatened and endangered species, stewardship, public awareness, and interjurisdictional fisheries. He believes we should look at a hierarchial approach to resource goals, resource prioritizing, and that meetings should be rotated among various locations and may include field trips. He said that we must know what is important and report successes. Finally, he recommended that we do not want action strategies that cover all base-funded activities, just those that relate specifically to plan.

Presentations summarizing EBM approach activities already underway in the Great Lakes Ecosystem were presented by Tom Busiahn (Ashland FRO) and Mike Tansy (Seney NWR). Tom presented highlights of EBM efforts to restore coaster brook trout in Lake Superior. Tom indicated that this effort is considering Lake Superior as an ecosystem; that it is comprised of many partners; and that it is looking at all levels of the ecosystem, from genetic considerations to the landscape level. He recommended that this approach be applied, perhaps, to lake sturgeon restoration and cormorants in the Great Lakes. Mike Tansy then presented an overview of the Manistique River Watershed Partnership. This restoration program is initiating restoration efforts in the upper portions of the watershed with several techniques, including restoration of large woody debris by placing large red pine along stream banks, reducing sand bedload, and dormant woody plantings. Seney NWR will be working on lands owned by the Michigan DNR. Finally, Mike presented an overview of activities of the Eastern Upper Peninsula Ecosystem Management Group. This effort, which has been underway for several years, includes participation of a variety of stakeholders who respect each other's objectives. It is based on informal partnerships, provides good multi-level organizational representation, and focuses on products, i.e., a sound ecological approach to landscape-level management.

The remainder of the first day was devoted to reviewing and revising the GLET plan. In general, it was decided to keep the plan simple by retaining goals and objectives but deleting specific action strategies. The action strategies, though deleted from the plan, are still available to be worked into work plans for specific EBM efforts in focus areas. The plan, as revised by the GLET, is attached.

The second day of the meeting began by continuing to review and revise the plan's goals and objectives. The team agreed that the original goals and objectives for migratory birds needed additional work and, accordingly, established a smaller working group that refined these items. While this group worked on the migratory bird resource goal, the remainder of the team discussed the merits of the focus area approach. Dale described one scenario that would involve development of plan for each identified focus area. Each focus area, in turn, may address one or more objectives within one or more goals. He indicated the need for the team to develop some sideboards for development of work plans, including budgets, FTEs, partnerships, etc.

An example of a potential geographic focus area that was brain stormed is the Saginaw Bay Watershed. Examples of potential focus resource priorities that were identified include: restoration of lake trout; restoration of lake sturgeon; restoration of coaster brook trout; exotic species; technology and information transfer; public involvement; addressing fish community objectives for each lake; coastal wetlands; contaminants; threatened and endangered species; migratory birds; depleted native fish; hardwoods; islands; recreational fishing and hunting; commercial fishing; tribal fish and wildlife needs; and archeology. Potential benefits of identifying focus areas include marketing our EBM efforts at the local level and providing justification for requests for flexible funding.

There was some discussion about whether our EBM efforts should look "back" to what we have already done and are doing, or whether we should look to the future in terms of identifying what we need to do differently. It was pointed out that this is the "great fuzzy" of EBM - most of what the Service is doing may reasonably considered EBM. It was generally concluded we need to blend under our EBM planning activities both those things that we are already doing that are clearly related to EBM (taking credit for EBM activities that are underway), as well as taking advantage of the opportunities that EBM provides to identify new approaches.

Attention was then directed to discussing the need for the team to create a smaller working unit. One approach that was mentioned was creating sub-groups based on the plan's eight resource goals. Dieter Busch recommended a lake-by-lake approach, which is consistent with the organizational approach of Lakewide Area Management Planning activities. The team ultimately agreed by consensus that a lake-by-lake approach is most appropriate. Leaders for each of the lake Basin Teams were then identified: Lake Superior - Tom Busiahn; Lake Michigan - Mark Holey; Lake Huron - Jerry McClain; Lake St. Clair/Detroit River - Doug Spencer; Lake Erie - Dieter Busch; Lake Ontario - Dieter Busch; and, St. Lawrence River - Steve Patch (Cortland ES). Responsibilities of Basin Leaders that were identified include participation in GLET meetings, participation on the Executive Committee, identification of focus areas, identification of partners, and coordination of focus area efforts.

The GLET then selected a new team leader. Prior to requests for volunteers or nominees, it was recommended that the team leader's term be limited to one year. In addition, Dale volunteered to continue to facilitate team meetings, which was endorsed by all. After a request for volunteers was greeted with a resounding silence, nominees were then requested. Three nominations were made: Janet Smith, Mike Tansy, and Gary Klar. The three nominees left the room allowing the team to vote. The team chose Mike Tansy as the new team leader, with Janet Smith being elected as leader pro tempore. The team also chose a 2-year succession for team leaders, i.e., current leader and leader pro tempore. The team leader's term will run from May 1 through April 30 the following year.

The GLET created an executive committee to serve as a "tactical response" team. The committee will allow for quick response to needs of the team that do not provide sufficient time for the whole team to address or that do not require full-team involvement. The executive committee will be comprised of the following: GLET leader; leader pro tempore; each of the seven Basin Team leaders; Ecosystem Coordinators (advisory capacity); and, additional ad hoc advisors.

After creation of the executive committee, the GLET broke up into Basin Teams to identify preliminary focus areas and/or focus resource issues. The Basin Teams identified the following list of potential geographic/issue foci:

Lake Huron: Thunder Bay; Straits/northern Lake Huron; St. Marys River; Six Fathom Bank; Glaciated pothole region; Grayling Sands (Kirtlands Warbler, all plum, etc.)

Lake Michigan:

Green Bay - Contaminants, lamprey, natural resource damage assessment (NRDA), lake sturgeon fish passage restoration re: FERC hydro, Hine's emerald dragonfly , private lands; Lake trout restoration; Exotic nuisance species - zebra mussels, B.C., alewife, white perch, lamprey, purple loosestrife; Cormorants; Contaminants - NRDA, Areas of Concern; Eastern Upper Peninsula Group; Acquisition of islands; Colonial nesting birds; Maintain refuge lands and integrity; Public outreach; FCO; EMS; Kirtlands warbler; private lands; Ludington Pumped Storage Hydro Project settlement agreement administration.

Lake Superior:

Bad River/Kakagon/Chequamegon; Gray wolf (re-classification); Lake trout restoration; Coaster brook trout restoration; Lake sturgeon restoration; Nearshore/tributary habitat; Binational program to restore and protect Lake Superior; Fish disease (e.g., EEDV); Ruffe & other aquatic nuisance species; Piping plover recovery; St. Louis River

Bob Krska led a discussion of project planning for funding dedicated to EBM efforts. Dale had distributed several weeks before the meeting to all GLET members a project proposal form developed by Bob on which project leaders were to identify projects that they propose for ecosystem funding. Bob indicated that Region Refuges and Wildlife has proposed to allocate to the GLET approximately $54,000 for EBM activities in FY 1996. Restrictions on the funding include the need for all funded projects to be somehow related to refuges, that the money is to be restricted to projects within Region 3, and that reports on what was accomplished with the funding would be required towards the end of the fiscal year.

Each project leader who identified proposed projects briefly summarized their proposals and ranked them when there was more than one proposal (proposals 1 through 5 are ranked 1 through 5; proposals 6 through 9 are ranked 1 through 4; and proposals 10 and 11 are ranked 1 and 2 - numbers in parentheses represent the PLs' rankings). The following proposals were identified :

1. Saginaw Bay Watershed Wetland Restoration Projects - $5K - Private lands (Shiawassee) (4)

2. Pool 2 Dike Rehabilitation (Shiawassee) - $25K - (5)

3. Environmental Education Exhibit (Shiawassee) - $2K - (2)

4. Biological Control of Purple Loosestrife (Shiawassee) - $5.7K - (1)

5. Restoration of Shallow Wetland (Shiawassee) - $2K - (3)

6. Biological Control of Purple Loosestrife (Ottawa) - $5K - (3)

7. Install 3 pumps (Ottawa) - $9K - (1)

8. Aerial photos for GIS (Ottawa) - $10K - (2)

9. Rehabilitation of Pool 6 Dikes (Ottawa) - $10K - (4)

10.Threatened and Endangered Species Exhibit (Seney) - $10K - (2)

11. GIS - Vegetation Cover Type Map (Seney) - (1)

12. Saginaw Bay Black and Common Tern Restoration (East Lansing ES) - $7.5K

13. FWS - Great Lakes Display - $10K

The GLET agreed that with the exception of proposal No. 13, which was developed by the group during the prioritization exercise, all projects ranked 1 and 2 would be funding, i.e., proposal Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12. The team decided that funding for proposal No. 13, which may consist of traveling displays for use throughout the Great Lakes Ecosystem, should be funded from other sources, such as through the Geographic ARD.

The meeting concluded at 3:00 pm.

Attendance List:

Ron Refsnider (RO-TE), Kent Kroonemeyer (ROFO), Bob Kavetsky (ELFO), Bob Krska (RO-Geo1), Keren Ensor (TCFO), Dave Pederson (RO-Fed. Aid), Mark Holey (GB FRO), Dave Huntly (Jordan River NFH), Janet Smith (GBFO), Mike Weaver (LE Bay City), Charlie Wooley (ELFO), Rich Greenwood (EPA/FWS), Dieter Busch (Region 5, Lower Great Lakes FRO), Rick Nelson (LaCrosse Fish Health Center), Tom Busiahn (Ashland FRO), Doug Spencer (Shiawassee NWR), Jim Hudgins (MI PL), Mike Tansy (Seney NWR), John Christian (ARD Geo1), Stan Cornelius (Ottawa NWR), Larry Martin (Ottawa NWR), Anjie Hintz (Alpena FRO), Denny Lavis (Ludington Biological Station), Gary Klar (Marquette Biological Station), Dale Burkett (RO Geo1). 

Minutes prepared by : Sally Hopp/Bob Krska