Loading...
BMLM082902AnnualMeeting BIG MUSKEGO LAKE/BASS BAY PROTECTION AND REHABILITATION DISTRICT MINUTES OF ANNUAL MEETING AND BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING HELD AUGUST 29, 2002 Approved Chairman Slocomb called the meeting to order at 7:12 PM. Also present were Commissioners Petfalski, Salentine, Sanders, Madden and Damaske, Deputy Commissioners Larry Schweitzer and Greg Burmeister, Conservation Coordinator Zagar, and Clerk-Treasurer Marenda. Commissioners Le Doux and Patterson were absent. Approximately 32 district residents were present. Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. The Clerk-Treasurer reported the meeting was noticed in accordance with the Open Meeting Law. Commissioner Salentine moved for approval of the minutes of the annual meeting held August 29, 2001. Commissioner Sanders seconded. Motion carried. PERSONAL APPEARANCE – DNR REPRESENTATIVES DNR personnel present were Randy Schumacher, Jim Jackley, Heidi Bunk-Lake Management, Mary Ellen Franson-Lake Funding; Rachel Gall-Exotic Species Specialist. Mr. Schumacher advised the DNR is quite satisfied overall with the present condition of the lake. He stated the DNR representatives will be available to answer any questions after the presentation by Tom Zagar. NEW BUSINESS Tom Zagar, the City Conservation Coordinator and City Forester, stated he deals with conservation issues and lake management and is a Lake District member. He made a slide presentation on the history of the lake from 1859 to the present , the current status of the lake, and how the lake management plan is being developed and the Development of the Lake Management Plan. Some highlights included:  1995 – start of project to drawdown the lake and carp kill. 160 tons of carp were removed from Bass Bay.  Winter 1996-97 – Three (3) nesting islands for waterfowl created on eastern shore.  2000 – After drawdown, about 55% stands of emergent vegetation with 45% open water, versus about 90% open water prior. Now there is improved water quality; improved fishery; improved diversity of aquatic plants; more emergent plants (cattails/bulrushes); consolidated sediments; three (3) waterfowl nesting sites. Water is now clear and the bottom is dominated by a plant called Chara. More cattails and fewer Eurasian Milfoil plants.  Foresters Terns, an endangered species, are nesting on mats of vegetation on Big Muskego Lake. There are a variety of other birds, including tree swallows, yellow headed blackbirds, sandhill cranes, great blue herons, egrets, pelicans, coots, teal and various ducks.  Big Muskego Lake and Bass Bay offer recreation such as water skiing, boating, fishing and canoeing.  Prairie vegetation was established for waterfowl nesting islands.  Since 1999, biological control has been used to control the purple loosestrife. Beetles are propagated and released to feed on the plants.  Ospreys, a threatened species, were introduced in 1998. Captured fledging osprey were brought here, cages and nesting platforms were built. This year 2 of the 5 osprey were fitted with satellite telemetry.  Aquatic Plant Survey-Summer 2002. Compared how things are now compared to just before and after the drawdown. A lot of Chara, a good plant for holding sediments on the bottom. Eurasian Milfoil is not a good plant and was treated chemically this year. Generally a very healthy plant community.  Dam – during the draught this summer, water level dropped more than a foot below the dam.  Cattails died off in 2000, mostly because of deeper water levels.  Winter Kill 2000-2001. Big contributor was dying cattails settling to bottom of lake and using oxygen during decomposition. Also caused by deep snow depths that year. Bass Bay had good oxygen levels throughout that winter.  Cattails growing back this year as a result of the drought. Mr. Zagar discussed the development of the Big Muskego Lake/Bass Bay Management Plan. The formal written plan is now being developed. The objectives of this plan include:  Maintain water quality  Maintain a healthy assemblage of fish and provide good angling opportunities  Provide wildlife habitat, not only for hunting, but for threatened, rare and endangered species  Maintain opportunities for water-based recreation  Maintain aquatic plants to keep diversity up and reduce nuisance plants Mr. Zagar identified the triggers to initiate future rehabilitation including a drawdown:  Loss of emergent plant coverage  Loss of submergent plants  Algae dominated  Nuisance levels of Eurasian Milfoil  Diminished water quality  Fishery dominated by carp  Consensus of Lake District membership. Mrs. May expressed concern if cattails on the east side appear again. Chairman Slocomb noted a weed harvester was purchased to assist with that problem. Concern was expressed about weeds in Bass Bay. Mr. Zagar explained that the District contracted for the chemical treatment to control Eurasian Milfoil in approximately 35 acres of Bass Bay. A resident commented the spraying didn’t help and asked about cutting the weeds. Chairman Slocomb explained the State requires a permit to cut the vegetation from the lake bed and approval of the DNR. The purchase of the weed harvester was for the purpose of bringing in floating weeds, and not establishing a cutting program. Running a weed cutter is a very big job as evidenced by Little Muskego Lake running two cutters daily about 12 hours a day, and that is a 500 acre lake. Operation and maintenance would be very costly. Mr. May asked what can be done with submerged cattails. Chairman Slocomb stated dead cattails that are floating or submerged can be removed, just not those that are live and attached to the bottom. There is no easy solution. A resident questioned the 8” size limit on bluegills. DNR representative Randy Schumacher explained the ecological rationale. We want to maintain a fishery out there that is as close to un-fished as reasonable while still providing some recreation. A question was raised about the status of land acquisition by the DNR. Jim Jackley reported the DNR has purchased 240 acres, and several other parcels are being worked on. Budget constraints have made it tough, and land prices are escalating. He noted even though the City donated about 1/3 of the value for the Boxhorn parcel, it was still difficult to get approval. Project should have started 20 years ago. A gentleman commented there seems to be some competition between the DNR and some land brokers who are interested in vacant land around the lake, and asked if the DNR was having some problem with that. Mr. Jackley responded that the DNR works with the appraised value and a willing seller, but the problem with the process is that it’s slow and cumbersome, taking up to two-years to finalize. Dave De Angelis had a question on the lake management plan. With the large die-off of cattails we saw cattail rafts and a huge increase of open water. One of the concerns with the large expanse of open water is the wind fetch and the re-suspending of the sediments at the bottom of the lake which upsets the nice balance we have now for water quality. With the drought this summer, the lake level dropped and the cattails and some of the other plants came back, and hopefully if they come back next year they’ll break up some of that wind. Is there any thought or consideration being given to, rather than doing a full-scale drawdown of the lake when we reach catastrophic proportions, doing a more measured drawdown when we see the center of the lake open completely up again? Mr. Schumacher commented that one thing about the cattails when they die off in the winter is that the upright stalk is like a straw that lets oxygen down into the water. So how we manage cattails will determine how we will have to battle winter-kill. Tom Zagar stated that prior to this summer’s draught he was concerned that the lake was going to make a slow slip into a large expanse of open water again. The drought did help stabilize the emergent vegetation and stabilize the plant dominated state that we have. Obviously that will be explored in the plan as a tool without actually having to do a large scale drawdown to keep a healthy lake. Sally Slocomb asked then why two years ago did we have such a huge fish kill and ten years ago when we had the open water that none of those carp died. Mr. Zagar said actually the 2000-01 fish kill was right after the biggest die-off of cattails and decaying plants contributed to oxygen depletion. We also had an early snowfall which was very deep and blocked a lot of sunlight. A gentleman asked if anything is going to be done about the dike. Mr. Schumacher stated the DNR has the plans they would like to implement. There’s about a 3500 ft. structure on the south side of the lake that impounds water at high level from Big Muskego. Over the past two winters, with landowners permission, the DNR has been adding clay on top of it to make it higher. The DNR is in negotiations with landowners on how to do the project to patch the dike. There are all kinds of ramifications to that project, like who’s going to maintain it, how much compensation they should get for allowing the DNR to get in, etc. On the good side, the money that was planned for several years ago seems to be coming despite the bad budget times we’re in right now. The DNR, City and Ducks Unlimited are involved and the estimated cost is $200,000. It does come down to a willing situation by the landowners. They have allowed the temporary fix. The dike is proposed to be three times wider to prevent failure. A question was raised about a downstream carp barrier to prevent carp entering from Little Muskego Lake upstream. Mr. Schumacher stated the literature indicates no one has ever made an effective downstream carp barrier. We can keep them from going upstream, but not downstream. A woman asked if there are plans on reintroducing trumpeter swans. Mr. Jackley stated they probably would not physically put them there primarily because of the lead concentrations out there. But, with the expanding population of trumpeter swans hopefully they will come here on their own. A woman asked about coyotes in the area and noted their boldness and wondered if they are increasing in number, and if the DNR has a policy for maintaining a safe number. Mr. Jackley noted it is the number one call he gets. There is no season on coyotes and as a landowner you can shoot or trap year round if the City’s ordinance allows it, or have a trapper do it. The coyote population is doing very well and they’re pretty much here to stay. Mr. Zagar stated that as the Land Management Plan develops, open houses will be held to get input as to the management strategies for both Big Muskego Lake and Bass Bay. Regarding chemical weed treatment, Mr. Zagar stated he would like to try to contract to get the weed treatment done earlier with an opportunity to do a second treatment if necessary. A property owner asked if a weed mat could be used for close to shore problem areas. One of the DNR reps indicated an application for a permit is required. A gentlemen asked what percentage of weed treatment was done on the Bay as compared to the Lake. Mr. Zagar said this year 100% of the treatment was done on the Bay. Last year about 32 acres were done on the Bay with three acres on the Lake proper. The Lake is so large and there are so many aquatic plants it would be hard to choose where to treat. Also Eurasian Milfoil was not a problem on the Lake, where it was a problem on the Bay. 2-4-D treatments are targeted on Eurasian Milfoil. DNR rep Heidi Bunk noted a survey showed the Big Lake is dominated by healthy native plants so treatment is unnecessary and could cause further problems. On the weed harvesting operation, Commissioner Sanders said that Mr. Zagar mentioned the Big Lake and Bass Bay are connected but distinct bodies of water, and asked if the Lake Management Plan will address those differences relating to weed harvesting and chemical weed treatment. Mr. Zagar said managing aquatic plants is very different, and there will be separate strategies. A lot of alternatives will be included in the plan. Chairman Slocomb commented next year the responsibility for weed harvesting will pretty much fall to the deputy commissioners, and in the springtime the residents will need to contact them if they have an area they feel should be treated. Commissioner Sanders also asked if there’s any way to treat the algae problem that occurred this year. Mr. Zagar responded if algae is a nuisance, it can be treated. It is caused by high nutrient levels with a major cause being the over use of fertilizers throughout the watershed, especially close to the water’s edge. Chairman Slocomb noted that also the creek coming into the Bay affects the nutrients. The DNR promotes non-point source pollution abatement strategies that homeowners can do and there’s a lot of literature on the subject. Mr. Zagar stated no new projects were proposed. Continuation of the purple loosestrife project, Osprey project, development of Lake Management Plan, and being proactive on keeping track of the aquatic plant community. A potential project might be that the City staff will conduct the water quality monitoring on the lake beginning in 2003. USGS has done it up to now. However, the DNR will no longer provide cost sharing. Mr. Zagar would like to continue monitoring without paying the high price to USGS. Review 2001 Audit and Approve Engagement Letter for 2002 Audit Chairman Slocomb asked for any comments or questions on the 2001 audit. None received. David De Angelis moved to approve the engagement letter with Virchow Krause & Company for the 2002 audit as proposed. John Wiederhold seconded. Motion carried. Approve Amendment to 2002 Budget No amendment proposed. Adopt 2003 Budget Chairman Slocomb noted the proposed budget included no change in the special charge for the 159 on-lake parcels of $80.00 and the special charge for the 236 off-lake parcels of $35.00. Leonard Pilak moved to adopt the 2003 budget as submitted. Thomas Kies seconded the motion. Motion carried. Selection of 2003 Quarterly and Annual Meeting Dates John Wiederhold moved that the Board of Commissioners should meet quarterly in 2003 on 1/28, 3/25, 6/24, 10/28 and the annual meeting should be held on 8/28. David De Angelis seconded; motion carried. Election of Deputy Commissioners The following nominations were submitted for deputy commissioner: David De Angelis (declined) Larry Schweitzer Tom Kies Gregory Burmeister Scott Godleski Steve Wojnowski David De Angelis moved to close nominations. Leonard Pilak seconded; motion carried. Leonard Gultch moved to cast a unanimous ballot for the 5 nominees as deputy commissioners. Sally Slocomb seconded; motion carried. Back to Unfinished Business relating to Fish Restocking, Randy Schumacher stated there is quite an impressive list of millions of fish that have been stocked. Scheduled now is only northern pike. Fish counts are done in the fall. VOUCHER APPROVAL A voucher in the amount of $650.00 for Virchow Krause for the 2001 audit was presented. Commissioner Salentine moved to approve. Commissioner Petfalski seconded; motion carried. COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS Randy Schumacher asked that he and the other DNR representatives to invited to the deputy commissioners meetings. ADJOURNMENT Leonard Pilak moved to adjourn. Tom Kies seconded; motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:52 PM. Respectfully submitted, Jean K. Marenda, CMC Clerk-Treasurer S:CityHall:BML:BMLM082902