|
This website has been changed from www.barnes-wi.com to TownOfBarnesWI.gov! Please update any bookmarks you may have to the new domain.
|
|||||
Home
>
Aquatic Invasive Species Committee
>
AIS & EWM Committees Meeting Minutes
>
2010 Eurasian Water Milfoil Committee Minutes
> Special Meeting June 5, 2010
Special Meeting June 5, 2010
TOMAHAWK & SANDBARLAKES EURASIAN WATERMILFOIL RESEARCH PROJECT UPDATE MEETING 1:00 p.m.Saturday 5 June 2010 BarnesTown Hall Welcome and introductions Ingemar Ekstrom welcomed the group and expressed appreciation to the residents of SandBarLake for their patience through the project. He acknowledged Pamela Toshner’s contribution to the program and also welcomed John Skogerboe from the Army Corps of Engineers. Research project update Research Biologist John Skogerboe, Army Corps of Engineers, updated the group on TomahawkLake status reviewing the treatment of Tomahawk in 2008 and the science behind the project. He related some of the data collected to a potential future treatment of SandBarLake. As of the most recent survey of the lake in spring 2010, there is still no trace of Eurasian Water Milfoil in TomahawkLake, which is good. What is not so good is that the treatment appears to have affected some of the desirable native plants. Recent data will help to determine the best PPM of 2,4-D that would be needed for effective, safe future treatments. Questions were raised about replanting native vegetation and the effect of treatment on the fish population. Some discussion followed concerning the status of the native weeds and the future of fishing on the lakes. Fish Sticks were discussed as a potential habitat improvement project. Volunteer shoreline monitoring and aquatic invasive plant ID Ingemar Ekstrom distributed printed information to help the group identify invasive species. He also distributed the form on which he would like people to log the hours they spend checking their shorelines. Early detection and rapid response action plan Lee Weisner talked to the group about the importance of early detection of any aquatic invasive species. He is the coordinator for the rapid response action; if you find any invasive species in a lake please call Lee or one of the other committee members immediately. There is a plan in place that will ensure immediate action to treat and contain. Sand Bar and TomahawkLakes management planning Management Coordinator Pamela Toshner, WDNR, led the discussion on the Aquatic Plant Management plan for the two lakes moving forward. She shared the 2007 research project background, which included a commitment from DNR to write Aquatic Plant Management Plans for both lakes. DNR is simply writing the plans, though, and property owner/community feedback will drive the management. Typically a consultant writes and implements these plans, but the local community has been fortunate to have the Barnes EWM Committee at their service because they have effectively filled the same role that a consultant would. The committee members are volunteers saving everyone much money. Pamela invited questions and input from the group on the following topics:
Discussion followed concerning the treatment of the lake. Pamela explained that the citizens had to decide what treatment, if any, they want on their lake. Different techniques were discussed, harvesting, weevils, waiting to have more data about the recurrence of native plants on Tomahawk. Pros and cons of 2,4-D, triclopyr, and fluridone were described. Fluridone is inexpensive, but generally comes back within a couple years. It must be in contact with the EWM for at least 60 days. There are some cases (e.g. hydrilla in Florida) where plants have become resistant to fluridone. Similar to 2,4-D, triclopyr mimics a growth hormone that causes uncontrollable cellular reproduction. It has been used for 5 years in aquatics compared to about 50 years for 2,4-D. Triclopyr is more expensive than 2,4-D. The affect on groundwater was questioned and many felt private well testing should be ongoing. A groundwater monitoring component, including listing independent labs for analysis, will be added to the Plans. Pamela reviewed the management plan options and the early detection and response plan, the specific proposed SandBarLake plan which is: · WholeLake 2,4-D treatment at lower doses · DNR and Army Corps of Engineers complete professional monitoring (spring –and fall EWM surveys and summer point-intercept of all plants) · Volunteer monitoring · 2011 -2012 Some people didn’t understand why the same 500 ppb 2,4-D dose that was used in Tomahawk couldn’t be used in Sand Bar. Pamela and John explained that while that dose killed EWM, it also killed desirable native plants that were not expected to be affected. Thus, the EWM reduction goal was met but not the native plant protection goal. APM Plans aim to meet both those goals so a dose that minimizes adverse affects to native plants is necessary. We will know more after this summer about the precise dose to be used in Sand Bar. Next Steps · Complete APM plan for public review by July 1 · Apply for 75% state share AIS grants by Aug 1 and Feb 1 (if Aug grant does not compete successfully) Meeting adjourned at 3:07 PM |
|||||
|
|||||
