Information Items
Kevin Gustavason presented an update on John Dingell’s Farm Tour annual farm tour.  For those that may not know, Congressman Dingell's tour took place on Saturday, July 31.  Stony Creek Watershed was chosen as on the sites at 6250 Judd Road in Milan, MI.  There was raised concern about water conservation projects as under-funded, and although many may disagree, the Congressman showed great interest in this matter.  Also a stated concern was flooding in the watershed and how this is linked to urbanization.  Again, the Congressman seemed very attentive and interested.

Next, Dr. Gustavason presented a few additional water quality maps.  With the new Landuse 2000 Map, the categories have been shrunk down and renamed, as the goal was to narrow down the legend.  Joe mentioned about the agriculture category that the issue is not just agriculture per say, but more the particular kind of agriculture and access of animals to those particular kinds.  Also suggested, and forthcoming as a new revision on the map, is an indication of golf courses.  The Location of Study Sites Map has also been created.  Both maps are available on the website, http://www.emich.edu/wrc/stonycreek/, which has been updated in its entirety.  

Following the new water quality maps, Kevin presented the results of the Macroinvertebrate Study.  It is good to keep in mind when looking at these results that it is difficult to compare data from different days because of differences in weather on separate days, and different date collectors on sites.  Because of these differences, the results should be taken with a grain of salt.  We can be more confident as we may be able to see trends over years.

Figure 1 of the study results indicate overall better conditions downstream compared to upstream.  The graph shows an increased number of insect families downstream, but a drop in EPT flies.  Suggested was that perhaps the committee make a better distinction in the report between EPT (certain types of flies found to be sensitive to stream degradation) and Sensitive (insect families found to be particularly sensitive to stream degradation). Dr. Ohren pointed out that as a committee we need to provide support for out recommendations, and support can come from this data.  He suggested that this report be incorporated in the plan as an appendix and have the narrative rewritten to ensure clarity.

Table 3 also indicates better conditions downstream with the data from stream water conductivity.  Again, Dr. Gustavason pointed out that we should be careful about interpreting the data.  It would be stronger and more reliable if it were collected over a span of years.  However, we did this to establish a base to work from, involve the public and show that we can in fact do this with volunteers rather than paying an expert to conduct a study every time.  It can be very useful in the management plan.

Goals/Objectives for the Watershed
Transitioning to goals/objectives, Dr. Ohren suggested that the committee look at distinguishing between action strategies between different areas of the watershed.  Perhaps the data is an indicator of different strategies between the upper and lower portions of the watershed.  Can we make a distinction between improving conditions in the upper portion and protecting the better conditions in the lower portion?  Dr. Gustavason commented that urbanization seems to exist as the largest threat, and therefore a concern throughout the entire watershed.  However, perhaps priorities should be different between the upper and lower portions.

As some committee members seemed hesitant to give some areas of the watershed more attention, Dr. Ohren points out that the data information that we have shows particular problem areas.  This may be where one targets a specific strategy accordingly on the particular problem.  Dr. Ohren comments that important to note that this is not a distinction between the goals and objectives but rather, as we identify particular action strategies, more specific to different parts of the watershed.  An example would be perhaps different development strategies in areas where there is more or different development occurring.  The committee agreed.

Next Steps in the Decision Process
It was agreed upon by the committee that as a next step in this process, we ask the technical committee for a list of recommendations in terms of specific action strategies.  Dr. Gustavason asked the committee if there was any interest in attempting to work out some sort of uniformity of ordinances that could apply across townships in order to protect the creek.  This topic created a fair level of controversy in discussion.  There was a concern that as a committee, this may not be our duty.  Ordinances may work in one, but not another township.  The recommendations are up against the preference of the people, but perhaps this is worth bringing to the table.  It was suggested that we bring ideas to the table, recommend to the townships and educate them on why it’s important.

After this topic was debated for some time, Dr. Ohren identifies the next step in the decision process as filling in the next column in the goals/objectives chart with specific action strategies.  It was pointed out that the committee was assembled as representative of the constituency, and the technical committee was assembled to help the steering committee with ideas.  As the next step in terms of process it seems appropriate to ask them as experts in different fields for recommendations for filling out the next column.  Dr. Gustavason recommended that perhaps as a follow-up, action plans could include recommendations that townships get together and look at model ordinances that would be based on specific actions strategies.

The Committee came to a consensus that along with specific action strategies, the technical committee present recommended model ordinances for us to look at.

Next Meeting
The next Steering Committee Meeting date was scheduled for Wednesday, September 22 at 1:30pm.