Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team Meeting Minutes

July 12-13, 1995      Detroit, Michigan

Don Young to provide copy of the draft Region 5 Ecosystem Approach Implementation Document to Dale Burkett for inclusion in the Team Plan as modified during discussion. DONE (see Agenda Item 1)

John Christian to request feedback on the current Plan from the Region 3 RO by August 15, 1995.

Dale Burkett to provide summary of Statutory Mandates and Authorities affecting the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem to the Team. DONE (see Agenda Item 2)

Dale Burkett to facilitate a subgroup meeting (Wooley, Spencer, Miller, Busiahn, McCloskey) on August 9-10, 1995 to: sharpen our Resource Goals to 3-5; place them into a hierarchy without losing significant content; fine-tune our Objectives to 10-12; and circulate the resulting draft proposal for review and comment prior to the next Team meeting. BEING DONE (see Agenda Item 5)

Great Lakes Coordination Office to host a MANDATORY and focused Team meeting in Detroit, Michigan, September 12-14, 1995. The purpose of this meeting being to develop detailed Actions to accompany our Objectives. PLANNED AND PROCEEDING (see Agenda Item 5)

Project Leaders to complete a one-page Station Description, in a format developed by Tom Busiahn and Doug Spencer and distributed by the Great Lakes Coordination Office, and submit it to Dale Burkett no later than August 14, 1995. These Station Descriptions will then be compiled in a "booklet" and distributed to all Team members. ASSIGNMENT MADE JULY 24, 1995 (see Agenda Item 5)

Project Leaders to prepare Draft Actions that can be done now and submit them to the Great Lakes Coordination Office no later than September 1, 1995. These Draft Actions must be related to the "new and improved" Objectives that will be drafted on August 9-10, commented on by the Team by August 14, and distributed to the Team by August 15. Draft Actions submitted by September 1 will be copied to all Team members to provide time for review and consideration prior to the September 12-14 Team meeting. Each Team member will receive a format for the Draft Action submittals accompanying the "new and improved" Objectives that will be shipped on August 15, 1995.

Rich Greenwood to pursue a "home page" on the Wolrd-Wide Web for the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team. ASAP

Joan Guilfoil to develop an outreach network with partner agencies. SOON

Intent is to avoid re-allocation of base budget.

Managers will be challenged to manage programmatic/geographic complexities in a simple and efficient way via empowered ecosystem teams.

Regional Office will provide needed direction and Leadership.

The Region's approach has been to minimize turmoil during the FY'95-'98 period with the intent of moving to a full-blown geographic approach in FY'99 and thereafter, provided that RIGO and NPR goals are met.

The ecosystem teams are REAL. Their mission is to positively impact respective ecosystems via collaborative and collective action while addressing Service priorities. The teams should accomplish this task by sharing resources to address common challenges, minimizing process, and maximizing progress.

Ecosystem teams will substantially retain their current ecosystem-based membership.

In cases where field stations are located in multiple ecosystems, but assigned to a single ARD, favoritism will be avoided by applying a group budget decision-making process among the three ARDs.

Definition of team Resource Goals, Objectives, and Actions is required basic work which the team must produce. As these Team Plan elements are pursued, they will be continually evaluated and fine-tuned to allow and support progress that will benefit the ecosystem.

The Team Plan will form the basis of the annual W.A.G. for each station, the specifics of which will be negotiated by the Geographic ARD and individual Project Leaders.

The W.A.G. from the Region could be as simple as "do the Team Plan."

Perhaps a process can be developed that would allow ecosystem teams to have some input into the allocation of flexible program funding.

John encouraged everyone to comment to Regional Directorate regarding "The Plan" and integrating the ecosystem approach.

We like the Objectives, but don't love them.

Criteria should be determined from a Service perspective.

Reality checks need to be built into the Team process.

The Great Lakes Basin ecosystem is facing many challenges and the potential loss of valuable tools like NBS-GLSC and NOAA-GLERL. We need to develop strategies for coping with impacts of external forces on the ecosystem.

Because of changes in the national political environment we should be focusing planning efforts on the new political realities and generating strategies and opportunities associated with these realities such as:

• Developing strategies to combat declines;
• Bolstering support for critical programs; and
• Aligning efforts to build future opportunities.

We need to focus on:

• Knowing what we are doing;
• Knowing why we are doing it;
• Doing it; and
• Communicating the results.

Internal and between-Program trust is critical to our success and must be developed and sustained.

The Team needs to view the ecosystem-based approach process as an opportunity.

Ideas

In Region 5 each Team has been given $50K by Refuges and Wildlife to use on its identified priorities and/or emergencies. The States are also active participants. Equipment loaning has been one of the spin-off benefits of this approach.

At a future Team meeting, Project Leaders should make a brief report to the Team on what they are doing (this idea evolved into an Action Item - see above).

The Resource Goals, Objectives and Actions in the Team Plan should be used to focus field activities to the extent possible, not interpreted as "added work".

The Team Plan should be used by the ecosystem team members:

- as an outreach tool to develop understanding about Plan priorities in that geographic area;

- as a basis for identifying and developing partnership opportunities;

- as a basis for evaluating and reporting Plan accomplishments;

- to provide an opportunity for the team to have significant input into the Regional decision-making process;

- as a basis for providing the Regional Office with budget information on what could be accomplished with additional funds, if available;

- to set priorities for station activities (what should be done first and where and what can receive less or no attention);

- to focus base (and other) dollars and staff on the Team Plan's Goals and Objectives;

- to eliminate duplication and provide a shared focus in field operations;

- to identify work coordination needs within the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team and between teams; and

- as a basis for developing station plans that reflect the ecosystem priorities.

The Team Plan should be used by the Regional Office to:

- evaluate performance;

- identify cross-training needs and opportunities;

- empower the Team to make and act on its own decisions;

- identify potential resource "trainwrecks";

- develop budget submissions for possible increase packages and to indicate priority areas where decreases should be avoided;

- as a basis for evaluating and reporting Service accomplishments;

- providing significant input into Washington Office decision-making.

The Team should implement the Team Plan through:

- focusing base funds and ongoing activities;

- identification of current activities that contribute to the Actions;

- establishing partnerships; and

- utilizing new funds, when available.

(Note: The greatest part of the Service budget is base; adds are only a very small percent of the overall budget. The real question is how to address priority issues within existing base funds. Given the short turn-around time often associated with budget exercises, the teams should maintain up-to-date information on Actions, the relative priority of those Actions, how base dollars can be used to achieve the Objectives, and what could be accomplished with additional funds.)

Agenda Item 2: What are the current realities impacting implementation of the ecosystem-based approach?

The Team chose to explore current realities in a brief brainstorming session, the results of which follow.

Many funds received by the Service are targeted for specific purposes.

A new Congressional power structure exists with a new agenda.

Our Washington Office is structured along program lines.

RIGO impacts.

Downsizing impacts.

Many agencies are simultaneously facing RIGO and downsizing impacts.

Mandatory training is increasing.

FmHA easement enforcement problems and lack of guidance.

Changing public attitude about the role of Federal government and of government in general.

State Department's of Natural Resources need a certain amount of support not directly related to Service priorities.

Ecosystem-based approaches to management face opposition from a wide variety of partners.

We don't do enough outreach and education.

Statutory Mandates and Authorities

ANADROMOUS FISH CONSERVATION ACT OF 1985

(16 U.S.C. 757a-757g) Directs the Fish and Wildlife Service to conserve, develop, and enhance with States the anadromous fishery resources of the Nation that are subject to depletion from water resources developments and other causes. The Act also includes anadromous fish resources conservation addressed in international agreements and in the Great Lakes. This will be accomplished by entering into cooperative agreements with the States for which the Federal cost shall not exceed 50 percent.

BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN OF 1909

(36 STAT. 2448) States that neither country shall divert or pollute the waters on their side so as to cause injury of health or property (including commercial fishing) on the other side. This Treaty is the basis for the International Joint Commission and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements.

COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT

(16 U.S.C. 3051 et.seq.) Designated various undeveloped coastal barrier islands, depicted by specific maps, for inclusion in the Coastal Barrier Resources System (System). Areas so designated were made ineligible for direct or indirect Federal financial assistance that might support development, including flood insurance, except for emergency life-saving activities. Exceptions for certain activities, such as fish and wildlife research are provided. The Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 included in the System additional areas along the Great Lakes.

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT

(16 U.S.C. 1451-1464) Authorized in 1990, the Act provides assistance to the coastal states in developing coastal zone management programs that will protect, develop and enhance coastal resources. The primary tool used to achieve this objective is a grant program with guidance and oversight provided by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce.

EMERGENCY WETLANDS RESOURCES ACT OF 1986

(P.L. 99-645) Enacted to intensify cooperative and acquisition efforts among private interests and local, State, and Federal governments for the protection, management, and conservation of wetlands.

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973

(As amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) Implemented the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere. The Act provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants by Federal action and by encouraging the establishment of State programs.

ESTUARY PROTECTION ACT

(16 U.S.C. 1221-1226) Highlights the values of estuaries and the need to conserve their natural resources. It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with other Federal agencies and the States, to study and inventory estuaries of the United States, including land and water of the Great Lakes, and to determine whether such areas should be acquired by the Federal government for protection.

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS

(33 U.S.C. 1251-1365, 1281-1292, 1311-1328, 1342-1345, 1361-1376) The 1972 amendments represented a major initiative to restore the quality of the Nation=s waters. A major national goal established by the amendments was the achievement of water quality which provides for protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. The 1987 amendments of this Act included section 320 entitled ANational Estuary Program.@ This section provided the mechanism by which the Governor of any State could nominate to the Administrator of EPA, an estuary within its boundaries as an estuary of national significance and request a management conference to develop a comprehensive management plan for the estuary. The Service=s Bay/Estuary program coordinates closely with EPA=s established programs.

FISH AND WILDLIFE ACT OF 1956

(As amended, 16 U.S.C. 742a-742j) Established a comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy; directs the Secretary of the Interior to provide continuing research, extension, and information services, and to take any necessary steps to develop, manage, protect, and conserve fishery and wildlife resources, including research, acquisition of refuge lands, development of existing facilities, and other means.

FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT

(As amended, 16 U.S.C. 661-666c) Authorizes assistance to Federal, State, and other agencies in development, protection, rearing, and stocking of fish and wildlife and controlling losses thereof. Authorizes surveys of fish and wildlife of all Federal lands and on effects of pollution. Authorizes surveys to prevent losses of, and to enhance, fish and wildlife at water-use projects constructed or licensed by the Federal government.

                    LACEY ACT OF 1900

(As amended, 16 U.S.C. 7001) States that the duties of the Department of the Interior include conservation, preservation, and restoration of Agame birds and other wild birds,@ and authorizes measures for their restoration from such funds as Congress may appropriate. Authorization is also provided to Aregulate the introduction of American or foreign birds or animals into new locations, and to collect and publish information on wild birds.@ It provides enforcement authorities and penalties for violation of various wildlife related Acts and regulations. It prohibits the transportation of wildlife or their parts or products taken or possessed in violation of Federal, State, or foreign laws or regulations.

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1966

(As amended, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) Constitutes an AOrganic Act@ for the National Wildlife Refuge System and provides guidelines and directives for the administration and management of all areas in the system including Awildlife refuges, areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, and waterfowl production areas.@

NONINDIGENOUS AQUATIC NUISANCE PREVENTION AND CONTROL ACT OF 1990

(16 U.S.C. 4701-4741) Mandates and provides comprehensive authority for a national program to address problems related to unintentional introductions of nonindigenous aquatic species into waters of the United States. Authorized is the establishment of a national program to reduce the risk of such introductions and to control, when warranted, aquatic nuisance species that become established. Also authorized are several related efforts, including coordination of nonindigenous species activities in the Great Lakes, a review of policies for addressing intentional introductions, and brown tree snake control.

NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT OF 1989

(16 U.S.C. 4401-4412) Enacted to encourage partnerships among public agencies and other interests to: 1) protect, enhance, restore, and manage an appropriate distribution and diversity of wetlands ecosystems and other habitats for migratory birds and other fish and wildlife in North America; 2) maintain current or improved distributions of migratory bird populations; and 3) sustain an abundance of waterfowl and other migratory birds consistent with the goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the international obligations contained in the migratory bird treaties and conventions and other agreements with Canada, Mexico, and other countries.

OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990

( P.L. 101-380) This Act mandates the Service to: 1) assist the Coast Guard in revising the National Contingency Plan and the accompanying fish and wildlife response plan; 2) assist in developing Area Contingency Plans; 3) assist NOAA in preparing damage assessment regulations and conducting damage assessments; 4) review vessel and facility response plans; and 5) conduct research on environmental effects of oil spills.

GREAT LAKES FISHERY ACT OF 1956

(16 U.S.C. 931-939c) Implements the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries between the United States and Canada covering Lake Ontario (including the Saint Lawrence River from Lake Ontario to the forty-fifth parallel of latitude), Lake Erie, Lake Huron (including Lake Saint Clair), Lake Michigan, and Lake Superior.

PERE MARQUETTE RIVER AMENDMENT

(P.L. 98-444) Amended the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to permit control of the Alamprey eel@ in the Pere Marquette River, Michigan, by allowing the installation and operation of dams and other control facilities in accordance with requirements prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture for the protection of water quality and the value of the river.

GREAT LAKES FISH AND WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT OF 1990

(16 U.S.C. 941a-941g) Enacted to: 1) carry out a comprehensive study of the status, and the assessment, management, and restoration needs, of the fishery resources of the Great Lakes Basin; 2) develop proposals to implement recommendations resulting from the study; and 3) provide assistance to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, States, Native Americans, and other interested entities to encourage cooperative conservation, restoration, and management of the fish and wildlife resources and their habitats of the Great Lakes Basin.

Agenda Item 3: What is the relationship of the Team Plan to the Work Activity Guidance?

The Team asked this question of John Christian who responded with the following statement.

With the exception of those things out of our control, W.A.G.s will evolve towards simple statements like: "do the Team Plan and report station progress." Of course our Plan will be continually tested against Service priorities.

Agenda Item 4: What prioritization process will we use for the Objectives and/or Actions in the Team Plan?

The Team discussed the merit of prioritizing Objectives and Actions and generated a series of questions.

- How should prioritization relate the Service "pillars"?

- Why should we prioritize?

- Do we need criteria to prioritize?

- What are we proposing to prioritize?

- Have we REALLY done the work below the Objective level?

- Do Actions = projects in an increase package...or are increase package projects just one type of Action?

The Team decided to:

Examine Objective wording and tighten them up.

Develop Actions more completely using the full Team with homework in advance.

Sequence Actions under Objectives in logical order.

Adjust Actions on an annual, opportunity, or emergency basis (Adjust = add, drop, or modify with priority to be set at time of increase or decrease package development).

Agenda Item 5: What process will the Team use to conduct its business?

The Team discussed the following options in addition to holding whole Team:

- Form subgroups by Lake Basins.

- Form an Executive Committee composed of 10-12 members that has the capacity to act for the entire Team.

- Form Focus or Implementation Teams by Objective or grouped Objectives.

The Team decided to:

Recognize that its three major functions related to ecosystem projects include: development; implementation; and administration/tracking.

Continue to consider the options listed above.

Have a subgoup meet on August 9-10, 1995 to sharpen our Resource Goals and Objectives and circulate their proposal for review and comment prior to the next Team meeting.

Hold a mandatory focused Team meeting in Detroit, Michigan, September 12-14, 1995. The purpose of this meeting being to develop detailed Actions to accompany our Objectives. These Objectives and Actions will then form the basis upon which future W.A.G.s will be negotiated. The process will be to develop Actions using breakout groups by Objectives (two breakout groups for each Objective). Actions will be reconciled between replicate Objective breakout groups and finalized in whole-team sessions.

Ask Project Leaders to complete a one-page Station Description, in a format developed by Tom Busiahn and Doug Spencer and distributed by the Great Lakes Coordination Office, and submit it to Dale Burkett no later than August 14, 1995. These Station Descriptions will then be compiled in a "booklet" and distributed to all Team members.

Ask Project Leaders to prepare Draft Actions related to projects that can be done now and submit them to the Great Lakes Coordination Office no later than September 1, 1995. These Draft Actions must be related to the "new and improved" Objectives that will be drafted on August 9-10, commented on by the Team by August 14, and distributed to the Team by August 15. Draft Actions submitted by September 1 will be copied to all Team members to provide time for review and consideration prior to the September 12-14 Team meeting. Each Team member will receive a format for the Draft Action submittals accompanying the "new and improved" Objectives that will be shipped on August 15, 1995.

Agenda Item 6: What is the appropriate role for non-FWS, State, and Native American Tribal Partners?

To address previous challenges associated with Team identity and mission and to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our partnering efforts, the Team will pursue the following relationship with our partners in the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.

Purpose of the Team

The three major functions of the Team related to Fish and Wildlife Service ecosystem projects include: development; implementation; and administration/tracking.

Relationship with Team Partners

The Team will provide opportunities for our non-FWS, State, and Native American Tribal Partners to interface their efforts with ours in the hope of increased efficiency and effectiveness with respect to Actions of mutual or collective benefit. To this end we will:

Send a letter from Bill Hartwig to the State Directors, Tribal Chairs, and our non-FWS Federal partners describing the purpose and operations of our Team and including the present version of our Team Plan. In addition, invite the partners to attend/participate in the September Team meeting.

Offer opportunities to provide written comments on or input to the Team Plan and to attend or send representatives to Team meetings.

Encourage to the greatest degree possible, participation by our partners in the Team's activities.

Explore ways to interface Team Action efforts among partners sharing resources to accomplish common objectives.