Introductions/Attendance
Steering committee members introduced themselves and indicated their affiliations with the project: Dr. Joe Ohren, ICARD/EMU; Dr. Kevin Gustavson, EMU; Kathy Giszczak, Augusta Township Representative; Cheryl Baltrip, Exeter Township Representative; Roger Bezek, Exeter Township, Bob Osterhout, Ypsilanti Township Representative; James K. Spas, Frenchtown Township Representative; Janna Sebald, DEQ; and, Jennifer Hartlep, ICARD/EMU.

Information Items
There have been several new land use maps with collapsed categories added to the project website.  The maps show land use by monitoring areas, loss of wet lands over time, watershed in larger context, streams and drains in the watershed, soil erosion, maximum infiltration, road crossing erosion, stream canopy and bank erosion.  In the context of the new materials to be inserted into the management plan, the group discussed the best way to access draft materials that are being assembled for the plan; it was agreed that they would be sent via email and posted on web.  Those who wish to download then can do so.

Updated Timeline
Dr. Ohren will prepare a timeline indicating the next steps in developing the draft plan for distribution and discussion at the next meeting.  Members commented that the turnover in some Boards is potentially going to create problems.  This led to a brief discussion about public involvement in the process.  One question had to do with when in the process another public forum might be held.  One option discussed was after the plan has been presented to township boards but before the submission to DEQ.  This would allow comments to be included that perhaps may be important.  It was also noted that public participation is part of the plan.

Public Participation?
On this subject Dr. Ohren asked how we get good feedback given the complexity of project.  It was added that it is a difficult task getting other people interested.  The first two forums were very structured so as to solicit direction and ideas.  However, trying to present the plan in draft form may be too much information in too little time.  It was suggested to utilize the stakeholder list to get the information out about the website and announce a possible public forum date.

Still another alternative is to use the township board meetings as opportunities for public participation and discussion.  We will be scheduling presentations to each of the boards, and if organized in advance, residents in each of the townships could be provided with an opportunity to hear the presentation and comment.  We might also encourage township clerks to invite members of the local planning commissions to attend the presentations since they will have some responsibility to carry out elements of the plan.  Another suggestion was that we have separate forums in the two parts of the watershed, as we did before, or convene a meeting of township supervisors to be sure they are familiar with the details and can place the item on the board agenda. 
Dr. Ohren then suggested that feedback from the Huron River people might be very helpful.  We could gather advice and bring back their insights to the November meeting.  Dr. Ohren also pointed out that feedback from the public is very important, but the likelihood of us getting useful and very good feedback from the forum is not exceptionally good and so the logical process may be to complete the draft and then have an informational meeting, focusing more energy at the township board level. 

Tasks and Suggestions for Implementation
Participants then reviewed the updated task chart prepared and distributed by Dr. Gustavson.  New information includes which organizations might be the lead agent for a particular task/suggestion and a timeline column that refers to how long the task may take and identifies the sequence of activities.

There were several changes to the new chart pointed out by Dr. Gustavson.  At the bottom you will notice that the implementation for the storm sewers task is ongoing; the Health Department has someone on loan to the Drain Commissioner.  There will be sampling done for e coli and other things, so we may be able to identify areas of major concern in our plan.  This allows for demonstration of an ongoing effort.  Also, attention to septic systems has been moved to education, since this will primarily involve information to residents who have on site systems.

Janna Sebald, from DEQ, indicated that providing specific suggestions for implementation is important, but that a more comprehensive set of strategies may be necessary.  The chart should identify not only current partners, but also should list other possible partners as sources of action so as to not exclude anyone from participating and possibly limiting funding options. 

It was observed that there seems to exist some tension between trying to fit strategies very specific to Stony Creek with making it broad enough to include possible, potential partners in the project.  It was suggested that another column could be added to the chart titled Possible Partners.  It was suggested that perhaps we should look at other strategies and actions of other plans.  The DEQ website could be very helpful--www.michigan.gov/deqnonpointsourcepollution

Next Meeting
The next Steering Committee Date was scheduled for Wednesday, November 17 at 1:30pm.  A timeline will be prepared and distributed in advance, as will a more detailed task chart, based on the comments from DEQ staff.