Ingemar Ekstrom called the meeting to order. EWM Committee members present: Ingemar Ekstrom, John Kudlas, Mitch McGee, Stephania Strzalkowski, Dave Pease, Gerald Gustafson, Lee Wiesner, Jim and Patti Joswick, (also present as property owners.)

Member absent: Barb Romstad,

Guest presenters:

DNR representative/Superior: Frank Koshere

UW Extension/Spooner: John Haack

U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Research and Development Center: John Skogerboe

A total of 81 persons were present at the meeting including those listed above and additional property owners and interested citizens.

Agenda

1. Presence of Eurasian Water Milfoil in area lakes:

Ingemar gave a brief history of the discovery of EWM in the two infested lakes. He explained the involvement of the Town of Barnes and area residents in attempting to contain the invasive species from spreading and also noted that the presence of the weed has affected the use of the Tomahawk Lake Park. Ingemar has personally researched and kept himself knowledgeable, through workshops, about the EWM containment and treatment options used in the state. He sited Lake Delavan as an example, where they have treated the lake chemically with some success.

Ingemar outlined the communication actions of the EWM committee since its formation in fall of 2006. It has solicited and received input from the Tomahawk and Sandbar Lakes residents as far as the situation on their lakes. Nearly 100% have indicated they are in favor of some type of containment effort. People have expressed concerns over the presence of EWM in their lakes ranging from its inhibiting boating to health and safety issues as well as declining lakeshore property values and marketability.

2. Proposed Research Project for Infested Lakes

This is an opportunity for the area to engage in a research project of treatment for EWM on the infested lakes.
This is an informational meeting, it is not to promote the proposal but to educate – questions are encouraged. All questions submitted will be addressed, some during the presentation, some following. The method for submitting questions is to write them on the supplied index cards.

3. Program

Frank Koshere and John Skogerboe gave a program to:

· Explain a potential research project to control EWM on Tomahawk and Sandbar Lakes.

· Outline EWM management options if there is no research project

· Learn if the Town of Barnes and property owners want to participate in a research project.

Background:

1. EWM was discovered in Tomahawk and Sandbar Lakes in 2004

2. Town of Barnes reacted with a Survey of 27 Lakes, no other EWM was found

Standard EWM Management Options

1. No action will result in no improvement, continued impairment, risk to other bodies of water.

2. Allow individuals to do small “Nuisance relief” controls near their shorelines:

a. No-long term gain

b. Continued risk

3. Town or Lake Organization plan larger-scale, public benefit management actions.

a. Possible lake-wide improvements

b. Can access state grant to cost-share in management

c. Lowers risk to other nearby lakes

Lake or Town Large Scale Management Approach

1. No Research Option:

a. Apply for Aquatic Invasive Species Grant, 50/50 cost share

b. Develop an APM Plan – survey plants in each lake, review management options, form plan, fund on own or with limited AIS grants to start control.

c. Typical Costs using an outside consultant:

a) $5,000 plant survey each lake

b) $10,000 APM plan

c) Annual control costs – approx. $500 per acre (Tomahawk – 134 acres, Sandbar – 114 acres)

d) Seldom is “whole lake control” considered, too costly

e) Site Specific control of 5-20 acres of EWM may cost $2500 - $10,000 annually

2. Annual Management Costs will continue.

3. EWM is not eradicated, it can be managed

a) Manage for small nuisance relief

b) Manage for large scale benefits

4. Goal of large-control project is to “reset the clock” to a low or small amount of EWM

5. Even with large-scale control, annual management will be necessary to maintain the benefits, or EWM will repeat its spread in the lake.

Potential Research Project on Tomahawk and Sandbar Lakes

1. 2 lakes side by side would provide convenient test and reference lakes

2. Town expressed an interest in management

3. Excellent to good water quality

4. High diversity of native aquatic plants

5. Unique circumstances for evaluating a common control method on a large scale in high quality lakes

6. Potential value to other lakes, other states with similar situations

7. Willingness/Agreement/Participation is needed from several parties:

a. DNR research staff

b. Potential Grant cost share

c. Local interest and support

Timeline of Proposed Research Project Activities

1. 2007 – Aquatic Plant Survey on both lakes:

a. DNR research – Point Intercept aquatic plant survey

b. ACOE – hydro acoustic plant survey

2. 2008 – Spring treatment on Tomahawk Lake with low dose 2,4-D (0.5ppm)

a. Monitor results on EWM and native plants

b. Monitor herbicide residuals, water quality, etc.

3. 2009 – Continue Plant Survey

a. Spot treat where needed

b. Monitor native plants

4. 2010 – Continue Plant Survey

a. Spot treat where needed

b. Monitor native plants

Proposed Control Method

1. Primarily 2, 4-D

a. Commonly used for EWM control

b. Registered for use by the EPA

c. Applied under label requirements and commercial applicator

d. Spring treatment at low dose (0.5 ppm)

2. Compare other methods (Sandbar)

a. Small scale removals (scuba, hand harvest)

b. EWM Weevil surveys

c. Possible spot treatments

Project Costs

1. The total cost of the 3 year project would be $209,000 which includes:

a. Chemical application by a private herbicide applicator

b. US Corps of Engineers and WDNR Aquatic plant monitoring

c. CBCW Program

d. WDNA Lakes Program aquatic plant management plan

e. Scuba surveys and weevil monitors

2. Estimated actual cost to the Town of Barnes would be in the range of $10,000

Benefits

1. Plant surveys of both lakes for 4 years

2. Whole lake control of Tomahawk Lake for 3 years

3. Lake management plan for both lakes for after 2010

4. Comprehensive information for future management actions

People Involved

DNR Research
ACOE Research
Town of Barnes
DNR Grants program
DNR Water Resources
Applicator
Property Owners, volunteers

2011 Continued Management Turned Over to Local Interests

Annual management will be needed
Research project will help determine the most effective strategies

4. Questions

A question and answer session followed during which the presenters answered all questions presented by the audience. The following questions were addressed:

Q. What are health impacts of 2,4-D on people, animals, and plants?

A. DNR does not do impact studies on a chemical if it is registered by EPA and State of Wis.

Q. What about 2, 4-D risks?

A. If there were a great risk, it would not be allowed. Every pesticide should have a safe vs. risk determination and be registered for that use.

Q. Is it like Agent Orange used in Vietnam?

A. That was a defoliant used in combination with other chemicals that had eye contaminants. That component is not in 2,4-D.

Q. Is there a fish consumption advisory when 2,4-D is used?

A. There is not. The EPA says 2,4-D meets safety requirements. See label - for use restrictions for water intakes or drinking water. It should not affect wells unless the well is connected to lake. Contamination from 2,4-D is terrestrial and this application will not be done on the land. Legitimate ground water tests done when 2,4-D was used in other lakes show no problem.

Q. More safety concerns?

A. Terrestrial weed and feed used by many on lawns contains 2,4-D.

Q. Does aquatic -treatment in front of property need DNR permit?

A. Yes

Q. Is the Town Park Beach being closed during treatment?

A. Treatment will be done in early spring and during that time there will be notices restricting boating, swimming, fishing. But those restrictions will be lifted well ahead of the swimming, fishing and boating seasons.

Q. What about curly pond leaf vs. clasping pond leaf?

A. There isn’t any curly pond leaf here.

Q. Why isn’t Sandbar Lake being treated?

A. A reference control site is needed for a research project, which makes this an ideal situation.

Q. If pond lilies disappear will you replant?

A. Early spring treatment is done before most other plants are active. The pond lilies should not be impacted.

Q. Is there a concern about oxygen depletion?

A. By treating in early spring the biomass should not be impacted. Fluoridone caused some water clarity problems as it was used in the wrong lakes. We have mesotrophic lakes around here vs. eutrophic lakes, which have lots of decaying vegetation and nutrients.

Q. What happens at the end of the study?

B. When all wrapped up - the project will be handed over to the town in 2011.

Q. Where else was 2, 4-D used?

A. Application of 2,4-D was done on Eagle Lake, South of Milwaukee, on a large-scale basis. That application was so successful treatment the following year was unnecessary.

Q. What is the application we are doing?

A. 0.5 mgs. per liter of water. Exposure time amount of contact should be done on a large scale or whole lake treatment. Application would be done in early spring - April as Eurasian water milfoil begins to grows about “ice out.” Biomass is low so it eliminates oxygen depletion when young milfoil is more susceptible. Cold water has slow degradation and many native species are dormant in early spring so less damage is done to native plants. Whole lake management keeps large EWM colonies from expanding. Building up native plant population will help keep EWM contained.

Q. What are the long-term goals of the project?

A. Goal is to reset the clock to early discovery. Plans are to regain recreational area, 5-20 acres annually.

Q. Is it an option for Sandbar Lake residents to pay for treatment now?

A. It is not an option under a research project.

Q. Does the DNR see EWM as a health threat?

A. No

Q. Do lower water levels affect treatment and basically reduce cost? Does it change concentration?

A. No – it is a constant concentration- evaporation does not hurt. Volume of lake is measured and 2,4-D is applied to volume.

Q. Once the lakes are treated, will we close the landings?

A. That will have to be discussed with the town.

Q. Can milfoil be transferred from Sandbar to Tomahawk after treatment?

A. Yes. You know how much activity there is between lakes so you can be the best judge of that happening.

5. Vote

The Tomahawk and Sandbar Lakes property owners were given the opportunity to vote for or against the research project as outlined and discussed. Vote was done by a private, written ballot. Only one vote per property was allowed and only one vote per property owner was allowed even if that owner had several parcels on the two lakes.

The results of the vote were:

· 29 in favor of treatment and control as proposed in the research project

· 3 opposed

Lee Wiesner and Mitch McGee indicated that the Town of Barnes would most likely approve the research project.

Meeting adjourned at 2:40 PM.