Chippewa Flowage Invasive Species Education and Management (CFISEM) Steering Committee

Minutes from the meeting of December 20, 2005

(Minutes taken by Deb Anderson and typed by Jen Bunker and edited by Erik Olson.)

(Minutes were taken in shorthand.)

In Attendance: Erik Olson, Leslie Ramczyk, Miles Falck, Bruce Meyers, Craig Roesler, Douglas Kurtzweil, John K., Chuck Block, Dennis Clagget, Deb Anderson, Dan Tyrolt, Kristy Maki, Brett M.

Erik- Welcomed everyone and reviewed agenda. 

Erik- Discussed updates or additions to the Chippewa Flowage Joint Agency Mgmt. Plan.  Included with the aquatic plant mgmt. plan.

Dan T.- Asked for deadlines for updates.

Erik- Drafts by next winter 06/07.  Target final updates spring 07.

Discussion on how to organize the effort on the updates.

Kristy- Suggested submitting updates by spring 06.

Craig- Working draft of APM by winter so it can be done at same time, and reviewed at the same time.

Erik- Will coordinate effort of getting updates & restates that updates will be voluntary.

Erik- Asked for APM comments.

Craig- Suggests separating Ia. into two separate goals.  Perhaps:

The preservation and enhancement of native plant species.

The preservation and enhancement of native plant species traditionally used by the Chippewa (especially the re-establishment, preservation, and enhancement of wild rice beds.)

Kristy- Add between II & III a History Section.

Dan T.-Could leave out Purpose and Justification section if it gets redundant of goals. 

Discussion on Areas of Concern.  

Erik- Recommends that they be based on environmental information rather than cultural, so as to not draw any unwanted attention to certain locations. Suggests that ecological areas of concern could be identified on a map.

Dan T.– Whole shoreline could be an area of concern.  Even the whole Flowage could be an area of concern.

Miles- A map of the areas of concern could be used as a mgmt. tool that could be used to help determine mgmt. options.

Dan T.-To specifically locate these areas of concern (sensitivity) there probably isn’t enough existing data or surveys available.  There may be a lot of work to try & track this information down.  This information might not be as useful.

Kristy- You would want to make clear in objectives what these areas represent & how they were determined.

Craig- Ask agencies for info to identify areas of concern.  Could just mention the species are in the area.

Dan T.- Use index’s for inverts & frogs.

Miles- DNR coordinates statewide surveys on indicator species.  (Example frog call surveys.)

Deb- Good grant opportunity To involve students/community in volunteer monitoring program for indicator species.

Dan T.- Put feelers out to find some site specific infomation.

Chuck- Could there be a danger of diversifying it too much & lose site of AIS & AMP objectives?

Erik- Yes, but these things could be asked of the agencies involved and would not be the direct responsibility of the Project.  And the Projects main focus will still be AIS & AMP.

Erik- Discusses the Control Options Report Outline.

Kristy- Can follow Houghton Lake Technical Report on how they handled control options (esp. Physical control).

Erik- Steering Committee take the Control Report and make recommendations as to which ones they feel would be the best based on discussion of the pros and cons to each control.

Kristy- Do an in depth Control Options Report.  Then add a section on management recommendations in addition to having it in the bigger APM plan.  Then it could be summarized in the APM and referred back to the Control Options Report in the appendix.

Doug- Asked for clarification on Kristy’s comments.

Kristy- Clarified her comments.

Miles- Separate the Control Options Report into two separate sections, one on purple loosestrife and one on Eurasian Watermilfoil. 

Erik- Yes, the report will be split into two sections.

Miles- Seems like Steering Committee mainly involved in Management Alternatives, Recommendation of Management Strategies, & Monitoring and Evaluation sections of the APM.  The committee’s role may need to be more defined in terms of timeline to complete these tasks.  What needs to happen to implement recommendations?

Erik- End of grant period will determine timeline.

Douglas K.- Signature degree of cooperation between agencies there seems to be a strong foundation for implementation.

Erik- Can use APM plan & its recommendations to steer managment for future. (Example: On drawdown recommendations.)

Douglas K.- Drawdown questions on effectiveness.

Craig- Proven some effectiveness 

Discussion on drawdown.

Bruce- We can identify areas & provide recommendations.  Study those areas right away, don’t have to wait for a report.

Erik- Next couple of meetings the goals will be to narrow down options & make recommendations.

Bruce- Need some material to read & study to help prepare committee so they can make good recommendations. 

Dan- Finish control options report which could provide the background materials.

Craig- Change Nothing to No Action on the Control Options Report.

Erik- Will send out a packet via mail (snail mail).  Next meeting agenda-discuss report & work to control options & recommendations.  Purple Loosestrife to start with.  April tentative next meeting.  Possibly week of 13^th Earth Day.

Doug- February would be better. 

Dan T.- Specify that the maps aren’t completed yet-DRAFTS.

Discussion of maps.

Douglas, John, Chuck & Dennis are interested in an estimate of coverage of AIS.

Dan T.- Need to indicate that the points. Represent a point & that there are more than a point or dot of it.  What % of water under 10ft contains EWM?

Erik- Frequency increases double in areas under 10ft.  Gave a summary of results from East side of Flowage.

Discussion of future implementation.  Is there money?  Who’s in charge?  Are there any trt.s/control proposed?  NRCS provided LCO Conservation with small grant for 20 acres.

Is it more prevalent on East vs. West?  Discussion.

Miles- Question about education & prevention.  Go after some funding to coordinate efforts on education & prevention.  Peer Pressure at the landings.  Persistent message to get word out.

Bruce- Looking at grants through Lake Associations to check boats.  Learned that people leave home w/EWM & inspect before you put in water.  Review education efforts already undertaken.

Chuck-  Need enforcement of programs.  Realistic legislation.  Should add enforcement section under the Management Alternatives section as a recommendation.  Needs to be control of boats coming into landings.

Erik- Announcement of entry point AIS grant proposal submission.

Douglas- Appreciation of Property Owners being included.

Erik- Thank you all.  Next meeting will be scheduled for sometime in February - April

Water Quality Home Page