Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team Meeting Minutes

June 16-17, 1998

Introduction

The meeting of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team (GLBE Team) was convened at 8:00 am (EDT) on June 16 at the Embassy Suites in Cleveland. Doug Spencer (Team Leader) opened the meeting with a welcome to participants. Bob Krska (Region 3 Ecosystem Coordinator) served as facilitator and reviewed the purpose of the meeting, intended outcomes, and the agenda - a couple "update" items were added before the Team concurred with the agenda - and had participants introduce themselves.

Region 3 under the leadership of Charlie Blair (Refuge Manager, Sherburne and Crane Meadows NWRs) is developing its own Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) plan. The Service=s national-level GPRA plan is out but needs to be revised: it is too long, contains too many items to track, etc. As part of the GPRA planning effort, Region 3 is developing a list of its priority trust species from which its GPRA plan will follow. Eventually, the species list will be extended to include habitats. The first draft of the priority list document will be presented on June 26 to Region 3's Directorate and will be distributed to the field for comment thereafter.

In a meeting on May 13-14, 1998, of the Midwest Natural Resources Managers Group, comprised of Federal agency directors in the Midwest, the group decided that Federal agencies need to expand their coordination on large-scale ecosystem type efforts. One aspect of this effort will be for Federal agencies to agree on the appropriate Federal interests and level and type of involvement and, hopefully, generate some nongovernmental support, which may result in Congressional support. Thirteen focus areas were selected for emphasis. John suggested that members of the GLBE Team be designated to represent the Service on each of the Great Lakes focus areas and attend associated meetings.

Tony reported briefly on the Ohio State University report and efforts to "stabilize" the Service. Geographic ARDs, Program ARDs, and supervisors all should have standardized position descriptions. The Service formed an Implementation Team to guide long term implementation of the OSU's recommendations as adopted by the Service's Directorate. Tony (and Kari Duncan) is on the team from Region 5 and John Blankenship (and Pam Thiel) is on the team from Region 3. Tony requested members of the GLBE Team to give Implementation Team members their comments and recommendations.

Bob indicated that he sent to Team members via cc:mail last week a copy of the Team roster, which was requested by the Team at its March 1998 meeting. At the request of representatives from Region 5, Bob presented an overview of the structure of the GLBE Team, including the Team Leader and Basin Leaders, subgroups formed for specific issues, and the Executive Committee. The Region 5 subteam leader, which was established for Region 5's purposes, is a member of the Executive Committee. John Christian requested that the Region 5 subteam should inform the GLBE Team and him of what it is doing, when meetings are scheduled, etc. Region 5 pointed out that it has 5 project leaders in the lower Great Lakes, all in the Lake Ontario drainage.

Following up on an uncompleted agenda item from the March meeting, the Team brainstormed a list of impediments to the GLBE Team's effectiveness and identified the following items:

1) Limited opportunities to contribute from a field station basis

2) Difficult to coordinate with other Federal agencies regarding funding opportunities

3) No specific Service funding to the Team

4) The Great Lakes is a large and diverse basin resulting in different resource perspectives and limitation in ability to travel

5) Law Enforcement jurisdictional boundaries are based on Federal court system, not Service regional lines

6) Team size is too large and basin teams not functioning

7) Ineffective cooperation with other partners and lack of Team identify for non-Service interests

8) Inadequate communication between Regions 3 and 5

9) Statement of roles is lacking or unclear

10) Meeting frequency (1 per year) has been inadequate in the past

11) Lack of focus on activities

12) Regional program staffs are not familiar with what Teams are doing - lack of RO program participation

13) Not utilizing field office staff participation in Team to full potential

14) Inadequate communication within the Team; Executive Committee, Basin Teams

Of the 14 issues, communication appeared to be a central theme among many of the 14 listed impediments, i.e., 7, 8, 12, and 14. The Team brainstormed potential solutions to the communication impediment:

• Let basin teams leaders identify better methods to communicate

• Wider distribution of meeting notes (RO program staff and other ecosystem teams)

• Team briefings of RO program staff

• Report results of actions, projects, etc., within the Team

• Develop a one page report for each ecosystem team

• Report results by layers: 1) general, ecosystem wide 2) basin wide

• Develop a Team web page

• Circulate rosters of team members from other teams

• Team Leader=s representation of the Team in Region 3's Monday Regional Management Team meetings

Further discussion on this issue was delayed to the second day of the meeting to keep on schedule for the sake of guest speakers. Brainstorming of additional potential solutions to communication-related impediments continued at that time, the results of which are reported here:

• Share meeting results with field office staff

• Rotate meetings between Regions 3 and 5

• Rotate Team leadership between Regions 3 and 5

• Continue outside speakers at meetings

• Participate in the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) as well as USGS-BRD meetings

• Discuss specific issues at Team meetings to seek input/previous experience

• Convene Basin Team meetings

Terry Yonker described activities of the Lake Erie Alliance (Alliance) in which it is involved. The Alliance was formed recently and is a coalition of U.S. and Canadian organizations. Its purpose is to protect and restore the Lake Erie ecosystem.

The Alliance believes that a network of bird observatories is needed and is developing a bird observatory in the Lake Ontario corridor. Terry reported that there appears to be a tremendous decrease in warbler migration this year, with reported numbers being way down to less than 20 percent of previous years. Affected bird species seem limited to those that pass through Central America and Mexico. The problem may be droughts and associated wild fires; perhaps weather patterns had a role in altering migration patterns but birders report that the woods are quiet.

The Alliance is working on developing a potential partnership with the U.S. Coast Guard regarding its role in environmental protection. The USCG has contingency plans for important focus areas throughout the Great Lakes.

As an organization, the Alliance has acknowledged the need to diversify its funding sources and is diversifying its Board of Directors membership. It appears that membership-based, local, grassroots groups are stronger now than alliances and, because less money is available from the Great Lakes Protection Fund, the Alliance is moving away from grants and towards specific projects.

An issue of concern to the Alliance is the introduction of toxics in the basin. Ontario is using black liquor from paper production as a dust suppressant on roads.

Another major issue for the Alliance is climate change and its impact upon the Lake Erie ecosystem. An anticipated impact over the next 50 years is a significant decrease in lake water levels, with uncertain impacts on fish and wildlife resources and wetlands. As about 90 percent of the Ohio shoreline is developed, mostly with hard structures, a policy that addresses limitations to development lakeward of shorelines that move lakeward is needed. One group is proposing long term government purchase of Lake Erie shoreline over the course of a 50 to 100 year period. Ontario has done a very good job of doing this on its side of the lake.

The Alliance is involved in the Lake Erie LAMP process, including participation in the Ecosystem Objectives Subcommittee. A "fuzzy logic" model is being developed, which is anticipated to be helpful, but it is not addressing watershed impacts - anthropogenic activities could be a short-coming of the model. The Alliance is working on a human impact model that should be able to be added to the fuzzy logic model. It is concerned that the International Joint Commission is taking a narrow view of the ecosystem approach, especially as it related to the open lake and contaminants issues.

When asked for his observations on activities of the Service and opportunities for collaboration, Terry indicated that he does not see the sense of controlling populations of cormorants in Lake Erie - instead, we should monitor the situation for now. With respect to the bald eagle, it appears to be "out of the woods" for now but there are still some localized concerns on the Great Lakes; for example, Great Lakes shore areas appear to be population "sinks." Terry indicated that the Alliance would like to develop a stronger partnership with the Service, working more on specific projects, not just obtaining more funding.

Mike Donahue, Executive Director of the Great Lakes Commission (Commission) provided an overview of the Commission's organization and activities. Mike indicated that he was testifying on behalf of the Commission this Thursday in support of reauthorization of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act and sought input from the group.

Mike discussed the background, function, and goals of the Commission. He stated that the Commission is an interstate compact formed in the mid 1950's. Great Lakes states and U.S. Congress passed legislation authorizing/supporting the Commission. The Commission's responsibilities include information sharing, policy research and development, advising governors, and lobbying for legislation and policies. The Commission is "driven" by state members (with voting privileges) but also includes observers (non-voting) from Federal agencies and other entities. He described the Ecosystem Charter for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin, which was initiated by the Commission. He also mentioned the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) and said that the Commission has drafted generic legislation, which will provide some standardization among the states on ANS issues, for the states to use and, hopefully, implement.

The Commission has been active on a number of issues throughout the Great Lakes. It has formed a Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control and makes small grants to Soil and Water Conservation Districts for erosion control projects. The Commission is involved in Contingency Planning for Oil and Hazardous Material Spills and serves as the overall coordinator for the interagency Great Lakes Dredging Team. The Commission is also involved in brownfields redevelopment and greenfields preservation.

Mike outlined several recommendations and unmet needs in resource management in the Great Lakes:

1. Managing by hydrologic, not political boundaries.

2. Strengthening program and project evaluation, quantifying benefits.

3. Harmonizing laws, programs, policies and standards within this binational basin.

4. Resolving resource use conflicts.

5. Demonstrating\publicizing progress in remediation in Areas of Concern.

6. Enhancing the focus on water quantity\quality interrelationships.

7. Aquatic nuisance species: shifting focus to prevention and control measures.

8. Assessing the impacts of climate change: identifying\applying adaptive strategies.

9. Coastal management, land use policy, brownfields redevelopment and related issues.

Bob presented an overview of the results of the team effectiveness evaluation of the Team's. No decision was reached by the Team as to whether it was interested in undertaking the evaluation.

Update on Aquatic Nuisance Species

Tom Busiahn presented a brief overview of information sources relative to ANS as a follow-up to his commitment at the March 1998 Team meeting to share outreach information with Great Lakes field stations. Tom shared a multiple-page ANS brochure and described the web site of the Great Lakes Panel on ANS as a convenient and comprehensive "window" on ANS issues in the Great Lakes.

In response to an inquiry by a Team member as to whether it is appropriate for the Team to endorse programmatic proposals, Rick Nelson described the proposal to upgrade Region 3's Fish Health Center to a full Fish Technical Center in LaCrosse, Wisconsin, and provided a handout describing the specifics. Rick said the proposal will be reviewed by the Washington Office and that he had contacting Bob seeking endorsement from the GLBE Team to support the proposal. Bob indicated that he contacted the ExCom via cc:mail, as he did with the Ohio River Valley Ecosystem Team, concerning the request for a Team endorsement. Doug Spencer indicated that he is preparing a letter supporting the upgrade. There was a short discussion of the merits of providing Team endorsements of this nature. The Team agreed that endorsements would be appropriate on a case-by-case basis for activities, proposals, plans, etc., that would be of benefit to the Team.

The Team discussed the merits of undertaking an identification and prioritization of research needs, acquisition needs, etc. It was generally determined that it would be advantageous to have research needs prioritized and "on the shelf" so we would be ready to respond to short due date requests for research needs. Any prioritization of our research needs would be better than the current system. The Team decided to consider this further at the next Team meeting, at which the Team will identify its research needs as related to GLBE Team plan's goals and objectives. It was decided that Team members would submit research needs to Bob 30 days prior to the next Team meeting. Research needs should be related to goals and objectives of the GLBE Team's plan and are to be limited to a "header" statement and a maximum of 3 sentences describing the need.

Doug Spencer and Charlie Wooley indicated that this effort has been underway for 6 years. Michigan State University has been selected as the site for the Unit. One big benefit would be the ability to contract work with MSU without the high overhead charges that MSU normally charges for contract work.

Bob passed out the Focus Area profile format developed by the ExCom, which is being used for identification and description of the Team's Focus Areas.

Lower Detroit River Doug Spencer stated that he has received a letter signed by several Congressman supporting designation of the Detroit River as a National Heritage River. Congressman Dingell has sent a letter to several agencies regarding proposed development of Humbug Marsh raising concerns about contaminant levels in the project area. Humbug Marsh is the last undeveloped marsh on the U.S. side and is subject to development pressures. The project will require a Section 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers but the Corps has not yet received a formal application from the developer. Locals have requested that Grassy Island be turned over to the locals for a park. The Island is part of Wyandotte NWR. Jerry McClain said some funding is being devoted to his office's restoration efforts for the lake sturgeon in the Lower Detroit River.

Salmon Trout Watershed Tom Busiahn reported that coaster brook trout use this river. Partner efforts are underway to collect appropriate information to help parties make management decisions in the future. The watershed is 50 square miles in size.

Saginaw Bay Doug Spencer reported that Michigan is concerned that Lake Huron is the "forgotten" lake under the LAMP process. Michigan has stated that the LAMP process is too expensive and time-consuming and is working to get the job done some other way. Jerry McClain is looking for darters and gobies in the watershed.

Superior Coastal Wetland Initiative Tom Busiahn said that acquisition funds are being sought through the North American Wetland Conservation Act process. Several partners from Federal agencies, state and local governments, and non-governmental organizations are involved.

Duluth - Superior Harbor Dredging Project Lynn Lewis reported that the disposal process is an issue as both Wisconsin and Minnesota prohibit open lake disposal. The Corps is pursuing alternatives to disposal. The two states have indicated they will pay the difference between open water disposal and confined disposal or other disposal methods.

Region 5 Happenings In the last year, Region 5 has established the St. Lawrence Wetland and Grassland Management District. Dieter Busch's office is involved with related fish work and the Private Lands program is also involved. In the Lake Ontario Basin, the Montezuma NWR is involved with Private Lands work. Cortland Ecological Services Field Office and Ducks Unlimited is contributing technical assistance. Dieter's office coordinated a diving search for sturgeon last weekend in the Niagara River and found 2 young sturgeon; further efforts will be made in this regard. Dave Stilwell reported that the Cortland ES Field Office is involved in hydro work on nonfederal hydro projects regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Service coordinated 19 hydro projects on the Racket River that involved fish passage issues. An American eel population is threatened by a hydro facility and work is continuing on that issue.

Bob distributed that draft biennial Team work plan he developed on behalf of the Team, as requested at the March 1998 Team meeting. He indicated he would add specific work items as they are developed.

Cormorants Larry Martin distributed and reviewed a handout prepared by Steve Lewis that reports on the results of a conference call the Cormorant group convened on June 12. Larry reviewed the key points discussed during the call, which included outreach, management plan development, population monitoring, research, and ecosystem team funding. Larry described an outreach budget of $15,765. Mike Burr (USGS/BRD, Sandusky, Ohio) proposes to study the foraging habits and movement patterns of cormorants.

Lake Sturgeon Jerry McClain stated that this core group recently had a conference call to arrive at common ground and decide where to go. Current restoration is mostly by individual agencies and on an individual lake basis, which suggests a need for an overall planning effort. Fish passage is an issuse that encompasses the entire basin. Contaminant assessment work is needed on eggs and body contaminant burdens. Another need is for standardized genetic analytical methods. The core group's ultimate recommendation is for the Team to form a committee to carry on the work involving all Service programs cutting across all Basins. Jerry indicated that sturgeon populations in Lake Superior and Lake St. Clair seem to be the healthiest in the Great Lakes.

Reauthorization of the GLFWRA Kofi reported on the status of efforts to reauthorize the Act and handed out a data sheet explaining the importance of the Act. Kofi recommended that Service field office staff distribute the sheet to supporters such as stage agencies, NGOs, etc. The Commission & Great Lakes Fishery Commission will give strong testimony to Congress in support of the reauthorization.

Lake sturgeon restoration The Team agreed to establish a committee to address lake sturgeon restoration on behalf of the Team. Committee membership includes the core group members (Jerry McClain, Chris Lowie, Tom Hughes, Janet Smith, Jim Fossum, John Weisser), and the following additional individuals: Susan Wells (Ottawa NWR), Rob Elliott (Green Bay FRO), Henry Quinlan (Ashland FRO), Tom Jasikoff, Bob Lumadue, Ron Refsnider (Region 3 RO), a representative from the LaCrosse Fish Health Center, and Bob Krska. This committee will convene an organizational conference call within 30 days to establish its priorities, determine appropriate actions, etc.

Bob Lumadue indicated that Law Enforcement is actively involved in activities He expressed his hope that the committee would get organized quickly and start going forward. Bob will organize the initial conference call.

Cormorants The cormorant issue is broad, requiring active involvement of both Regions 3 and 5. A major item of discussion relative to the cormorant issue was outreach to the general public and NGOs, including sportsmen, which needs to be a high priority. The group recognized, however, that the public is more than sportfishing groups. All field offices need to get involved in the outreach effort by contacting sportsmen groups, distributing fact sheets, showing videos, etc. The Service's effort will require close coordination with state agencies and the states' active participation. Our outreach message must be very worded carefully to avoid talking about killing cormorants as a population control measure because of the potential to establish controlling birds by killing them as a national precedent. This outreach effort will require assembling available research data, contacting outreach specialists, and designing the method of presenting the information to appropriate entities. There is much information on the cormorant out there and it needs to be collected and organized. What is being proposed is the proper Federal role of the Service, namely, coordinating an effort on a multi-state and binational resource issue. It was reported that the Service's Migratory Bird Office in Washington is developing a policy statement on cormorants.

Ultimately, the Team agreed to form a cormorant committee. Membership includes the original members of the core group (Larry Martin, Steve Lewis, and Diane Pence), as well as several individuals who volunteered during the meeting: Kofi, Dave Huntly, Mike Tansy, Tom Jasikoff, Ken Stromborg (Green Bay ES), Jim Dastyck and Ed DeVries or Becky Goche (Shiawassee NWR). Larry will develop the initial list of members of the committee and coordinate the first conference call within 30 days.

Reauthorization of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act Based on the recommendation from Kofi, the Team agreed to use the fact sheet prepared by the Lower Great Lakes FRO and distribute it to NGOs, state agencies, and others on behalf of reauthorization of the Act. Dieter Busch was volunteered to be the leader of a reauthorization committee, comprised of Dieter, Kofi, and Dale Burkett, although this committee will serve primarily as an entity to keep the Team advised of progress with reauthorization. It was pointed out that a good source of information on the status of reauthorization is the Great Lakes Information Network web site.

Joan Guilfoyle and Jim Hudgins gave a status report of outreach activities in the Great Lakes. Joan reported that Region 3 has done several outreach activities associated with several issues in the Great Lakes, including the Kirtland's warbler, lake sturgeon, Natural Resource Damage Assessment projects, and the bald eagle. Joan pointed out that those doing outreach need to know what the message is to be and who the audience is to be. Jim reported on passive outreach activities such as posters in field offices, the GLBE Team's ecosystem exhibit, which grew out of the Service=s involvement in the annual Michigan Outdoor-ama event, the exhibit at Migratory Bird Day, etc. It was pointed out that we need to prepare exhibits that can be used for a variety of audiences and tailored to the particular subject being addressed. Outreach could be handled by a basin-by-basin approach or by specific issues, such as cormorants and lake sturgeon. A recommendation was made to include outreach on the agenda for the next meeting and provide an opportunity for a more in-depth discussion on this subject.

Jim proposed the use of standardized displays for each Great Lakes field office, which would be tailored to meet the needs of individual stations, to express a consistent message about the Service. This would involve acquisition/development of standardized display units, preparation of standardized Service display materials, and customization of the display for each field office. Each field office would purchase a "standard" 10-foot display. A benefit of having compatible display units (size, color, etc) is that it would allow the combination of separate units into larger displays when needed. Jim will coordinate preparation of standardized display material using software to be purchased. Volunteers who offered to assist Jim in this effort include a staff person from Doug's office, a representative of the Cortland ES Field Office, perhaps Carmen (Ann Arbor LE), and Joan, who will help with development of text, selection of photographs, etc. Jim will coordinate a conference call with basin team leaders within 30 days to iron out details, such as standardizing display units, determining the process for preparing the general Service display materials, and establishing the process for preparing materials that are customized by each office. Joan requested that field offices begin thinking about sending her photos for this outreach project.

Bob reported that the total of pledges to the kitty is $26,350. Specific projects related to the Team

Bob reported that the total of pledges to the kitty is $26,350. Specific projects related to the Team's three priority issues were identified:

• Lake sturgeon web page $3,800

• Cormorant outreach $5,000

• Cormorant status assessment $5,000

• Lake Erie cormorant study $5,000

• Lake Erie night surveillance equipment $5,000 (Subsequently reduced to $2,500)

• Outreach/dry mounting equipment $1,000

• Outreach photos $1,000

The Team decided to fund all of these projects. Bob will coordinate allocation of the kitty funds to the specific projects and requested that all who pledged contributions to the kitty contact him by COB June 19 with the appropriate cost codes.

The Team decided that at the next meeting committee leaders should report on the progress being made in implementing the projects with Team kitty funds.

Doug reported on the status of a Great Lakes Visitor Center and provided an informational handout. The idea for a visitor center originated as a visitor center for Shiawassee NWR. It has evolved into an ecosystem visitor center for all Service programs in the Great Lakes. Current partners include the Conservation Fund, the local county, and the township. The facility would be located at a major center for tourist traffic, near Frankenmuth, with a nearby major factory outlet mall, motels, restaurants, and other amenities. The county has offered to donate 300 acres for the Center. Doug requested the GLBE Team to endorse the project - the Team agreed; Doug will prepare a memo expressing the Team's endorsement for Tom Busiahn's signature as Team Leader-elect. Funding probably would be via a Congressional add-on, although Doug is looking for a lot of non-Service funding. The estimated cost of the facility is approximately $3.5 million, although several Team members commented that the cost probably will be considerably more than $3.5 million.

Tom reported on the status of the Northern Great Lakes Center and provided an informational handout. The facility, located 2 miles outside of Ashland, Wisconsin, has been completed and will have an official opening ceremony in September 1998. It is located adjacent to the recently established Wittlesey Creek NWR. The Forest Service and Historical Society are the prime movers behind establishment of this Center. Tom indicated that the Service's GLBE Team's ecosystem display is on display at the Center in the interim until permanent displays are decided upon and installed.

TJ Miller reported on an opportunity with US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA collects fines from individuals and industries for contaminant violations and uses the fine moneys to implement supplemental environmental projects as part of the penalty process; this program also applies to EPA

TJ Miller reported on an opportunity with US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA collects fines from individuals and industries for contaminant violations and uses the fine moneys to implement supplemental environmental projects as part of the penalty process; this program also applies to EPA=s gas and oil division and their enforcement process. EPA prefers to use the funds for activities in the immediate vicinity of the location of the validations, although it may consider funding activities beyond the violation areas. The average project cost last fiscal year was $350,000. TJ stated that EPA wants the Service to identify projects that could be funded with the fines. Projects could be located on NWRs or could be used to purchase land for NWRs, among other potential uses, and could include projects in Regions 3 and 5 as this is a national EPA program. The Team requested TJ to provide a list of locations of where violations resulting in fines have occurred. An item on the agenda for the next meeting will be to prioritize the Service's list of projects for use by EPA in this program.

Charlie proposes that Sally be designated as the computer coordinator for Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio. She could assume that role if each affected field office committed to supporting Sally with $2,500 per fiscal year; this funding amount would be about one-half of her salary. She may also be able to develop WEB pages for us. Charlie will contact appropriate field offices within the next 30 days to determine interest in starting this in FY 1999.

Mark described the basis of the trust, how it is being managed, the types and geographic scope of potential projects that may funded with the trust, and distributed an informational brochure. Mark stated that there will be an annual call for project proposals and that there may be up to $4 to 5 million available for projects annually. Mark encouraged Team members to check out the trust's web page.

Before concluding the meeting, the Team discussed inviting other agencies to participate in our Team's meetings. Benefits of having outside entities sit in on the meetings include the fact that they would have the opportunity to see what the Team is working on and would likely have valuable input to the Team. On the other hand, if outside entities were invited to Team meetings, the number of participants could get unwieldy, as this Team encompasses eight states, numerous Federal and state agencies, tribes, etc. It was mentioned that the Ohio River Valley Ecosystem Team invites all states to each meeting but only two states (Ohio and West Virginia) send representatives routinely. Furthermore, most of the substantive involvement of partners occurs at the ORVE Team's sub-group level where actual projects are identified and implemented. It was decided that the Executive Committee will address this issue.

The Team scheduled the next meeting for November 4 & 5, 1998, in Green Bay, Wisconsin, as these dates and location were acceptable to most Team members. Janet Smith's and Mark Holey's offices offered to arrange the meeting location and accommodations.

Bob summarized the decisions reached by the Team during the meeting:

Decisions (from flip charts and meeting notes)

• Region 5 sub-team to inform John Christian and the Team of its activities, meeting schedules, etc

• At the next Team meeting (November 4 & 5), the Team will identify its research needs, by resource goal - Bob will solicit from Team members research needs, which will be provided to him 30 days before the next meeting; Bob will compile and distribute them to the Team before the next meeting

• Invite representatives from USGS-BRD's Eastern Region to the next Team meeting

• Doug will develop the Team's endorsement for developing the Great Lakes Visitors Center; Tom Busiahn will sign the memo as Team Leader-elect

• The Team established a lake sturgeon restoration committee; a conference call among committee members will be convened within 30 days

• The Team established a cormorant committee; a conference call among committee members will be convened within 30 days

• The Executive Committee will address the issue of outside participation in Team meetings

• A committee comprised of Kofi, Dieter, and Dale will keep Team members informed of developments in reauthorization of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act; all GLBE Team field offices will contact their partners to seek support for reauthorization, as appropriate

• The Team selected seven projects to fund with its kitty; all those who pledged contributions to the kitty will cc:mail Bob their cost code information by June 19; Bob will prepare memos allocating the funding and will send copies of the memos to kitty contributors, the leads for the projects, and the respective regional office administrative officers

• The Outreach Committee was expanded

• Jim will coordinate Outreach Committee issues via conference calls with Basin Team Leaders, especially, initially, related to development of standardized outreach displays

• TJ will provide to Team members a list of locations of areas where contaminant fines have been levied; he will coordinate with the Region 3 portion of the Team submittal of potential Supplemental Environmental Projects to EPA; he will coordinate a similar process with Region 5; Tom Jasikoff will spread the word of this program with his colleagues in the Region 5 GLBE Team Sub-team

• Bob will transmit meeting minutes to Region 3 and 5 programmatic staff, other ecosystem teams, and others, as appropriate

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

• Facilitator

• Region 3 & 5 GARDs were present

• Regions 3 & 5 "melded"

• Advance work on the Team's three basin-wide issues performed by the core groups

• Outside speakers

• Accommodations (Thanks Kent!)

• Focus Area updates

One participant proposed the only aspect of the meeting to be changed: conduct field trips in association with Team meetings - this recommendation generated some discussion - some agreed with the recommendation while several others believed it would add length to the meeting - a possibility is to add field trips after the business portion of the meeting and making participation in field trips voluntary

The meeting was adjourned at 11:55.

Bob Krska, (Facilitator) Tony Leger, Larry Martin, Tom Busiahn, Doug Spencer, John Christian, Tom Jasikoff, Terry Morse, Rod May, Bob Lamoy, Dave Stilwell, Denny Lavis, Rich Greenwood, Lynn Lewis, Charlie Wooley, Rick Nelson, Mark Holey, Janet Smith, Kofi Fynn-Aikins, Jerry McClain, Mike Tansy, Joan Guilfoyle, Dave Huntley, Terry Yonker, Kent Kroonemeyer, (Note taker) Jim Hudgins, Bob Lumadue, Mike Donahue.

Minutes prepared by: Bob Krska (July 1) based on the detailed meeting notes taken by Kent Kroonemeyer and the scribblings of Bob Krska