Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team Meeting Minutes

October 30^th - November 1^st . . .Chicago, Illinois

Introduction / Overview

The team shared in a brief overview of the team evolution to date.

Early team success – developed strong cross-programmatic dialogue

Team is moving on to increased partnering and landscape dialogue

Funding for team efforts have evolved through the team kitty, to flex funds, to grants and partners’ funds; hope to eventually budget for landscape level projects

Team has had evolving targets: started with ‘everything’, then basins, then geographic focus areas, then specific resources, including lake sturgeon and islands w/ GIS/DSS

FY01 Accomplishments

Committee chairs or members lead discussions of accomplishments for FY01.

• Core Group drafted GLBET GIS Implementation Strategy
• Developed and presented GIS/Decision Support System demonstration model for Lake Michigan Islands, and the entire Lake Michigan basin (in partnership with USGS, Great Lakes Commission, Michigan State University, Michigan Natural Features Inventory, and others). Effort supported by Team Kitty Funds, and Flex Funds from both Regions.
• Leveraged additional grant money for habitat mapping using multi-spectral imagery
• Developed Intranet website for information clearinghouse for Team initiatives

• Islands sub-committee met in August 2001 to draft a Strategic Plan
• Drafted action strategy
• Drafted assessment/inventory checklist
• Predator control project to help piping plover was funded (Kitty $ used)

• Outreach brochure and video were finalized and distributed
• Website was updated (www.midwest.fws.gov/sturgeon) (Kitty $ used)
• Added/outfitted additional commercial fishers to collect data on sturgeon caught during commercial fishing operations (Kitty $ used)
• Drafted database for lake sturgeon tributary inventory (information will be added to the database in FY02) (Flex fund $ used)
• Genetics assessment of lake sturgeon
• Began effort toward lake sturgeon rehabilitation plan (defining FWS role)

• GLBET website brought on line and improved (key contact: Cindi D.)
• Script drafted for GLBET’s FWS/Great Lakes video
• Progress continues toward Great Lakes Discovery Center (Bridgeport, Michigan) with goal of groundbreaking in March 2003
• Printed 25,000 copies of Lake Sturgeon brochure

Action:Continue to report accomplishments using Accomplishment Reporting System (each committee chair should expand on the above listed accomplishments and see that they are entered into ARS by November 9)

Action: Team members should review narrative for Great Lakes video and provide comments to Doug Spencer by December 1

State of the Team

Jim Hudgins asked the team to spend some time talking about where we are at. Jim had sent team members a survey asking for feedback in five areas: process, products, priorities, personal involvement and perceptions.

Brief discussion of survey responses (n = 18); generally positive but enough "lower rankings" to merit future discussion

Action: Summarize and distribute results of the survey to the Team

Action: Follow up on results through EXCOM

The team discussion expanded to develop a list of "pros" and "cons" associated with the team and the ecosystem/eco-team approach.

• We are doing landscape thinking across program boundaries
• We are getting real work done through committees
• FWS is unique as an agency; we have a broad perspective and thus the best potential to create a vision for the Great Lakes
• Team is an efficient way to focus on a few high priorities
• Team functions as an "incubator" for ideas - i.e. "think tanks"; a great opportunity to develop and expand upon ideas.
• Those who regularly attend meetings are "doers"; showing commitment to the ecosystem approach; we need to reward those taking action through full team or committees
• Team provides visibility and focus for FWS on Great Lakes issues

• Lack specific funding for project leaders or staff to attend ecosystem team meetings
• Lack of attendees - some stations not represented; why aren’t more staff/stations participating?
• No "push from Regional Office" - lack of direction
• Need leadership at all levels (Team, RO, WO) to encourage ecosystem approach
• Some Program supervisors have not "bought in" to the ecosystem/ecoteam approach
• ARDs are our "weakest link"; we lost some of the ARD support when we dropped GARDs
• Need to identify more opportunities that cross over program areas and return value back to stations
• Need to find issues/opportunities that arrive "naturally" to team; don’t struggle with what "doesn’t fit"
• Need to reward those who contribute - station budget, individual recognition, equipment, etc.; rewarding those who contribute will encourage continued action and may bring others in. Withhold reward or increases to those do not contribute to the ecosystem approach
• Show/share our products more internally and externally to public, partners and congress
• Just starting to see the "fruits of our work"

Action: EXCOM to address these issues in a more detailed discussion

Sate of the Ecosystem Approach

DRD Marvin Moriarty and Acting DRD Rick Bennett shared their perspectives on where the Service and our Regions are concerning the ecosystem approach. This was followed by additional team discussion.

• Ecosystem process is "alive and well"
• Links to Secretary of the Interior 5 "Cs" (communication, cooperation, coordination, and collaboration, for conservation)
• Our challenge is to foster an environment that allows partnering to occur
• Region 3/Region 5 will continue to support ecosystem/partnership special assistants
• Region 3 eco-team biologists to be back in place by January 2002
• Early guidance to teams is old and outdated. RMT may need to take a fresh look...in the meantime, build on your Team's momentum
• Key: partnerships, partnership, partnerships
• Look at landscape-level initiatives
• Internal communication is critical - share resources, increase understanding, cross boundaries
• No single model being followed; use what works for the team
• Team is working/benefitting the field, and that is good
• Next level - engage external partners
• Build on....commitment at all levels; communication with each other, partners, Congress, focus on people, partnerships, and promoting success; need vision; 

Flex Funds

Marvin Moriarty reviewed the current state of the combined multi-region flex fund process started in FY01 and continuing into FY02.

• Make dollars available to teams competitively
• Standardizing process among Regions 2,3,4,5
• Call for proposals June 1
• Proposals due October 1

Two team proposals, both related to sturgeon, were submitted in FY02 by the GLBET. A third proposal related to migratory bird work (in partnership with TNC) was submitted as a place holder until additional details are worked out with TNC. The team will try to submit one additional proposal.

Action: We need to review our team process and timing of activities to help ensure we can take full advantage of flex fund opportunities as one source on funding in coming years.

Action: Use Team work plan for FY02, to develop flex fund proposals for FY03

Action: Use committee chairs to advocate for GLBET flex fund proposal to fund managers (increase dialogue with fund managers to develop/expand opportunities)

Action: Develops Team's process, (through EXCOM) to solicit and rank FY03 proposals

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

Donn Waage, regional representative for the NFWF, presented an overview of opportunities available to the team and field stations. Don is located in the Regional Office in Region 3.

A counterpart for Region 5 will be locating in New York City.

• NFWF to foster cooperative partnerships through challenge grants
• Goal is to further the conservation of fish, wildlife and plant resources
• Grant opportunities include: on-the-ground habitat improvement; conservation education; landowner outreach; species-oriented conservation; land protection; improving management on private lands; invasive species control
• Grants ARE NOT available for research or recreation
• Targets include tallgrass prairie, aquatic resources, conservation areas near urban centers
• If you have ideas, send 1-page description to Donn Waage.

FY02 GOALS

After a brief breakout session, committees presented their goals, or action items, for FY02. These goals will be developed into the team work plan for FY02.

• Write a FWS Lake Sturgeon Rehabilitation Plan
• Populate Lake Sturgeon tributary inventory
• Prioritize tributary streams to be assessed for Lake Sturgeon
• Inform FWS stations if assistance is needed for field work in 2002
• Continue/improve Lake Sturgeon genetic knowledge (GLFT $)
• Continue/expand work with commercial fishers

• Begin assessment of island values (assessment checklist; bibliography of islands information)
• Increase education and outreach (web page: posters/signs)
• Improve island conservation (pursue an islands workshop)

• Demonstrate DSS, and work with GLBET Islands Committee, get their feedback.
• Coordinate with Team Committee and Program Project Leaders to incorporate representative and real world applications, such as Cat Island restoration in Green Bay; Midwest Natural Resources Management Group’s Detroit River GIS information; TNC Western Lake Erie Island Conservation Partnership; and at least one eastern Lake Erie - Lake Ontario island project.
• Continue to fine tune DSS, and expand coverage basin wide.
• Participate in TNC Great Lakes Islands Workshop and their binational Western Lake Erie Island Initiative this fall, and our Team Island Workshop this coming winter.
• Plan and facilitate GIS/DSS training and use for Team, Program, and field staff use.
• Based on feedback, revise and complete Strategic Plan and Recommendations Report.
• Inform, and engage Program Project Leaders, and Regional Directorships: presentations planned.
• Complete Core Group’s Charge prior to next GLBET meeting.

• Update web page including FY 2001 accomplishments
• Finalize text on Great Lakes video
• Video comments to Doug by December 1
• Provide additional information to Team on 2003 Great Lakes Youth Symposium (Cindy Duda)

• Continue on issues as appropriate to support above or take additional action
• EXCOM - meet to discuss other potential roles/actions for team as well as additional targets/priorities/planning
• Send updated team/committee lists to all

Action: EXCOM to address other potential roles/actions for the team. This can include a discussion of a planning/strategy effort or committee as well as other potential targets such as an endangered species committee.

Panel Discussion

Speakers:

The Thursday morning session focused on a panel discussion with several partners in the Chicago area. This discussion helped to show the range of opportunities to partner and share resources toward a common goal of maintaining/restoring the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem.

COE has authority and budget to do environmental restoration in the Great Lakes. Each project area requires a non-federal cost share. Project areas include: restoration of environmental quality where COE projects have had an environmental impact (includes authority to build sea lamprey control projects); beneficial use of dredged materials; aquatic ecosystem restoration; environmental dredging outside of navigation areas; and the Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration Program. The latter requires a 35% local cost share. This program may include funding to support efforts of resource agencies.

TNC is using a ecosystem based context for conservation in the Great Lakes and elsewhere. Their conservation approach: sets priorities based on scale and connectivity within an ecosystem context, develops strategies to abate threats, takes action to restore and protect ecologically significant places, and measures success of those actions. TNC, working with partners and resources experts, has mapped priority places for conservation in the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes and is working with Canadian partners to complete the process. Opportunities to collaborate with FWS include migratory bird conservation efforts (including research to identify stopover sites), a region-wide invasive species strategy, a western Lake Erie islands initiative, alvar conservation, and funding through grants.

John Perrecone, Environmental Protection Agency, Critical Ecosystem Team, Chicago .

EPA is mapping critical habitats using a base map from satellite imagery. While EPA often looks at ‘damaged’ areas, this effort looks for high quality areas under threat. The effort will consider ecological diversity of land cover and species, sustainability, and rare and endangered species areas. While the heart of EPA is regulatory–an environmental cop–this effort is trying to move beyond program areas to look at ecosystems.

Status of the Lake Wide Management Plans was given, including opportunities for the Service. Agencies with different jurisdictions need to work together in the restoration efforts for Lake Erie. The LaMP process provide guidance and information for local planning efforts. The Lake Erie LaMP will be updated in April 2002.

Duane Heaton and John Schneider, U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office , Chicago

The SOLEC process is looking at 89 indicators to assess the health of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. This is a binational effort. The GLBET formed a Work Group to develop recommendations for engaging in this important initiative. Coastal wetlands are one example of an indicator. The Coastal Wetlands Consortium was formed, and has received considerable funding to address this indicator. A goal is to design a program for monitoring coastal wetlands that can be implemented across the entire basin. The Service has representation on the Consortium from both Regions, and NWI.

NRCS is involved in a number of conservation programs through the "Farm Bills" that can benefit the Great Lakes. For example, establishment of conservation buffers can slow nitrogen and phosphorus from leaving the landscape, thus improving water quality. NRCS maintains a national database to record actions under each practice. The current discussion for a new Farm Bill will shape future conservation efforts.

This presentation paralleled that given to the team earlier. The NFWF foster cooperative partnerships through challenge grants to further the conservation of fish, wildlife and plant resources.

Brown Bag Seminars

These sessions provided an opportunity for three speakers to share additional information with the team and with partners from the Chicago area.

Stopover Sites: A Critical Link for the Protection of Migratory Birds. Dave Ewert, Director of Conservation Science, The Nature Conservancy Great Lakes Program

(NOTE: Dave Ewert was unable to participate in the brown bag seminar. Heather Potter spoke in his place.)

All of the hundreds of species and billions of individual migratory birds share at least three common traits: they breed, migrate, and winter in different areas. Habitat protection is therefore needed on the breeding grounds, at migratory stopover sites (both fall and spring migration) and on the wintering grounds. Comparatively little attention has been devoted to stopover sites so conservation strategies for stopover sites are poorly developed, especially for landbirds. A framework has recently been developed to describe different types of stopover sites. This framework will be described and then used to establish the foundation for a proposed study of stopover sites in greater Chicago, where stopover sites are likely to be in relatively short supply (and therefore of high conservation concern) because so much of the landscape has been urbanized or converted to agriculture.

Nearshore Benthos Studies: Western Lake Erie; Ahead of the Others in Recovery? Don W. Schloesser, Fisheries Scientist, Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Sentinel indicator species are becoming increasing useful primarily because they are easy to understand and generally cost less than biodiversity integrated indices. One sentinel taxon, burrowing mayfly nymphs, have recently returned to western Lake Erie and studies indicate that the return was predictable based on the impact of dreissenid mussels and their ability to de-eutrophy waters in Europe. Several studies will be briefly described and a possible mechanism to predict future returns of nymphs to other waters in the Great Lakes will be discussed.

An Update on the Status of the Great Lakes Piping Plover. Jack Dingledine, Great Lakes Piping Plover Coordinator, Region 3 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Great Lakes population of the piping plover remains one of the most endangered species in the Great Lakes. Although numbers continue to increase, recent counts identified only 32 breeding pairs. In light of the current status of the species, various federal, state and local agencies have come together to help recover the species. A number of conservation and recovery activities are underway, along with continued recovery planning. The current population status will be discussed, along with an update on recovery planning, research and critical habitat designation.

NEXT MEETING LOCATION AND DATES - New York, late May 2002 - early June 2002 ; David Stilwell will check opportunities for lodging at off season rates.

Attendees

John Rogner, Cyndi Duda, Bob Lamoy, Rick Bennett, David Stilwell, Ed Christoffers, Roger Nanney, Cathy Pollack, Christine Deloria-Sheffield, Jessica Richards, Alfred Diggs, Kate Barnes, Jeff Lockington, Heather Enterline, Jack Dingledine, Marvin Moriarty,Elizabeth McCloskey, Joe Dowhan, Daniel Fitzpatrick, Chris Castiglione, Jason Rohweder, Rich Greenwood, John Gannon, Janet Smith, Tom Magnuson, Don Schloesser, Robert Beltran, Karen Vigmostad, Doug Spencer, Donn Waage, Jim Hudgins