2.	COUNCIL PRIORITIES

2.1.	Research Inventory

The Council of Great Lakes Research Managers, in an effort to promote interjurisdictional and interdisciplinary planning and coordination of research related to the implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, initiated this compilation of current research activities in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin. The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Research Inventory continues to be produced by the Council every year as part of the continuing priority for improving the effectiveness and awareness of research throughout the Great Lakes region.

2.1.1.

1997 Inventory

When compared to the 1996 inventory, fewer projects and dollars of research were represented in the Inventory for this year (290 projects and $39 million U.S. dollars). Part of the reason is a real decrease in research funding. However, another reason for the decline is that many managers and researchers are overworked and are continually being asked to do more with less, including managers who complete the project descriptions for the Inventory. Note that improvements were made by the addition of an update capability which allowed changes to project descriptions on-line without having to re-enter the entire project. Also, the mailing list was refined to avoid duplicate mailings.

2.1.2.

1998 Inventory

The total number of projects entries increased to 436 representing a value of $67,219,112 US plus $ 6,489,145 Cdn. Forty-seven distinct agencies and organizations from both the U.S. and Canada had research projects listed in the inventory. Many of these agencies are further represented by branches, regions, and districts. Submitting agencies included government agencies, universities, Sea Grant extensions, Ontario conservation authorities, and associations.

A number of modifications were made to the 1998 Inventory following suggestions from the Council to increase the use of the Inventory for managing research and assessing information. These changes included more extensive searching capabilities, whereby it is now possible to search the inventory using ten different categories such as inventory titles, submitters, submitting agencies, keywords, investigators, scope, scale, type, state/province, and basin. The Research Inventory search page can be found at http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/ri99home.html(.)

Two new sections were added to the request form to provide information for the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species and monitoring and research for the Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) Work Group. This survey is an efficient means of developing the Panel's inventory of aquatic nuisance species research relevant to the Great Lakes basin. The Great Lakes Panel anticipates that this research information will assist with future efforts to prevent further aquatic nuisance species introductions. The second addition to the form requests additional information details on monitoring and research relevant to Lake Ontario. Information regarding relevancy of research to beneficial use impairments, contaminant loadings or concentrations, and monitoring details such as media type, intensity, and monitoring region, will be used to guide future updates to LaMP documents.

Projects were accepted for the 1998 Research Inventory until March 15, 1999 at which time the 1998 database was closed and finalized.

2.1.3.

1999 Inventory

A request for new submissions and update forms was sent out in early May of 1999 for inclusion in the 1999 Research Inventory database. Presently there are 316 projects in the 1999 Research Inventory with a value of $21,835,302 U.S. plus $5,661,200 Cdn.

The Council's Research Inventories continue to be the most highly accessed publications on the IJC's web site, often recording more than 500 hits per month. An exhibit of the Research inventory was featured at the 1999 IAGLR conference in Cleveland, Ohio and will also be on display at the 1999 IJC's Biennial Forum in September. Through these events, increased use of the Research Inventory by the science community and the public is expected.

2.2.	Modeling Summit

Council activities under this priority consisted of two sessions held at major Great Lakes conferences during the priority cycle: SOLEC'98 and IAGLR'99. The title of the SOLEC'98 session was: "Connecting Ecosystem Objectives and Indicators through Modeling" and the IAGLR'99 session was called: "Great Lakes Modeling Summit: Focus on Lake Erie". A stand-alone report is planned for this priority, but a brief description and summary of the sessions is provided here.

2.2.1.

SOLEC Modeling Summit, October 23, 1998

At SOLEC'98 held during October 1998 in Buffalo, New York, the Council hosted a modeling session focussing on connecting ecosystem objectives and indicators. This session presented two examples of how LaMP workgroups can use models to make a theoretical connection and validate the selection of an indicator of a given ecosystem objective that they have "set".

The Council defined the following terms for use during the workshop:

Environmental Indicator: A measurable feature or one derivable from measurements which singly or in combination provides managerially and scientifically useful evidence of environmental and ecosystem quality, or reliable evidence of trends in quality.

Ecosystem Objective: A statement of a goal or desired outcome for a water body that describes in qualitative terms a target which management efforts are attempting to achieve.

Modeling: The exercise of representing a part of the ecosystem symbolically, either as a diagram or as a set of mathematical equations. Simple or conceptual models can be described in a drawing with boxes and arrows. Complex mathematical models are usually computer programs with mathematical and/or statistical descriptions of the system being modeled.

The achievement of an ecosystem objective is tracked by the selection and reporting of one or more indicators that quantitatively monitor ecosystem response. A good indicator of ecosystem health and integrity integrates a wide range of environmental factors (or stressors) into a single attribute that reflects the response of the system to those stressors. Ecosystem models that relate the response of an ecosystem to the cumulative impact of multiple stressors can provide the theoretical basis for indicator selection and application.

Starting from a couple of hypothetical ecosystem objectives (e.g., elimination of fish consumption advisories, absence of blue-green algal blooms, sustainable walleye population, etc.), an appropriate model was used to demonstrate the connection with each example to an indicator. One presentation used a mass balance/bioaccumulation model for Lake Ontario to demonstrate the quantitative relationship between a potential indicator, the concentration of PCBs in lake trout, and a potential action of the Lake Ontario LaMP, the reduction of PCB loading to the lake. In the other demonstration, an analysis of lakewide estimates of seasonal production and consumption by all pelagic trophic groups was presented. This analysis suggested that there was not enough production by alewife to support the energy demands of the salmonid community in Lake Ontario. Accordingly, a 50% reduction in salmonid stocking was recommended and subsequently implemented with the predicted effect of restoring the balance between piscivorous fish and their prey. After the presentation of these examples, the participants were asked to suggest their own favorite ecosystem objective and then "work" their way through how a model framework might help in the selection and theoretical justification of an indicator/s for that objective.

An examples was worked through to illustrate the process to the participants.

EXAMPLE:

Using control of phosphorus in Lake Erie as an example, the ecosystem objectives (from the GLWQA, Annex 3) are:

1. Restoration of year-round aerobic conditions in the bottom waters of the Central Basin of Lake Erie; and
2. Substantial reduction in the present levels of algal biomass to a level below that of a nuisance condition in Lake Erie.

Mathematical models of algal growth and oxygen depletion in Lake Erie were developed to determine the quantitative relationship among the indicators phosphorus loading, summer average chlorophyll a and late-summer/early-fall hypolimnetic oxygen concentrations. The models then established a quantitative relationship between stressors and indicators as they related to the two ecosystem objectives, thus permitting the development of target phosphorus loadings for achieving those objectives. With the invasion of the zebra mussel in Lake Erie, new, more specific ecosystem objectives may be necessary.

RESULTS:

Key Questions: The following key questions were addressed at the workshop: 1. What ecosystem objectives are you interested in addressing? 2. For each ecosystem objective identified in 1. above, suggest an indicator. What data would need to be collected to allow reporting of that indicator? 3. Have you heard of a model or modeling approach that you wish to know more about? 4. What case studies can be described which have ecosystem objectives, indicators and models already in place?

Participant Perspectives: The participants were interested in knowing why models were needed to interpret indicators. Two examples were presented to show that indicators cannot be used in the absence of understanding. Models are successful in providing that understanding when the response variables are selected to coincide with the desired outcomes.

Session Outcomes: Models should be constructed in a way that allows new species to be handled. We have good models of various parts of the ecosystem, but we need to work on the linkages. For example, we need better linkages 1. among air, land and water; 2. between near-shore and offshore; and 3. between the upper and lower food chains in lakes. If these linkages can be achieved, models can help sort out competing multiple outcomes.

Next Steps: Models cost only 1 to 1.5% of what control actions cost. We need to better sell modeling as part of the tools of Great Lakes management. The suggested approach is to:

1. Provide examples of successful modeling in support of indicators;
2. Show how indicators can be misinterpreted in the absence of models;
3. Show how models can resolve conflicts among indicators;
4. Show how models can predict when indicators are likely to respond; and
5. Show how managers can be involved in defining desired outcomes for lakes.

2.2.2.

IAGLR Modeling Summit (May 27-28, 1999)

The Summit was a continuing effort to bring modelers together with resource managers to discuss the application of models to management issues. This year, the focus was on Lake Erie. The Lake Erie at the Millennium Issues Workshop, held at the University of Windsor in November 1998, had identified 71 Lake Erie management issues that were grouped into six broad categories:

1. Eutrophication/Primary production
2. Exotic Species/Nuisance Aquatic Species
3. Upper Food Web Exploitation
4. Ecosystem Stability
5. Habitat Structure and Function
6. Contaminants

The Lake Erie Summit was held at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. Invitees were each asked to prepare a 7-8 page white paper describing a model that would address as many of these issue categories as possible. The goal was to achieve a quantitative/predictive capability for the Lake Erie ecosystem. In other words, the Council was trying to assess the potential for models to help implement the "Ecosystem Approach to Management" for Lake Erie. In order to meet this challenge, each model, at a minimum, was to include the following state variables:

• nutrient concentrations
• total algal biomass
• blue-green algal biomass
• walleye biomass
• fish body burdens of bioaccumulative chemicals (e.g., PCBs)
• zebra mussel biomass
• richness and evenness of the fish community trophic levels between algae and top predator fish

Further, the model should indicate which stressors control these variables and whether or not they were susceptible to management actions. The invitees were asked to state explicitly their perception of the management problem being addressed. Two groups of panelists provided comments and answered questions at the Summit.

Also, the white papers were to include modeling assumptions, data/monitoring/research needs, relevant space and time scales, and other constraints needed for describing the model. The white papers are available on the Web at: http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/modsum/index.html

RESULTS

Several areas of agreement were reached among the participating modelers:

1. Primary productivity must be better understood (ie. the bacterial component has been neglected);
2. Spatial gradients in Lake Erie are too important to ignore (ie. west to east and nearshore/offshore);
3. Better calibrations of models are needed (ie. verification should be conducted under radically different conditions;
4. Modeling approaches are complimentary (ie. duplication of effort is healthy for complex topics);
5. Current monitoring programs are not sufficient to support even the most modest of modeling projects (ie. there is no long-term commitment to monitoring);
6. Carbon budgets need to be refined to better account for zebra mussel impacts and the role of bacterial activity; and
7. odels themselves are principally pedagogic, and it is the experience and insight gained from building them, not precise model predictions, that outfit the scientist for helping managers.

There are still areas of disagreement among modelers:

1. What is the appropriate level of aggregation? ( ie. Can we lump state variables across space and time?);
2. Uncertainty of the appropriate degree of emphasis on the lower foodchain vs. the upper foodchain (ie. time and space scales);
3. Uncertainty in the linkages across the foodchain ( ie. zooplankton); and
4. Are zebra mussels limited by vertical transport of particulate matter?

The panelists also had points of agreement:

1. Diversity of approaches is good, but there is confusion on which way to proceed.
2. The benefits of modeling vs. the price tag needs to be articulated and resolved.
3. There is utility in having both predictive and diagnostic models.

Both the modelers and the panelists agreed that future plans should be made to hold a session in which modelers and managers collaborate to implement a solution to some pressing management problem.

The Council recommends:

Sufficient monitoring programs and coordinated research programs are essential to the development of modeling projects which can provide assistance to managers in addressing pressing management issues.

2.3.	Communication of Research Needs, Gaps, and Priorities

The Council discussed the importance of this issue and announced this effort in our address to the Commissioners in Niagara Falls. The Council is also one of the founding members of the Task Team to establish the Great Lakes Communicator Network. The goal was to develop and convene a Great Lakes Communicator’s Network to address Great Lakes regional communications needs. The objectives of the inaugural workshop were to:

• Identify common issues and resources.
• Collaborate or develop partnerships on communications activities to develop more effective messages to be sure we are speaking with one voice when complex issues are discussed.
• Address educational awareness and product/program needs.
• Increase the effectiveness of Great Lakes communication efforts by sharing information on media projects, technology trends and traditional communications.
• Engage broader Great Lakes public in magnifying and expanding Great Lakes communication messages. Held in Ann Arbor, March 1999, approximately 40 agency communicators and resource managers/scientists exchanged perspectives on needs and actions.

A Great Lakes Communicators Listserve was established in March 1999, under the lead of the Great Lakes Commission. At the May 1999 IAGLR conference, the Great Lakes Communicators Network sponsored an interactive session featuring four panelists from a variety of backgrounds. Panelists shared their views on the challenges faced by media members and scientists when they interact on the reporting of a scientific issue. Session attendees had the opportunity to participate in lively discussion, and a follow up session for IJC Biennial Forum will be held in Milwaukee.

Summary of Suggested Next Steps for Action, based on the March 1999 workshop

Media:

• Create a mechanism to share media lists (i.e., a list of which Great Lakes communicators deal with which audiences).
• Create a Great Lakes Tip Sheet (Possibly a listserve through GLIN (The Great Lakes Information Network)).
• Pursue a media corner on GLIN to feature news on Great Lakes agencies. Reporters (and others) could visit this site to get a good sense of what's going on in the region, what upcoming events they should be covering, and different perspectives on a specific issue (e.g., the Lake Champlain controversy or Great Lakes diversions) from various agencies.

Education:

• Great Lakes Commission via GLIN and the Center for Great Lakes Environmental Education will work together to determine needs and define responsibility regarding development of an education website that could include an educational material list of items to be ordered or a resource list of on-line activities.
• Send the Council's education material to the Center for Great Lakes Environmental Education for distribution to teachers who call.
• Talk directly to teachers via the GLIN listserve set up for educators.
• Host summit of teachers to identify their educational needs.

Progress, look into the potential to:

• Survey teachers during the already planned teachers workshop during the Great Lakes Student Summit in Buffalo, New York, May 13-14, 1999 and
• Use the information gained through the survey to create a workshop for teachers.

Technology

• Develop Communications Network listserve: com.net on GLINProgress.
• Develop a Multiserver search function on GLIN NetMeeting or other Internet conferencing
• Review of clearinghouse proposal for the Great Lakes Environmental Education CenterVirtual Press Room on GLIN

Sharing Resources

• Organize IAGLR panel discussion Progress on Communicating Science to the Media. This was completed and a mix of reporters and seasoned scientific communicators.
• Decide how often the Network should meet in terms of a conference
• Discuss future funding avenues

The Council suggested a number of potential subcommittees such as the following; Conferences/workshops; Electronic/web resources; Educational materials; Media outreach; Marketing; and Publications.

2.4.	Biodiversity and Habitat

The Council conducted two activities with regard to this priority in the 1997-1999 Priorities Cycle. One was a "scoping" of the topic to identify research needs, gaps and priorities (See section III for a general description of scoping activities). The other activity was a survey of Great Lakes agencies and institutions regarding their goals for biodiversity and habitat. These activities are summarized below.

2.4.1.

Scoping of the Biodiversity and Habitat Priority

The Council used the following sources of information to "scope" this priority: Great Lakes scientists; Government/private research programs; scientific literature; and the World Wide Web.

In general, the "scoping" resulted in this overview:

Biodiversity started as species cataloguing and has more recently emphasis has been placed on species assemblages and associated habitat. There are an extensive number of biodiversity and habitat initiatives underway. These initiatives range from well-funded, technically complex primary research, to regional surveys that depend largely on volunteer help from interested naturalists. Emphasis appears to be on large, showy, rare species and less emphasis has been placed on species such as non-vascular plants, insects, near shore crustaceans, algae, and microbes. An emerging issue for this topic is: How much, and what kind of habitat conservation is required to maximize biodiversity?

There are numerous examples of existing and on-going biodiversity and habitat programs including the following: atlases, biodiversity investment areas, the Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network, the Aquatic Communities Classification System, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission's Fish Biodiversity Project, and the Great Lakes Fauna/biodiversity CD's from the University of Guelph.

Through "scoping" this priority the Council outlined in their recommendations the need to:

1. Clearly identify objectives for biodiversity and habitat initiatives;
2. Encourage and support the more recent ecoregional or ecosystem approach to habitat and biodiversity preservation;
3. Promote efforts on smaller organisms such as non-vascular plants, microbes, algae, insects, and crustaceans. In aquatic ecosystems these data are especially needed for near- shore habitats;
4. Support initiatives to link the various biodiversity/habitat programs so that the large quantity of data can be used in the most effective manner; and
5. Encourage the training of systematists to increase available expertise.

2.4.2.

Survey of Biodiversity and Habitat Goals in the Great Lakes

This study was designed as a continuation of the initial "scoping" of the Biodiversity/Habitat Issues for the Great Lakes. Members of the Council wanted to develop a better understanding of the number and types of organizations involved in the preservation and enhancement of biodiversity and the relevant habitat issues and goals in the Great Lakes. To do this, the Council developed and distributed a survey. The survey's intent was to gain a better understanding of biodiversity and habitat goals of agencies working in the Great Lakes region and included:

• collecting information on which agencies were involved in gathering information on the current biodiversity research as well as habitat issues;
• defining what role these agencies were playing and whether it was a fundamental part of their organizational make up;
• defining what the agencies habitat goals are; and
• evaluating how the agencies were encouraging biodiversity when involved in habitat restoration or enhancement.

The survey was designed as primarily a yes/no response and choosing from a list of options as well as providing space for additions or comments. Respondents were also asked to provide any relevant documents or additional information as an attachment. A four page survey consisting of 17 questions was mailed to 136 agencies on June 26, 1998. Of these, 51 were Canadian and 85 were U.S. agencies. Due to the variety of organizations surveyed, not all survey questions were applicable to all surveyed organizations.

Agencies were chosen following an extensive search of the World Wide Web for organizations whose web pages had information about biodiversity as well as from an existing mailing list. Agencies surveyed included museums, colleges, universities, environmental and conservation organizations, foundations, funding agencies, government agencies, and research organizations.

The agencies chosen were a mere fraction of the numerous agencies and organizations involved in biodiversity and habitat in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence area and as a result the agencies surveyed can not be viewed as a comprehensive list. A comprehensive literature search was also conducted on the World Wide Web in conjunction with the agency search to compile a reference bibliography of reports and current information available regarding biodiversity.

The Survey Results

The Council received 47 responses which represented approximately 35% of the 136 surveys requested. These include six responses from agencies that did not complete the survey as biodiversity was not within their scope or goals of their organization. These uncompleted surveys were not included in analysis (Table 1).

Table 1. Types of respondents to the biodiversity survey.

Category	Number of Respondents
Universities	10
Colleges	1
Environmental/Conservation Organizations	9
Research Organizations	3
Corporations	2
Government Agencies	12

• Twenty-two of the agencies (26/42=62%) responded that they do have goals, policy objectives or a mandate regarding biodiversity goals.
• 24% of the respondents indicated that they were mandated by legislation for biodiversity. The Clean Water Act was another legislation mentioned by respondents.
• The majority of respondents use an ecosystem approach. 15 respondents use the ecosystem approach as compared to 5 that use ecoregion and 4 that use landscape approaches exclusively (Table 2). A number of other organizations use a combination of more than one approach.

Table 2. Types of approaches used by various organization.

Approach	Respondents
Ecosystem	15
Ecoregion	5
Landscape	4
Species or habitat type specific	3
Ecosystem and Ecoregion	1
Ecosystem and species or habitat	4
Ecosystem/Ecoregion and species or habitat type specific	2
Landscape and species of habitat	1
Ecosystem and landscape	1
Combination of ecosystem, ecoregion, landscape and species or habitat type specific	2
No response	4

• 37 respondents indicated that they were involved in more than one means of providing information on biodiversity programs.
• 23 respondents were involved in habitat restoration projects, population management or stocking programs.
• restoration of wetlands (23 responses), nearshore lakes (15 responses) and offshore lakes (14 responses) were the top three habitat types involved in restoration or protection.
• 23 respondents use native species of flora and fauna for habitat restoration, population management and stocking programs, whereas 8 respondents use non-native sources, 12 use local sources, 3 use out of province/state sources, and 8 respondents use historical listings of pre-existing flora and fauna. Five respondents use all five options for projects.
• 20 respondents have implemented monitoring programs for habitat restoration projects.
• 7 respondents are involved in the propagation of native sources of plants or seed.
• 15 respondents maintain a database of sightings or rare, threatened or endangered species.
• 18 respondents contribute information to larger databases such as Canada's Natural Heritage Information Centre or the U.S. National Wetlands Inventory.
• 30 respondents indicated that they were aware of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNEP 1992).
• 32 respondents indicated that they were aware of Canada's National Biodiversity Strategy and/or National Biological Survey in the U.S. and 13 respondents are involved in implementing part of these Biodiversity strategies
• 20 respondents apply for funding from agencies that outline specific biodiversity goals or requirements as part of their approval.
• 18 respondents indicated that these funding agency requirements influence project design regarding biodiversity.
• 15 respondents indicated that they work in partnership with other organizations with differing goals regarding biodiversity.
• 22 respondents indicated that they use at least one of the technologies such as GIS, GPS, satellite imagery, maintenance of an electronic database to gain a better understanding of biodiversity.

The survey expanded upon the findings from the scoping exercise which revealed the vastness of the topic of biodiversity and habitat. A broad spectrum of organizations including universities, museums, government agencies, and grassroots environmental nongovernment organizations are involved in various aspects of biodiversity and habitat issues in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence area and a majority (62%) have biodiversity goals, policy objectives or mandates. There is also a variety in the efforts undertaken to assess biodiversity including cataloguing, database maintenance, research and volunteer-run species. All of these efforts contribute to the current knowledge and understanding of biodiversity and habitat in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence area.

The Council identified a number of preliminary recommendations from the survey results which will help to increase the knowledge, understanding, and preservation of biodiversity and habitat since the protection of critical habitats is of utmost importance to preserving biodiversity.

• Develop ecosystem or ecoregional management approaches that protect and enhance critical habitats large enough to sustain viable, genetically diverse populations.
• Develop legislation and policies effective in stopping or slowing the introduction of non-native species.
• An oversight committee or organization both within the U.S. and Canada and between countries should be developed to provide a coordinated body for assimilation of the extensive amount of research, databases, atlases, cataloguing, etc. on biodiversity.
• Develop an approach to coordinate university research regarding biodiversity.
• Encourage an ecosystem or ecoregion approach to biodiversity and habitat restoration projects.
• Promote efforts to document information on small organisms such as non-vascular plants, microbes, algae, insects, and crustaceans. In aquatic systems these data are especially needed for near shore habitats.
• Encourage the coordination of US and Canadian biodiversity initiatives such as cataloguing by museums.
• Encourage the use of native species of flora and fauna when performing habitat restoration or enhancement projects.
• Encourage economically viable projects which promote the use and production of native species of flora and fauna.
• Coordinate programs with similar mandates such as fisheries or wetlands.
• Develop electronic means to share information and coordinate databases, cataloguing and research..
• Encourage the rehabilitation and enhancement of habitats such as golf courses, graveyards, corporate property, urban backyards, schoolyards, etc. to increase biodiversity.

From these preliminary findings and preliminary recommendations the Council developed two recommendations to the IJC.

The Council recommends that:

There is a critical need to develop ecosystem or ecoregional management approaches that protect and enhance critical habitats.

There is a need for U.S. and Canadian coordination for assimilation of biodiversity and habitat research, databases, atlases, cataloguing and other ongoing programs.