Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team Meeting Minutes

September 28-29, 1999      Marquette, Michigan

Welcome and Introduction - Tom Busiahn

This meeting is the first time the GLBET has met in the Lake Superior Basin. Team members are encouraged to visit the Lake Superior Biological Station. The Seney National Wildlife Refuge is also near to Marquette. This is also the first GLBET meeting when no GARDs have been present. For the next day and a half, the team is in charge, and it=s up to the Team to make the meeting all it can be.

Comments from GARD representatives - Bob Krska & Joe Dowhan

Bob Krska: In order to ensure every one knows each other and because the GLBET is getting larger, it is important to go through introductions.

Three primary purposes of the meeting:

1. assess the status of implementation of the Ecosystem Approach by the GLBET and explore opportunities to improve;
2. become familiar with pertinent activities of the Service at the national, regional, ecosystem levels and of others applying the ecosystem approach; and
3. explore collaborative opportunities both within and beyond the Service.

Every meeting the GLBET has tried to get some outside speakers from other agencies. The desired outcomes of this meeting are as follows:

1. awareness of pertinent activities at the national, regional (3 & 5), and ecosystem levels;
2. awareness of ecosystem approach-related activities of partner agencies and organizations and have preliminary discussions of collaborative opportunities;
3. evaluation of the function and form of the GLBET and identification of needed adjustments;
4. identification of activities to be pursued by the Team in FY 2000; and
5. schedule next team meeting.

Two breakout sessions were scheduled in order to accommodate overlapping committee memberships. Invasive species, islands, and outreach will meet this afternoon. Lake sturgeon, cormorants, and migratory birds will meet tomorrow morning. Cormorants and migratory birds will meet together. Items that committees should identify in their breakout sessions are listed in the e-mailed agenda and include the following: identify research needs, identify action items and any needed modifications in the Team's biennial work plan, and determine how GLBET priorities can overlap with Director's priorities. Committees need to complete action items from the previous GLBET meeting if they haven't already. John Christian was not able to attend due to another Region 3 meeting.

Joe Dowhan: Sherry Morgan was sorry she couldn't attend. The Region 5 stabilization is in process. Region 5 GARDs are strongly supportive of the ecosystem teams. Sherry intends to attend GLBET meetings once a year. David Stilwell appointed as Leader of New York field stations (correct title?).

Bob Krska: GARDs would probably appreciate feedback on how often the Team would like the GARDs to attend.

Staffing Changes at the Great Lakes Science Center -Nancy Milton Owen Gorman was recently hired as the new Field Station leader of the Great Lakes Science Center's (GLSC) Lake Superior Biological Field Station. It's a high priority in FY 2000 to get three biologists on each lake; the Lake Ontario and Lake Michigan biologist positions will be the first to be filled. The GLSC is involved in a benthic mapping initiative along with other agencies including the Army Corps, NOAA, and the Canadian Geological Survey. Guy Fleischer and Greg Kennedy are the two staff people most closely involved in the initiative at the GLSC. The mapping will use two techniques - multibeam acoustics in deepwater and lasers in shallow water B in order to characterize the lakebed. Another initiative in which the GLSC is involved is the Great Lakes Initiative; this initiative brings together the efforts of all USGS divisions and has received support from the USGS Director. In the future, the USGS will be linking with other agencies in order to identify research needs. The new GLSC research vessel the R/V Kiyi will be on Lake Superior by spring field season. The R/V Siscowet is going to the Lake Michigan group at least temporarily.

Exotic Species: Invasive Plants on Refuges Presentation and Q&A B Mike Tansy All NWR are now infested with purple loosestrife; the first evidence of purple loosestrife in Seney NWR was seen this year. The vast majority of non-natives are plants and insects. There has been a significant increase in non-natives since 1990. Most non-natives are not invasive but just a nuisance. A Class 1 non-native is aggressive and invasive. Non-natives are a problem nationwide. Spotted knapweed is beginning to be a problem in the Seney NWR area. Knapweed is a biennial that produces a herbicide in order to exclude neighboring plants. Leafy spurge is also in the area; this species is a major problem in the West. Glossy buckthorn is another non-native present in the Seney NWR. It is an ornamental that is sometimes planted as food for birds. A particular concern is maintaining the native shrub layer against buckthorn. Garlic mustard is an under-story Class 1 non-native. This species is not yet a problem in the Seney, but it is a major problem in many areas of the Midwest. Beetle-releasing program is present at several refuges to control purple loosestrife. Money needs to be redirected towards invasive-exotics control. For example, it is still possible to control buckthorn at Seney with adequate efforts. In Michigan and Wisconsin, only 10 out of the existing non-natives are considered invasive and are thus a problem.

Discussion: Appropriations during the next two years for exotics will not cover the amount needed to control exotics. One example of funding requirements for exotics is a $35,000 proposal to hire two techs to control glossy buckthorn on Seney. This funding will not be available until for another couple of years; this delay is strange given that exotics is one of the Director's priorities. How successful are beetles in controlling loosestrife? If an area is large, it will take many, many years to see difference, but on small areas the results are apparent sooner. It is necessary to wait about seven years to build up a sufficient beetle population in order to judge if there is a difference. The loosestrife plants will never be completely gone. Some sites are doing well and others not, and we're not sure what is responsible for these differences. Initial research on beetles was conducted at the Montezuma NWR. Beetles doing very well and are dispersing. It does take about seven years to see a visible impact. If the beetles are able to overwinter, control success is probable. In Montezuma NWR, water levels were kept high for 23 years to control purple loosestrife. This year managers were able to draw water levels down in order to promote biodiversity. Weevils are able to help control spotted knapweed. Phragmites may also be able to be controlled by beetles. A professor at Cornell is working on it.

Exotic Species' Core Group: Report and Recommendations: Terry Morse The status report of Invasive Species Committee was distributed that reports on the conference call meeting held by the Committee. The Invasive Species Committee was formed last spring in Niagara, NY, and is composed of eight individuals. The committee charge was to have a conference call within thirty days. Sandra Kempner (the Committee's Chair) organized the call which was held on 1 July 1999. Seven priority action items were identified for the committee in the categories of Education (1-4), Coordination (5&6), and Research (7).

1. Develop preliminary educational initiatives to enhance information sharing with the public to identify: cross-programmatic issues and concerns regarding invasive species in the Great Lakes, ongoing Service and USGS-BRD activities targeting invasive species in the Great Lakes, and importance of the public in invasive species activities.
2. Develop proposals outlining educational activity needs, goals, and anticipated costs and identify potential funding sources.
3. Coordinate with the GLBET Education and Outreach Committee to identify and facilitate completion of the GLBET web page and accessibility through both Region 3 and 5 servers.
4. Collect photos/negatives of invasive species in the Great Lakes for use in educational materials. Target Service and USGS-BRD owned materials. Each committee member will identify and list photos available through his/her program.
5. Increase cross-programmatic communication and consultation within the Great Lakes to ensure informed decision-making.
6. Recommend that both Region 3 and 5 Ecological Services staff in the Great Lakes consult with the Chair of the Barrier Dam Task Force (Denny Lavis) regarding the removal of dams within the basin.
7. Identify research needs regarding invasive species in the Great Lakes Basin. Develop proposals identifying needs and associated costs for submission to the GLBET or other appropriate funding sources.

Discussion: Other regions are beginning to focus more on non-natives; for example, they are applying pressure to Washington to increase their appropriations for non-natives. Subsequently, getting funds for non-natives is going to become more competitive as other regions get up to speed. That is already happened to some extent. The Great Lakes' share of non-native funding has not increased although overall funds for non-natives have increased nationwide.

Presentation of GIS Capability and Opportunities: Presentation - Carl Korschgen & Jason Rohweder
Leslie Holland-Bartels has elevated the need for Decision Support Systems (DSS). The Service's support is necessary in establishing such initiatives in order to get funding for DSS. UMESC needs to show that they are responsive to managers in the region. In the past, research has not been readily available to address current management problems. Federal and State partners are providing a legacy of scientific data and information. By inputting this data into a dynamic support system, the data can be used indefinitely and are easily accessible. The system does not make the decision but provides the right information at the right time. The DSS uses Arc View as the platform or electronic encyclopedia. On the Mississippi River, a DSS is used to make navigation decisions every day. A DSS advances a management problem from how do we get the data to how do we find a solution. DSS is beyond GIS. UMESC is working with three refuges on the Mississippi River to develop comprehensive conservation plans. The habitat needs assessments that these refuges are doing tie in very well with CCP's. The reason that the projects have been successful is that they have taken a biologist's point of view. If a technologist's point of view had been taken, the decision would have been made with a black box. In this way, the manager is in total charge of the decision-making process. There are several delivery mechanisms for information that make the DSS functional: (1) point and click; (2) visual integration and query; and (3) modeling using Arc Info or SAS. Arc View is the standard platform for DOI. The take-home message of the presentation is that the resource partners on the Upper Mississippi are communicating better than ever because of the DSS efforts. UMESC scientists are working with Upper Mississippi managers to provide 21st-century decision support and tools. DSS are the wave of the future, and managers need to get on board. The Upper Mississippi can serve as a model for other regions.

Arc View is a windows compliant point and click software. On the left-hand side of the screen is a theme list. A theme can be shown on the map by highlighting it. One example is the Lake Erie Spill Response. By hot-linking to pdf files of reports, the tool goes from GIS to DSS. Some of the information that can be retrieved includes hourly water temperatures, scaup densities, and hunter densities. The DSS displays coordinates of every location. Another DSS example is Valisneria occurrence in the Detroit River. It is also possible to overlay a photo on the map. The establishment of zebra mussels has also been incorporated into a DSS using data from Ohio State. Ottawa NWR has metadata panel for each of their themes; the metadata shows how the theme data was generated. Metadata is extremely useful, in part because it provides the information necessary to repeat a study at a later data. Other information that is available is Region 3 ortho photo; they are excellent references to geographically connect photos to topographic maps.

UMESC conducts a four-day Arc View course on data from the Upper Mississippi. The UMESC provided computers to primary partners so they had no excuse not to use the DSS. In order to get the computer, the partners had to take the training. The UMESC serves 17,000 data files on the Center's homepage.

At Cat Island in Green Bay, forage areas were determined by following cormorants with an airplane. Results can be hot-linked to the associated publication. Other work in Green Bay involves Rob Elliott's lake sturgeon work. Eighteen sturgeons were tagged to show individual sturgeon movement and location. In this way, managers can determine how many of the sturgeons were located within certain depth strata, for example.

Programmers at the UMESC developed habitat use maps of certain groups such as birds. Habitat maps can be developed for any species for which there are data by associating occurrence or abundance data with habitat types. Results can easily be transferred from Arc View to Powerpoint for presentations. The same type of data is available for channel catfish in the Upper Mississippi NWR. Each data point has collection information associated with it.

Team Discussion: Course of Action regarding GIS DSS UMESC could provide training for up to 24 people at a time, as long as computers are available. The training usually takes four days, but it could be less. As long as travel is paid and each individual has a computer, training for FWS employees would be at no cost. The training could be conducted either at the UMESC or elsewhere. A training session could also be held at the USGS - GLSC. Overall, the presentation was very informative; DSS has a variety of potential uses including invasives on refuges, etc. Some states already have data available for gap analysis that can be inputted into DSS. It is unrealistic to have a support person at every refuge. How can DSS efforts be coordinated across the basin? The Great Lakes Commission is already gathering information for a geographically based system. Once the DSS package is developed, a support person isn't necessary. It's true that data in a DSS are immediately outdated, but the capability is better than nothing. Internet connections to this type of data will soon be available; however, currently it is primarily on CD's. Arc View will also be able to run off the web in the future. Previously, the ExCom suggested querying committees as to what type of analyses were needed. There are probably twenty themes are necessary to start an effective geospatial context. These twenty themes are currently available for the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Commission has been pulling together geospatial data; this data may be the kind that is needed. Managers still need to determine what the basic data layers are needed for aquatic habitats. Where do team members want to go with DSS? Although we don't need to decide immediately, this is an extremely useful tool that we should embrace now, or we will be forced to later. One possible course of action would be to form a committee that develops recommendations for the entire team, to open up discussion with partners, and to consider costs. There is a DSS person in Cookeville, Tennessee sponsored by the three pertinent Regions. This route may a possibility for the GLBE as well. It will be necessary to inventory the field station capabilities. There is some capability at the field stations currently. Perhaps, the first step is for team members to decide if a DSS is what they want. The team may need chew on it for a while and think about who could be the support person. We may need to choose a site with some DSS capabilities and get someone who spends 100% of their time on it. Also, we need to identify the time frame for implementation. It may be possible to support someone with kitty money. Alternatively, Mary Mitchell could possibly be a partial-support person. The DSS priority of the GLBET should be raised at the Region 3 meeting in midBOctober. We may need to look at all current sources of funding and get a portion of the funding from a variety of sources. One approach that may work is to have a group ten people or so meet and take a day of training. A core group to address DSS potential would be a good idea. Another viewpoint is that of the devil's advocate. There already are geospatial capabilities at many different organizations. Why should the Team have DSS capabilities? We still haven't identified any questions that need to be answered. Is it possible we already have what we need? A DSS may be useful for Island Committee. The committee first needed to find out about the islands before any action can be taken to purchase them. At the Horicon NWR, a DSS would be useful, but the Refuge doesn't have the manpower to support a DSS. The cormorant committee has a ton of questions to answer; we just need to figure out which ones are the most important to ask.. The Lake Sturgeon Committee hasn't addressed the questions pertinent to DSS yet, but will at this meeting's breakout session. There will probably be uses for a DSS.: It may be possible to apply data from the Ottawa NWR to the Shiawassee NWR, if the Shiawassee had the capabilities for DSS. The recommendation to form a core group will be pursued, and committees can identify priority questions. Even if a core group is formed, it doesn't necessarily mean that the team will pursue as DSS, but there does seem to be general support for the effort. One effective strategy is to identify the ideal way to address the issue, such as employing a full-time DSS person, and work from that point.

Action item: Group agreed to establish a DSS core group. Core group members:
Mary Mitchell (tentative)
Linda Schafer (tentative)
Nancy Milton
Jenny Wilson
Carl Korschgeon
Joe Dowhan
Rich Greenwood (chair)
Mike Fodale

The group was charged with the following action items:

• Follow the charge previously given to ExCom
• Inventory existing capabilities
• Identify the resources needed: staff, equipment, training, funding etc. (at both the field station and team level)
• Query committee chairs as to questions that could be addressed with DSS at the committee level
• Describe optimum DSS for the GLBET
• Link to R3 RRCP's
• Describe geographic scope to be addressed e.g., watershed, lakes, refuges, all of the above
• Meet within thirty days
• Report of DSS recommendations by next GLBET meeting

The core group will have conference call within 30 days and will report at the next GLBE meeting about progress on action items. This priority should be relayed to Center Directors and GARDS and put as priority for USGS in next few funding cycles.

Forest Service's Ecosystem Approach Efforts - Steve Schlobohm The landscape has been totally altered by timber industry in the past. Ecosystem management in the FS is steeped in history from CCC work to the present. FS has been trying to re-incorporate structure and function into the landscapes such as the northern hardwood ecosystem. FS was involved with peregrine falcon recovery in the Ottawa NWR and has also been involved in the timber wolf recovery through education. The bottom line is that the FS has a history of ecosystem management, but the type of ecosystem management that it has been using has evolved. This evolution has been a learning process. Social and economic factors are part and parcel of ecosystem management. For example, an economic aspect of ecosystem management is the value of a wilderness that people will pay to visit.

The FS's ecosystem management can be illustrated using the Ottawa National Forest and its Ecological Classification System as an example. The story of the Ottawa is unique in that the FS considered a variety of scales including the ecosystem scale. The hierarchy of scales that was used were province, section, subsection, land type association (LTA) ecological land type (ELT), and ecological land type phase (ELTP). The LTA (10,000-100,000 acre scale) was the unit of operation historically. This organizational scale has validated itself throughout time. LTA classification was used to develop plans for management areas. Because the FS ecological classification system has a number of factors built into it, the FS could evaluate a section of land for its potential for a particular forest type. For example, although an area may currently be an aspen forest, the ecological classification may show that it is best suited for another type of forest. The goal is not necessarily pre-settlement conditions, but to assist in decision-making for forest management. The overall message is that ecological information is available that can be used to assist in ecosystem management. This system of classification has worked well for the FS and may work well for other groups as well. Particular areas of focus for the FS are creating old growth characteristics and also determining what the riparian area should look like and what its function should be. This Ecological Classification system does not cover aquatic areas currently, but will include streams, for example, in the future.

One approach to ecosystem management is project or opportunity driven in which partners team up in order to achieve success. Examples of this approach include trumpeter swam reintroduction, coaster brood trout, wild rice introduction, and the Lake Superior Binational Program under the auspices of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Many additional opportunities for partnership exist such as in controlling purple loosestrife. The punch line of the talk is that ecosystem management in the 21st century will rely equally on building partner relationships and managing the resource.

Discussion: One recent success story is a NAQWA grant of $1 million for an Upper Michigan Wetlands Initiative coordinated by Maureen Gallagher. This accomplishment follows on the heels of the success of the Lake Superior Coastal Wetlands Initiative.

Director's Priorities: Overview & Q/A - Bob Krska
Director's priorities are on the Service's web site. In future breakout sessions, chairs should put Director's priorities as topics for discussion, in order to see how committees can address these priorities. In particular, work on the cormorant plan could be meshed with the USDA in developing a plan for the cormorant.

Larry Martin: Yes, already involved with this effort.

The invasive species committee could identify items on Director's priority list it could plug into in order to form action items. The national team identified issues and potential hurdles to the implementation of ecosystem management. Recommendations involved developing strong leadership and accountability, improving communication, improving support and increased partnerships, and determining obstacles to implementing Ecosystem Approach, among others. A few specific recommendations: (1) Take team effectiveness survey and identify specific training needs from this survey. Take the survey during the course of one of the next meetings using laptops set up around the room. Action item: Contact NCTC and get disks for next meeting. (2) Update web sites for Ecosystem Teams

Discussion: The team web site up and running. The Lake Superior Biological Station has a person who can enhance the web site. GLBET members can provide any input to Tom Busiahn for the website, and he can implement the input. One way to use the web site is to store information on it so that every team member doesn't have to store GLBET documents on their own computer.

National Ecosystem Team Guidelines: Overview & Q/A - Bob Krska The GLBET is viewed as a functional team, and some of the recommendations developed in the Guidelines are from this team.

V. Team Structure

V.A. Core Team: Bill Hartwig is talking about expanding Ecosystem Teams to include members of different agencies. Different ecosystem teams have different levels of involvement from other agencies. Nancy Milton is the one non-FWS member of the GLBET. One of the challenges of this team is that we are so large. The team needs to determine a balance between getting things accomplished and increasing team membership. Non-FWS involvement could occur at the committee level.

Discussion: The GLBET has brought together the Service, but partnerships with other agencies were there long before the ecosystem team concept was developed. Bill Hartwig's push to involve other agencies may stem from the Midwest Natural Resource Group. SOLEC serves the purpose of bringing the entire ecosystem together.

V.B. Subteams or Subcommittees: Accomplished

V.C. Team Executive Committee: The ExCom is already functioning well. In general, the entire team gives action items on short-term issues to the ExCom. The ExCom also serves the role of advocate in budgeting issues for example. Action item: Leslie TeWinkel will be added to the ExCom to help with coordination and linkage to GARD.

V. D. Partners and Stakeholders: There has been a general consensus that partners are already involved through other forums. A few local representatives from other agencies are usually invited to meetings. The GLBET should develop a list of local partners in order to inform partners of Team activities, perhaps by sending meeting minutes. Alternatively, partners could be told about the website.

Action Item: Put notice on GLIN about information on website (T. Busiahn's staff)

V.F. Ecosystem Coordinators: Region 3 has an ecosystem coordinator. Bob in Region 5 performs the role of ecosystem coordinator, although they don't have the specific position.

VI. Operations:

VI.A. Team Operating Procedures: The GLBET meets most of the guidelines. For example, the Team meets three times a year, use consensus, etc.

V.I.B. Ecosystem Plan: Action item: The membership list and chairs will be appended to the ecosystem plan. There is already a basic introduction to the ecosystem on the webpage. Action Item: The biennial work plan will be appended to the ecosystem plan. This work plan will also be posted on the website.

Disucssion: What about the GPRA reporting requirements? There is a meeting scheduled for mid-October to determine the current GPRA requirements. Perhaps, it is premature to do to address GPRA requirements until the dust settles as to what the current requirements are. The GLBET may need a narrative on team organization and structure to inform new members about how the committee functions. A freestanding document may be best that is intended for people interested in knowing about the committee. The Upper Mississippi Team has a team charter that may have a similar function to this proposed document. Action item: B. Krska, T. Busiahn, and L. TeWinkel will develop a document on team organization.

V.I.C. Outreach Strategies: The Team is actively plugged into outreach. It was featured in an article in most recent Fish and Wildlife News.

V.I. D. GARD Participation: GARDS been active in Ecosystem Team and have served as advocates.

V.I. E. Regional Office Participation: Increased participation of Regional office such as the program staff may be beneficial. One way of accomplishing may be to identify information needs that the program staff could address at the meetings.

Discussion: Regional Office staff may be more apt to attend GLBET meetings if they were held in Minneapolis or Hadley once in a while. In the past, Regional Office staff has come for a purpose such as challenge grants or joint ventures. It may be best to tie a Regional Office visit into something that the Team can act on.

Action item: GLBET member will identify ways to involve regional programmatic staff in meetings.

V.I.F. Team Development: Team coaching involves consultants. The Team may want to leave it ride for a while, unless get other direction saying differently. The NCTC Team Effectiveness Survey may indicate that certain coaching is needed. Similarly, based on survey, necessary team training can be determined. Comradery already is present in the GLBET. Projects are one away of increasing comradery, and this team has several such projects underway Discussion: Bill Hartwig's direction seems to imply that linkages should be forged between the GLBET and Midwest Natural Resource Group. On the ground projects may be the best way to accomplish these linkages. Although the Regional Director is ultimate Team manager, empowerment lies with the Team. Because partners are being plugged in other venues, other involvement may not be necessary. Action item: J. Christian, B. Krska, S. Morgan, T. Busiahn, and L. TeWinkel will have a discussion about whether the GLBET is working and communicating enough with partners. If partners were invited to one meeting, it wouldn't be a working meeting but just a reporting meeting. Alternatively, the reporting portion of the meeting could be limited to one day because the GLBET would still need a portion for a working meeting. Partners wouldn't attend if the meeting was not within driving distance. Bill Hartwig would like a good showing of the GLBET at the Midwest Natural Resource Group's meeting in November. The Midwest Natural Resource Group does not include the entire Great Lakes ecosystem. Perhaps, the GLBET could have a meeting in a Focus Area such as Saginaw Bay or Green Bay and invite local members. Another approach would be to send one of our members to them.

Team Organization, Processes, and Activities: Review -Tom Busiahn A specific recommendation arose based on the review of the flexible funding proposals. Stream and watershed restoration seemed to be a priority in all of the programs. There are many advancements in restoration and it would be helpful for the GLBET to assist in transferring this information. One course of action would be to discuss the possibility of adding a stream restoration priority at this meeting, solicit e-mails after the meeting, and act on it at the next meeting. Prior to this proposal, the mechanism for changing priorities for the team has not been discussed.

Discussion: The stream restoration issue cuts across most programs and relates to most programs. It would make sense to label it as a priority. From a budgetary perspective, it would also make sense and would position the Team to address both the trust species and ecosystem perspectives. Alternatively, the theme of stream restoration may be a temporary flavor of the year. This priority would relate to private property owners. In general, aquatic resources have been identified as a problem area, so this may make sense. The GLBET should consider making Green Bay a Focus Area, in part because it is a focus area for the Midwest Natural Resources Group. There are also other reasons as well for this action. Action Item: Lake Michigan sub-team will draft a writeup for the Green Bay Focus Area, that is similar to documents for other focus areas.

Next Meeting Location and Dates
February 23-24, 1999; Detroit, Michigan

Role of National Fish Hatcheries in Rearing Non-Fish Species: Presentation & Q/A - Dale Bast
Saratoga Fish Hatchery in Wyoming rears lake trout for the Great Lakes stocking program (Lewis Lake strain) and also propagates the Wyoming toad. The founding population of Wyoming toads was only a few individuals. Mussels are also being propagated at several hatcheries including White Sulfur Springs and Neosho.

Discussion: The Neosho Hatchery is trying to find out more about the blind cave fish in case propagation is necessary in the future. The Hatchery acquired cave habitat and is observing the blind cavefish with cameras. What process takes place to begin propagation of a non-fish species? An Ecological Services Office develops a plan for restoration and recovery of a species and consults with the hatchery to determine if there is any chance for propagation. When a hatchery expands its program to include non-traditional species, the hatchery needs to survey for potential diseases of concern for each species. What about chub restoration in the lower lakes? The Great Lakes takes a different approach to managing forage fish. Instead of propagating forage fish, the key is managing the predator population. Lake Ontario may pursue bloater propagation; they are starting to think about restoring some of the native forage fish into the system.

In the Upper Lakes, they will not be pursuing forage fish propagation; ecologically, it wouldn't have an effect. Only six fish species are listed as endangered or threatened in Region 3; propagation is likely not the key for any of them. For all six, habitat loss is the problem. As supervisor of some hatcheries in this region, this presentation shows that the hatcheries are flexible and can raise a variety of species. All hatcheries have a great water source (both quality and quantity), and there are only a limited number of these remaining throughout the country. In the Triple A review, sixty-five existing hatcheries are being examined in regard to what they are doing and what they could be doing. The traditional constituency that has supported hatcheries is not happy that non-game species are being reared in hatcheries. Region 3 has some of the more visionary hatchery managers. When hatchery managers begin to propagate non-traditional species, they are taking a step outside the box and need support. What's the funding situation for rearing a non-traditional species? The funding situation varies with each species depending on how Washington views it. For example, mussels were not granted any E S money; however, for the toad, E S funding was approved.

Integrated Management of Sea Lamprey in the Great Lakes: Presentation & Q/A -Gary Klar

Invasion: Sea lamprey invaded the Great Lakes through the Welland Canal in the early 1900s. By 1938, they were present throughout the entire basin. Lake trout are a favorite host; individuals of this species have about 50% chance of surviving one lamprey wound. - Establishment of Control: Sea lamprey are most vulnerable to control during their non-parasitic larval phase and as spawning adults. Early methods of control were mechanical weirs and electrical weirs. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) was established in 1955 to assist in controlling sea lamprey. TFM was determined to be an effective pesticide for non-parasitic lamprey and did not effect non-target species.

Sea lamprey management today: 111 individuals employed by the sea lamprey program in the past year. Spawning phase assessments occur on about 65 streams basin-wide using portable traps that are placed in conjunction with a barrier. Mark-recapture techniques are employed to estimate lake-wide population numbers. Larval assessments are conducted with a backpack system. Lampricide control today focuses largely on chemicals, although the GLFC plans to reduce the use of lampricide by 50 % during the 1990s. This reduction is being accomplished by refining application techniques and using alternative controls such as crested barriers, adjustable or inflatable crest barriers (barrier height adjustable so that the barrier can be dropped during non-spawning season) new-style electrical barriers, and the sterile-male technique. Managers in the sea lamprey program are also involved in managing the risk of sea lamprey control on non-target species including the lake sturgeon and the Hungerford's crawling water beetle.

St. Marys River Issue: The St. Marys River contains the largest uncontrolled population of larval sea lampreys in the Great Lakes and is a significant source of lampreys especially for Lake Huron. Until the St. Marys sea lamprey population is controlled, lake trout restoration in Lake Huron is not possible. Uncertainty needs to be considered in making management decisions regarding control of the St. Marys, such as the uncertainty associated with estimates of larval density. Controlling larval lamprey on the St. Marys River has used both Decision Support Systems and adaptive management. Alternative controls in the St. Marys have included granular Bayer application, trapping, and sterile male release. Control in the St. Marys has been a multi-partner project that has involved states, tribes, federal agencies, and private industry. The current benefit-cost ratio of sea lamprey control is 17:1.

Discussion: How will the treatment affect the salmon program? There is a concern that an increased lake trout population will put additional pressure on the prey base. Is the Welland Canal still an issue? The Welland Canal would only be an issue if there was a chance for complete irradication of sea lamprey in the Great Lakes. There are two problems associated with commercial harvest. First, there is not a consistent large-scale supply because the program is using all the lampreys that are collected. Second, sea lampreys have high contaminant loads of PCPs, mercury, and other contaminants.

Review list of team organizations, processes, and activities and annual work plan BTom Busiahn A handout on GLBET processes and structure and draft GLBET annual workplan for FY 2000 was distributed.

Status of Planning for GLBE Team Symposium at Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference (moderators, staffing) - John Rogner The agenda for the Midwest symposium was distributed. Instead of making a special request to the Director to exempt Service employees from the meeting nomination form, team members will go through the normal nomination process. The symposium still needs two moderators. Larry Martin or one of his staff members and Jerry McClain have already agreed to moderate a session each. Larry Martin or one of his staff volunteered to moderate another session as well.

Discussion: Bill Hartwig suggested looking for creative ways to get a meeting nomination instead of looking for an exemption to the meeting nomination requirement. Two creative ways to get a nomination would be to attend either the Great Lakes fish-stocking conference on Sunday or the lake sturgeon genetics. There will be an evening event for the GLBET as well. If this evening event turns into a meeting, it could be another creative way of getting a nomination.

Committee Updates

Lake Superior - Tom Busiahn By April 2000, there will be a Lake Superior LAMP completed in some form or other. Under the auspices of the binational program, there will be a workshop on what needs to be monitored in the Lake Superior. One million dollars was received to protect lakeshore properties on Lake Superior, including piping plover habitat. Ducks Unlimited is administrating the funds and other partners involved.

Lake Huron - Jerry McClain Committee members met with the Midwest Natural Resource Group meeting in Lake Geneva (?).

Detroit River - Doug Spencer A convention will be held November 30 and December 1 on Lake St. Clair. If anyone is interested in attending, contact Doug Spencer. Doug is on the steering committee for the convention. On October 8 there is a trip planned on the Detroit river with Congressman Dingall. The Congressman would like the Detroit River to be included in the American Heritage River program because it would be one way of getting some rehabilitation going on the river. The Shiawassee NWR and GLSC will each have boats out on the river. On October 6, there is a scoping meeting to develop a theme for the Great Lakes Center. Currently there is $835,000 in Department of Interior bill. Land will be able to be acquired in early 2000. They are looking for theme ideas from the team and NGO's.

The individuals involved in the Upper Great Lakes Visitor Center may be able to lend expertise and suggestions regarding theme and design. Lake Erie - Kofi Fynn-Aikins The Lake Erie committee met to discuss resolutions by the binational executive committee involving the redefinition of the LAMP process. One suggestion for the LAMPs is to collapse the LAMP report into a one-stage report instead of a multi-stage report. Currently, they are working on a table of contents for the report.

St. Lawrence - Dave Stilwell The tern-nesting project has gone ahead in the St. Lawrence. Two nesting pairs successfully raised broods this year. Once the nesting islands are built they will last for a long time. The committee is looking for school groups to volunteer to monitor the islands. The committee recommends that another island be built where there have been terns nesting in the past.

Invasive Species- Tom Busiahn In order to elevate the visibility of invasive species in Great Lakes, the committee is considering putting together a presentation and giving it to the directorate etc.

Lake Sturgeon - Jerry McClain The committee completed the research priorities task, provided the priorities to the GARDs, and requested that the GARDs pass it on to the research coordinators. The next committee priority is to update the web site and post the priorities on the site. One kitty project for the committee is the lake sturgeon genetics workshop planned for after the Midwest. Chris Lowie coordinated this workshop. Copies of the workshop announcement are available from Jerry. A portion of the travel costs for the researchers will be covered. Henry Quinlan has spearheaded the brochure; it is very near to production. The kitty funded the layout and design. The other kitty project is to update web site for lake sturgeon. The committee is already getting requests from outside researchers in response to the web site. Jerry will be finishing this term as chair at end of the fiscal year. Chris Lowie volunteered to chair the committee in absentia. The Neosho hatchery contributed 10,000 lake sturgeon fingerlings this year.

Cormorants and Lake Erie - Larry Martin The national cormorant management plan is the biggest thing for the committee right now. A few representatives from the committee will be going to the National meeting for the plan. The work plan will be amended so that the committee is set up to help with the national plan. There are now three displays in this region. They are looking for suggestions regarding where two of these displays can be housed. There are no materials for the displays yet, because there is not enough money at this time. Other committees should think about how they would like to use the displays and what materials to put on the displays. Factsheets and Q&A's have been sent out but additional factsheets will be sent out in the future as well. The committee is still trying to figure out other places or groups to send the factsheets to. The committee is planning to establish a western Lake Erie focus area. Fred and Larry worked on the IJC meeting display, and Patti Meyer helped work the display at the meeting.

The Canada Fish and Wildlife display was voted the number one booth at the meeting primarily because it contained live sea lampreys. The Team may want to consider ways such as this to increase visibility of the Team's display. The Lake Erie subcommittee is working on establishing western Lake Erie as a Team focus area.

Outreach B Jim Hudgins The committee has kitty money for photos, but they have not received many photos from the Team. Photos that would be useful include ones of lake trout, lake sturgeon, and migratory birds, among others. Money has been obligated to do some graphics and laminating for individual projects.

Islands - Patty Meyer Inventory and education of the islands are a priority. A DSS could really benefit the team in obtaining information about the islands.

Status of Region 3's FY 2000 Flexible Funding Activities - Tom Busiahn A handout on the flexible funding activities was distributed handout; the handout included a cover sheet, ranking priorities, and ranking. Ranking priorities and professional judgement were both used in judging the proposals. The final results from Regional Office will be received around November 15. This process can be evaluated for future years.

Meeting Wrap-up: Action Items/Decisions - Bob Krska

• A core group will be formed to consider the DSS system. People that were nominated in absentia need to be contacted including Linda Schaeffer and Mary Mitchell. The group will have a conference call within 30 days. The group's charge was detailed earlier in the minutes.
• ExCom will contact NCTC to set up Team Effectiveness Survey for the next meeting in February 2000.
• The Team will provide updates or additions to the web site to Tom Busiahn. A notice will be made on GLIN about the GLBET web site.
• Leslie TeWinkel will be added to the ExCom.
• The biennial workplan will be appended to the annual work plan and posted on the web site. It will continue to be amended in the future years.
• Tom Busiahn, Bob Krska, and Leslie TeWinkel will draft a process/structure document and append it to the annual work plan.
• Saginaw Bay Focus Area - Midwest Natural Resource Group meeting in Lake Geneva (?).
• The Team will identify involvement for program staff in regional office.
• Bob Krska, Tom Busiahn, and Leslie TeWinkel will meet with John Christian to discuss inviting non-Service personnel to the meetings
• The Team will consider opportunities to get on the agendas of partners' meetings.
• The proposal to establish stream/watershed restoration as a Team priority will be on the next meeting's agenda.
• The Lake Michigan committee will draft a focus area profile for Green Bay to establish Green Bay as a focus area.
• Thank you letters will be sent to Steve Schlobohm and the UMESC staff that participated in the DSS presentation.
• A list of GLBET committee chairs will be created and appended to the ecosystem plan.

Agenda Items for Next Meeting

• Ante up for kitty and project identification for the kitty monies
• Detroit River as a American Heritage River B J. Hartig
• Presentation on indicator efforts in the Great Lakes and/or the monitoring council - possibly M. Donahue
• SOLEC indicators - Horvatin
• NonBFERC fish passage program (specifically, Lake Erie ?)- T. Hill (?)
• Discussion of top-down direction regarding team priorities (or a presentation of the RCP process)
• NCTC effectiveness evaluation
• DSS core group - update and recommendations regarding their charge
• Stream/watershed restoration priority B discussion/decision
• Grassy Island update (D. Spencer/B. Manny)
• Status reports (ensure GARDs are present for that portion of the meeting)
• Regional Office presentations B potential topics: partners, NRDA, NAWMP, Acquisition, tribal assistance (Native American reps present), CCP process
• Continue committee breakouts split across two days

Meeting Evaluation

• Positive Aspects:
• Split breakout-session structure
• 1-2 minute committee status reports
• Hatchery and sea lamprey talks
• Meeting materials were distributed before the meeting
• Meeting location
• Tour of local facility
• Evening gathering
• Aspects to Change:
• Advance announcement of breakout session locations
• Breakfast breakout participation

Meeting Participants: Bob Krska, Tom Busiahn, Rich Greenwood, Roderick May, Jim Dastyck, Bob Lumadue, Patti Meyers, Doug Spencer, Larry Martin, Roger Gordon, Craig Czarnecki, Nancy Milton, Kurt Kowalski, Owen Gorman, Terry Morse, Denny Lavis, Jerry McClain, Dale Bast, David Stilwell, Kent Kroonemeyer, David Huntly, Dave Radloff, John Heinrich, Kofi Fynn-Aikins, Leslie Holland-Bartels, Fred Griffiths, Ron Howey, Rick Nelson, Gary Klar, Russ Peterson, Joe Dowhan, John Weisser, Daniel Fitzpatrick, Ken Stromberg, Tom Jasikoff, Jim Hudgins, Bob Adair, Rob Elliott, Sally Petrella, John Rogner, Leslie TeWinkel, Kasia Mullet

Draft Minutes prepared: 15 October 1999

Final Minutes prepared: 12 November 1999