of Lard Sam's Outdoor Heritage Council to order. It is May 27th, 2026. Uh we will start with a uh roll call which I will turn over to Tom. >> Hartwell, >> I'm here. >> Hartwell present. Sheriff Baird >> here. >> Baird present. Representative Burkel. >> Eggerling >> here. >> Eggerling present. Senator Her Kaharski here. Kaharski present. Senator Lang. >> I can see I'm here. >> Senator Lang present. >> All right. >> Palmer >> present. >> Palmer present. Saxhog >> here. >> Saxhog present. Sus >> here. >> Sus present. Representative Vang, >> you're on mute. Samantha. >> Oh, present. >> Representative Vang present. >> And I see John Burkel has joined. >> Representative Burkel. We're just doing a roll call. Doesn't sound like his mucus is his mute microphone. Get out of here. Is muted based on the background noise. >> I think we can see him and know he's here. So, we'll count him present. >> Uh the first thing is to approve the minutes of the January 7th meeting. Can I get a motion for approval? >> Make the motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Any corrections? All in favor? >> I I >> oppose. Motion carries. Next is to approve the agenda. Uh can I get a motion? >> I'll make a motion. >> We have a motion for approval of the agenda. Any comments, suggestions? All in favor? I >> I >> opposed. We'll go with this agenda. Any conflicts of interest to report on today's agenda? Not seeing any. Next, my comments. Uh, we've got a packed agenda. We're a little late. Uh, I don't have many comments. I will just point out to you there was a couple letters that came in unsolicited in support of a proposal that uh is part of the packet you'll be reading. Um, staff was not 100% sure where to put those in because they didn't come as part of the proposal. we put them in public comments. I've said I think in the future a letter of support of a proposal should just be part of the proposal packet. Um so we're not expecting that as public testimony, but we wanted to make sure everyone would see it. Um it's been since January. I hope everyone had a good winter. Didn't get too cold. Um Christina got bath by fire with the legislative session. She's done great. Um, we have Carara, our newest employee, and Sandy is smiling >> greatly. >> Welcome aboard, >> Cara. Welcome. We're glad to have you. Um, and with that, I will turn this over to Christina. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair and members for the executive director report. I'll try to be brief. Um, as you mentioned, welcome Miss Cara Castanza, our newest member on the Lassard Sam's staff team. We are thrilled to have her here. I'm going to re >> I think her mic is off. >> What was that? >> There we go. Is that better? >> There we go. Perfect. Thank you. >> Thank you, Senator Lang. Mr. Chair, members, um, newbie at the table. Um, apologize for that. So, um, yes, we are thrilled to invite Cara Castanza to the staff team at Lassard Sams and Sandy is very excited to be here as all of we are and she's doing great getting started. I do want to read her bio. We also have an announcement of another staff person at the DNR that is supporting the Lassard Sam's Outdoor Heritage Council and we'll introduce him as well. So, Cara Castanza is serving as a project analyst for the Lassard Sam's Outdoor Heritage Council. Before joining the team, Carara spent six years working as a forest pathologist for the US Forest Service stationed in Missoula, Montana, and in St. Paul. Her work included grant monitoring, field visits, and science-based evaluations to support forest health. She worked closely with partners in federal, state, tribal, and local governments, as well as NOS's and private land owners. Prior to her time with the US Forest Service, Cara worked in academia, teaching forestry courses and conducting forest health research in New England and Eastern Canada. Cara has a passion for public education and outreach focused on the long-term health and sustainable management of forest lands and is excited to bring her experience to the Outdoor Heritage Council. In her free time, Cara enjoys exploring Minnesota's forests and lakes with her family, gardening, and baking. Cara has a bachelor's degree in international relations and a master's in PhD in forest health. Welcome Carara. Members, please feel free to reach out and introduce yourself to her. Also, Mr. Chair and members, I would like to introduce Jason Co. Jason, do you mind just standing up and waving? >> Thank you. Jason Co is serving in the supervisory position for the DNR fish and wildlife policy and planning program. This position also acts as a primary DNR liaison for the Lassard Sam's Outdoor Heritage Council. Jason comes to DNR Fish and Wildlife, most immediately from DNR Parks and Trails, but also previously worked for four years at the US Embassy in Tanzania as a senior biodiversity and wildlife conservation adviser. 13 years with the US Forest Service as well as a private sector in US Peace Corps in Africa. Jason currently lives in St. Paul with his family. He moved to Minnesota last year to be closer to his wife's family, and he's thoroughly enjoying his first year in Minnesota, including several trips to Cabela's. Um, he went ice fishing for the first time in January, has a trip to the BWCA planned this summer with his children, and preparing for eight members of his family to visit for the Minnesota State Fair in August. Jason has a bachelor's degree in economics and history, a master's degree in international affairs with a focus on environmental policy, and a second master's degree in environmental science with a focus on forest management and community engagement. Welcome, Jason. Um, Jason has already been very helpful to the staff team and helping to coordinate the work that we're doing with our partners at the DNR and the administration of of the grants. Um, so we are thrilled to have Jason on board as well as Cara. Welcome to you both. Secondarily, members, in your packets are three letters for minor conversions, uh, easement conversions and conveyances. Um, I won't go into the details of them. One of them is a Bowser easement. It includes two outdoor heritage fund easements that are affected by a bridge and road project. The total impact area is 0.17 acres, so pretty minor. And this one about $1,600 will be returned to the outdoor heritage fund. The second one is a Minnesota land trust easement. They needed permission from Lassard Sams Council to allow the placement of a DNR trout stream easement on a portion of an existing outdoor heritage funded MLT easement. And then the last one is a access easement revision for the DNR forest lands private access in Itasa County. Um it's a private landowner access agreement that was um uh in place prior to the sale to the conservation fund. They're actually shortening the access area from 942 feet to 542 feet. And again, members, all of the supporting information is in your packet. Third on my list is we've had a number of events this spring and I'm not sure that that is consistent, but there's been a number of dedications which have been fantastic and I know a couple members have been able to attend those. There's four more coming up and we thought we would include the information in your packets about that. So, please take a look at that. I'm planning to be at all of I know staff will be at a number of them as well. If you have any questions about RSVP and or those dedication events, please let us know. We're happy to help. Um, make sure that you have the information to attend if you're interested in that. Um, uh, Mr. Chair and members, as you know, the call for funding closed last Friday. Um, and we have over 60 proposals that have come in and the, um, funding request amount is $470 million. So, we will be discussing the proposals that came in um in more detail at our June meeting, but just wanted to give you an update that it seems like that is a a pretty high number compared to years past. Um we're working hard to start to review all of those and and look through the proposals. >> Um >> can I interrupt for just a second? Since we've got that number in the past, we've been able to do hearings for two days to get through. Um I suspect we're going to be at three. So, don't give up any of the time that's on your schedule for hearings at this point. Sorry to interrupt. >> No, that sounds good. >> When? >> The hearing is the end of uh >> August. >> And we we've scheduled three days, >> 24th, 25th, 26th. >> Okay. >> But typically, we've been able to do it in two. And I suspect this year, unless we don't want to hear all of them, we'll be here for more than two days. Unless you want to work 12 hours. >> And And how many have we averaged in other years? You said 60. So >> more like 40 >> 40. >> Mr. Chair and member Saxog, from my understanding, it seems like every year it's been incrementally increasing. So it's I think this is probably the most that have been received in the past, but last year it was maybe 10 fewer. >> Yeah. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry to interrupt, but >> So 25 a day last year. We did it over two days, didn't we? >> We did. >> Yeah. >> Just giving you a heads up. >> 20 days. We we could decide not to hear some of them and that would make it two days. >> We'll wait and see how we come out in July. >> The mind can only absorb what the Yeah. >> So it might be CPL. >> We'll wait and see. >> Mr. Chair, we can map out >> rocks already. >> I'm sorry to bring it up. I just thought it would be wise to give you a heads up. Mr. Chair, if the council is interested, we can talk maybe a little bit more about the logistics and details of that in our June meeting when we walk through the proposals that are we're not going to go into detail of the proposals, but provide an overview of the proposal and the review process. So, >> and then last in my update is just to extend gratitude for council members, all of your time and meeting with me. I was able to have conversations with everybody when I first stepped into this role and it was very helpful. Um it feels like that was years ago a little bit and so I would love to be able to follow up with all of you again as now that I've got my footing a little bit more to learn more about um the work that all of you are doing and and have maybe a little bit of a different perspective for our conversations. Obviously um big thanks to our partners who have warmly welcomed me and reached out and have had really good conversations. I look forward to having more discussions with all of you as well and huge appreciation for the exceptional staff team. Um, you know, transitions are difficult and this one has been a bit bumpy at times and I'm so impressed with the staff and the integrity of the work, the professionalism and even bringing a little bit of humor throughout as this transition has occurred. So, thank you all. I'm excited to get to work and review these proposals that have come in and really roll up my sleeves now that the session is in the rears. So, thank you for that. >> Great. Um, next we're going to talk about this spring tour, which is really the June tour, which doesn't feel like spring to me, especially since it's going to be 88 degrees today. >> That's right. Uh, Mr. Chair and members, um, we have a a nice tour shaping up. We're going to be in southeast Minnesota. Um after the poll that you guys uh put together, um we are going to start in Winona on the morning of June 16th and then we're be going to the Whitewater WMA and a few other sites around the area. Um we'll be doing some fish shocking. So for those of you that aren't very good fisherman, uh that's we'll be able to see what fish look like. And then um Christina was also able to get us uh we're 90% sure uh a boat um the Winona State boat and we're going to go on the river and go upstream to uh maybe to Lock and Dam 5 and then back. So we'll be doing some upland work looking at bluff prairies um looking at streams and then getting on the big river and learning more about that ecosystem. So, more details to come probably um by the end of next week, but we'll be starting in Winona uh that morning on June 16th. >> We're going to spend most of our time at Whitewater State Park then. >> Bring a fly rod. >> Not and don't bring your mosquito dope because you won't have any mosquitoes. >> Exactly. >> We wanted to make it easy for you. >> And what time are we meeting in Winona? >> We're not sure. So, Mr. Chair, members, it all depends on the the boat. The boat will be at the end of the day. And so we'll work backwards from there. So we just don't want to make it a 12 12h hour day if we can help it. So >> okay, any questions on the tour? >> Good enough. Uh let's do a little recap of the legislative session. Christina, I'll turn it over to you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. in your packets is a memo summarizing um highle summary of the outcomes of the outdoor heritage fund bill. Um we also have in there uh a summary page that is presented to legislators at hearings and then the bill um this is in an omnimous bill. All that is printed for you today is the portion that relates to the outdoor heritage fund. Uh Senate File 2077 is about twice as long as this is, but um for the purposes of this meeting, we just focused on the the parts that related to the outdoor heritage fund. Um so let me get my council here. So the the council recommendations were incorporated in Senate File 2077 and passed on May 17th, 2026 by the House and Senate as an omnibus outdoor heritage fund legacy and lands bill. As of yesterday, we hadn't heard that the governor had signed the bill, but we expect that that will be done shortly. Um, the ML2026 fiscal year 2027 outdoor heritage fund recommendations to the legislature included 53 programs, you may recall, at $188,922,000. The February forecast came out and increased that slightly to 2.18 million. And so the appropriations from the OFF in fiscal year 27 total $191,16,000. Um eligible recommended programs were proportionately increased per the direction of this council. And so um again the eligible programs had a had a slight increase to make up that $2.18 million. In the approved version of Senate File 2077, all council me recommendations were incorporated. Um there were two exceptions to appropriation language change and one was for the Roso Lake rehabilitation phase three project. Um that uh project was removed from one of the committee hearing committee recommendations and then put back in by amendment. So the Roso Lake rehabilitation phase 3 had a little bit of a bumpy road but it ultimately ended up in the overall approval. The conservation legacy grant program was also amended and in addition there are two governing um items in statute 97A.056 that were also changed. Um one other element of interest to the council is the Minnesota law 2024 appropriation protecting upper Mississippi River from invasive carp was amended to extend the carperant design completion date to June 30th 2027. We'll be hearing more about that later in the meeting. Um, but just to give you a a a quick summary, the Roso Lake rehabilitation project basically that was extended um in that no money from the appropriate appropriation may be expended before January 1st, 2027 rather than the usual approval on for July 1st of 2026. And then during any period in which a court ordering and enjoining the project from moving forward is in effect. So money could not be um expended if there's an injunction um that would pause the project. Um related to the conservation partners legacy grant. Again in your packet you'll see the strikeout is the language removed and the underline is the language added. um uh an exception was made as it relates to these projects um focused on the seven county metro area and cities with a population of 50,000 more or more. So that would be Duth, Rochester, and St. Cloud. And so therefore, the full appropriation of DNRCPL grants will be going to these metro areas. And another um ad was that notwithstanding Minnesota's statutes um the land acquired by fee with money appropriated is not required to be open to the public taking of game. And so that would be this forthcoming year related to change in the statute. There are two uh topics. One relates to term limits for members and the other is the executive director hiring process. um related to term limits. A public member of the council may not serve more than eight years except the public member may serve an additional six months as necessary to fill a vacancy. And then towards the end of the bill, there's uh additional information regarding that term limit transition and it applies to appointments of public members of the Lassard Sam's Outdoor Heritage Council made on or after that date. So, year served on the council before July 1st, 2026 count towards the limits, the 8-year limits imposed, um members appointed before July 1st, 2026 may serve out the remainder of their terms if their services exceeded the term limits imposed by section three. And then related to the executive director hiring process, um just to summarize, the legislative coordinating commission may um uh uh secure additional support to help with the hiring process. Um the council has still has final approval authority for hiring a candidate. Um and a quorum of the council may discuss, interview, and select candidates for executive director in a meeting closed to the public going forward. Um so members and then at the bottom of the of this memo you'll see the the carp design extension the carp deterrent design extension to June 30th 2027. So that is there is a lot of ground traveled um during this session as many of you are aware um these are the the outcomes of the bill as passed by the house and senate and expected to be signed by the governor. >> Great. Thank you. Any questions comments? Um my guess is there will be several. Um so maybe just a clarification on Roso. Um why January 1st, 2027? And um doesn't it does isn't it implied that if there's a a court order that for not allowing a project to move forward that you wouldn't be able to spend money on it anyway? Why do we have to stipulate that? >> I certainly don't know the answers to those questions. legislators perhaps you can weigh in on those >> or possibly Mr. Stanley. >> Yeah. Yeah. This is Senator Lang. Um, so that was a a kind of, you know, during the session, I I assume some of you watched the hearings and the the Roso Lake uh project, which let me just start by saying that I think the council did what we could and it was it, you know, we we filled we checked every box along the way. We did everything to protect the council. We did everything within our uh realm of of of steps. Uh, as far as verification, there is a significant amount of concernation uh with some land owners up there. The the sixmonth time frame um we pretty much said, you know what, uh there seems to be a lot of conversation up there. Let's just say whether you're supportive of it or not. Uh as a council, I think we have made our stance that, hey, we're supportive of the project. If there's local concerns, we'll give you some time. uh that may in the end, you know, end up with a conveyance. I'm okay with that. Uh that gives the locals a little bit of time if they want to file an injunction. Uh that being said, again, I think the council did what it needed to do. Uh you know, I think we had the presentation and the the conversation uh that we should have and I and that was just kind of a compromise piece, which is much how the legislature works. But other than that, that's that's all the thought that had gone into it. Um, that that idea for the six-month standoff did come from, uh, you know, obviously it it didn't come from legislators. So, uh, but I thought it was okay at the end of the day. I don't know if that answers your question, Matt. >> Uh, it answers the question. Thank you, Senator Lang. Answers the question on the the January 1st. What about the fact that c can can a project move forward if there is an injunction in place? Anyway, um I didn't think money could be spent on it if there's a court order in place. The >> as far as I understand, no, I don't I think once there's an injunction, the the money goes into a stasis of sorts. Um this was, you know, obviously I I guess from my vantage point, this was a hey, protect the process of the council. Make sure that uh at the end of the day that we're doing everything correctly. if there was something that we missed, here's a six-month uh time frame where we can adjust to that. The the folks that are not in favor of the project, complete their case, or if there's, you know, significant parts of the project that may be uh changed, they can, you know, have their their day in court, so to say, uh as well. So, that that is really where the six-month uh portion came from. Um again, it didn't come from the legislature. came from uh folks invested in the project and other projects. So, it was uh you know I I I thought it was a decent compromise and something where I think we can uh you know not you know hopefully in the future not not have to do another six-month standoff but um for this particular project I think it was right. >> Thank you, Senator. >> Yeah. >> Can I can I chime in on that too, Matt? I'll answer as well. This is Rep. Burkel. Um, Senator Lang, is it right? I mean, that's it really was just just a I common sense would tell you that interjection would stop any funding from happening. It's obvious that that's the case. This was more situation where to keep the council's bill intact. What was presented to the legislature. Um, the intent here was to just comfort language for the folks back in Roso County that have serious issues with the project as it stands. You know, like I said, common sense, anybody who's got even half half sense of what the legalities of this would be if there was an injunction, obviously there'd be no money spent. I think this just gives the folks on the ground there um the concept or the recognition that they have issues. They want it publicly known that they have issues with the project as it stands. There's plenty of folks up north who want the project to happen. um it goes both ways and there's a legal case being put together now and and that litigation is happening and I think they wanted just some language that said we want recognize that this litigation is happening and we want time to present that case before any funding happens. Um a lot was supposed to happen this summer. A lot of money was supposed to be spent. They wanted to ensure the fact that that wouldn't happen in case the injunction couldn't be done next week, which is probably um just from the standpoint of of legal issues and how long they take. Um it might take months before an injunction is is uh granted. So, I hope that answers your question, Matt, but it really was a function of of getting folks back home comfortable with what the council has has done in funding um you know, restoration enhancement around this flood project that there there's just a lot of folks who feel it shouldn't be funded at all. And and as Senator Lang said in this, you know, in the Senate version, the whole thing was stripped out and and there's just concerns about, you know, how that's done, too. if we're going to if we're going to take council recommendations or aren't we and how does that look and I think this is striking the balance. >> Thank you. >> All right, Tom. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh I'll direct this to Senator Lang. Um on the on the amendment to the CPL or the the change to the CPL, is that is that a sunset? Is that just a one year and it's over or you uh clarify that? >> Uh no, I don't believe it was a sunset. Um that that actually happened in the house. I wasn't around for that uh amendment. Um I do know that it uh um it w was an effort to push more money to you know to metro projects which uh you know I I think we've the council has uh tried to approach that a couple of times in the past. Um I know there is probably some issues with fulfilling that as far as the execution of money through the CPL projects. Um, I guess that's maybe a topic of discussion for um the council as a whole for a little bit more of a maybe a council standpoint on it. Um, but that was something that Representative Vang pushed pretty hard for. Um, I I I don't know. I guess it to me it was it wasn't the worst idea in the world and it wasn't uh necessarily something that I disagreed with when it came to what CPL grants. Now, the question is is how does that actually work in in execution and practicality when it comes to folks from outstate Minnesota that apply for CPL grants? So, um and I I honestly don't know the answer to that. That might be a DNR question if there's a rep in the room. >> Perhaps I can answer part of that question. Um so so regarding uh the funding it's it's just for this uh year or the upcoming fiscal year. Um so it's not like permanent. So it's only temporary. That's as far as I understand. So, and and I would add if I think there are questions as to whether or not all the money could actually be spent because there haven't been the amount of proposals as money. But remember, our grants are over a period of years, so it could carry forward if the money isn't all spent this year. That's my understanding. >> Ted, >> Mr. Chairman, this is not a question. And I just I can't sit here and not comment on the CPL being limited to the metro area or the largest cities in greater Minnesota. You know, I I live in Rice County. I can see them. I'm like uh Sarah Palin who could see Russia, but I actually can see into the metro area, but none of my county now is eligible for a CPL grant. And this has been a concern that I've had for many years. As some of you know, I was on the Greater Minnesota Parks and Trails Commission before I was on here. The Metropolitan Council, cities in the metro area, cities like Rochester and St. Cloud, they have deep staff, they have the capacity to put together applications for projects that are big enough to come to us. But if you're in a county of 15,000 people or a city with five or 6,000 people and your parks director is also the transportation director and is responsible for maintenance of the county courthouse, writing a grant application for something that I don't know how many pages our application is versus the CPL which is about two or three pages. is it's just beyond the capacity of a lot of the smaller units of government to apply plus the size of the projects and uh I just think disenfranchising all of greater Minnesota except for the largest cities who have full-time professional staff in their parks departments is really really bad public policy. And I uh have a suspicion that this is more than just one member insisted on it. I know how the legislature works and usually things like this are part of a tradeoff and all I can say is I don't see any in this anything in this bill that was a trade that was worth giving up this funding for 80 of the 87 counties of the state of Minnesota minus the three or four biggest cities outside the metro area. >> Okay. I guess I'd like to add to that. I'm sure. >> No, you keep it up. >> Just don't push it. You'll be fine. >> All right. >> Lean forward. >> Can you hear Can you hear me now? Testing. Testing. >> I I guess I I I wasn't aware this was being traded as well. Uh, and it's a bit frustrating to me. Uh Christina knows and Joe and Mark Johnson know that I I've been beating the drum on lake restoration type projects for us and and I keep telling people I'm not that I'm a a a big-time fisherman in Minnesota. I'm I'm looking ahead to 2034 to the vote and I I want to make sure that all folks in Minnesota feel like they've gotten a fair deal out of the the funding requests and that we have good fishing and good hunting for all folks across the state. So to that end, for the last 5 months, I've been working with the DNR, soil and water conservation districts, lake associations, uh going to minfish conferences, and just trying to meet with people about lake restoration projects, trying to get traction. And one of those major funding sources for helping those smaller type of projects get rolling was going to be CPL grants. So I've been kind of cut off the knees from my perspective of the efforts I've been doing. in Italy it's only for one year. I get that. But still when you're trying to get projects rolling and now you tell people, "Well, never mind. Come back in a year. We'll talk about it again." So to me, it's frustrating that I've expended a bunch of my time and effort uh to have this happen like this. Not Not terribly happy about it. Thank you, >> Joe. Matt. >> Uh so I agree with uh with Ted and Daryl. Um maybe maybe my questions relate to I think maybe what was traded. Um and that's related to the two changes to the governing statute. Um first of all I think that the executive director hiring process change I I feel like that's a reasonable compromise what was put in there. Um we all know that we were somewhat limited in in the process and that does help with that. Um I do have some questions about how the uh citizen term limits came up. Um, I don't know in my one year that it's been discussed or if it's ever been discussed in the past term limits. And I guess I would ask the question of uh the elected officials who put in the the term limits whether or not there was any discussion of why they only apply to public members and not to the elected uh citizen members and not to elected officials. >> I can answer that one. And the point was that Oh, >> I think John Go ahead. No, I was going to say that that I my intention was that that would be legislative members as well. Um that was I had an amendment to the amendment that would have done that. Um I I'm probably the only one that it affects >> as far as legislative members and I I'll serve out my term and then I'll I will uh abide by the the eight years as well and then I'll uh probably change the uh statute in the future to reflect that. So, um, that that's my intent for the council to to hear that and that was I mean Rep. Burkel can attest to that. I have said that several times as well. >> Yeah. And I can chime in from there and and I agreed with Senator Lang as far as as term limits for I mean the amendment to the amendment made sense to me as well. I had no problem adding legislators to the process. Um but but this simply goes back to the bill that was passed in 2023 with LCCMR term limits being applied uh 3 years ago. Um with a unanimous vote out of environment committee 3 years ago. LCCMR had the same term limit language relatively the same as we just passed on and it and it just made sense to me to apply the same standards that we applied to LCCMR three years ago. Um Rick Hansen carried the bill in the House back in 2023. Senator her carried the bill in the Senate. Um it ended up in the final package and was voted on unanimously for term limits back then. So I I you know as far as heartburn about term limits long run and whether legislators are included or not, that's the conversation we can have. I I have no problem including legislators. In fact, when Senator Lang and I talked about that uh as session was nearing end, I was in full agreement that that's something we could do as well. just it just uh never came to pass. But I would agree that I have no problem uh abiding by the same terminal standards that uh public members will have. >> Um thank you for that. I guess um uh the the relationship to LCCMR, I guess on the surface makes sense, but they have we have pretty different processes there. It feels like feels to me a little bit like saying a horse should have stripes because a zebra has stripes. And I'm not sure I'm not sure that I I I don't quite understand why they have to be similar, but I think the bigger concern that I have is there's never any discussion about this among the council. And I feel like this this one in particular, there could have at least been a discussion versus it being brought up in session after and we're not having the opportunity for the council to weigh in on that. The fact that there's term limpetss in place, I fundamentally don't disagree with that. whether they should be eight or 12. I you know, I guess that's a that's a a debate, but it's a debate that would never allow to happen. That's my my feeling. >> And once again, I appreciate the comment. I and I understand I understand what you're saying. And I think, you know, um this probably was something this this probably should have been an amendment, uh that I brought in environment in 2023 and added it to the LCCMR conversation back then. But um really like I said just just lining things up as far as stripes and horses I think uh it just stands to reason that having some turnover on on the council and fresh perspectives and uh and just new blood is is a good thing as well as transparency in the executive director um situation as far as hiring an executive director. So I I think I think more has been made about it than than there should be and at the end of the day um the right thing happened and I think uh you know if we want to add legislators to this this uh term limit language we can easily do that next session. So, I will um put in in our upcoming agendas uh a discussion about that so the council can make a recommendation in its uh um uh recommendations to the legislature next year about that uh specifically since you've asked about it, Matt. So, we'll talk about that in the fall. When we get when we get to the language of the bill that we're going to recommend, >> we can have a discussion and decide whether we want to ask the legislature to extend term limits to legislators at that time. >> Okay. >> Does that make sense? >> It doesn't >> because I agree. >> I'll make it easier for you. I'll make it easier for you, David. I'll give the council a promise. I'll give that amendment next year without without the recommendation. you already as well. I don't have a problem with it either. >> That's wonderful. I I think from a process standpoint, it probably would be good for the council to weigh in, but I appreciate that that you will uh take that uh on your own. >> I have a process question. >> Sure. >> Um so again, uh this is the this is the first rodeo for me and I know for Darl as well. Um once the council forwards its recommendations and it goes to the legislature and and things happen and we've got four things that happened here, is there is it just kind of does sort of just go from there or is there ever an opportunity for if if if uh amendment comes up particularly governing statute which there isn't a huge you know um uh time constraint on is there an opportunity for there to be a special meeting called by the council to allow the council to discuss what's going on and and weigh in on it or is that not practical? >> Um, I would say it is there is nothing that prohibits us from doing that. Uh, the practical problem we had early on was was because of the legislative process, it was really hard to get legislators at meetings uh of the council during the legislative session. That isn't to say we shouldn't try and perhaps I should have called a a special meeting of the council to have a discussion about these items because they did come up early in the session. The CPL thing happened very late and there was no opportunity. Um, but the the uh hiring process uh and the the uh uh term limits and ROSO were all things that were talked about for it seemed like forever. I got calls about them forever. Um, and it probably would have made sense to to have a meeting and it probably is a a good thing to think about having something in our procedures that would try to have a meeting to discuss any sub substantive changes uh in the bill so we can at least weigh in and and give our opinion. >> Is there a is there does that have to be a policy or is that up to the chair or is that can any member request a meeting? How what's the mechanism for that? Cuz I don't want to make a huge burden, but it does seem like a little bit of a gap here where we're now talking about stuff that we could have talked about maybe in February and >> I honestly can't tell you if we have the process set for a member asking for a meeting. Um, it probably makes sense to revisit that and we'll put that on our agenda for something to do and report out in either June or July. um to having looked at it and and potentially come back with a recommendation if that's all right. >> Sounds great. >> Anyone disagree with that? >> Okay. I' I'd like to add that that the calendar gets pretty full of things and I I recall last year we were talking about having like a strategic planning discussion at some point in time and where we thought we were headed towards 2034 and we've never gotten that time lot because we're all so full of time as well and I understand that. I'm just I'm bringing back up that we we keep adding things to our calendar we'd all like to see and time. Uh I think we can find time between now and the end of the year to have an hour to to think about strategic issues and decide if we want to go beyond that. Um there's nothing to say we can't have an extra meeting at some point just dedicated to that or any other issue. Um and and as your chair, I'm open to any suggestions on that way, but but let us think about a strategic discussion uh for some time in the fall perhaps. >> I'm looking at our new executive director saying, "Please remind me that we're going to do this." My again my focus is simply be looking at the aspect of do we have all our ducks in a row for 2034 to make sure that the amendment gets renewed and we continue to get our funding for great projects. >> I am 100% behind your thinking. I am not sure this council is the one that can have that discussion because we're not charged with anything about renewal of this. We may have a passion about it, but we don't have a authority to do anything. >> Understand that part, but I guess I'd like to think that on our end, have we accomplished all the things necessary that we can do to make sure that our partners can help us and the DNR can help us >> get the message out? >> No problem having the discussion. I just want to caution us that we're not in any way charged with what might or might not happen in >> y >> 2034. >> Understand that >> as an individual I think you might have an opportunity. >> All right. >> Any other questions, comments about the legislative process? I I will say your staff worked incredibly hard. Um answered lots of questions, had sleepless nights, um as did your chair. Uh I think we all had more phone calls than we wish we'd had. Um but in the end, we we have a bill. Our recommendations were for the most part uh um unchanged uh with two slight modifications. Um and the money, you know, $191 million that's going out in the field uh for great projects in Minnesota. So, um we should feel good about that. Any other All right, let's move on. Um we're going to have a discussion about lock and dam the carp deterrent design update. We have both representatives from the DNR as well as as US Fish and Wildlife and the Army Corps as I understand it. >> Um I think Fish and Wildlife is remote correct Tom >> and the core >> and USGS >> and USGS >> right? Um, so please come up. >> Yeah. I see. >> So, we're looking for an update on where your design is at and and ultimately in the background there's a question of is this project going to be successful? Uh, so I'll just lay it out there so that you know it's coming. Uh, but >> Tom is pulling up a presentation. I think there he goes. All right. I will turn it over to whomever wants to run the show there. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Thank you for having us to provide an update on the project protecting upper Mississippi from invasive carp that involves an invasive carp deterrent at Lock & Dam 5 on the Mississippi River. My name is Karly Wagner. I am the project coordinator on this project for Minnesota DNR and I'll also let my colleagues introduce themselves. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Grace Slapnau and I am the invasive fish coordinator at Minnesota DNR. >> Morning chair and members. I'm Kelly Pennington. I supervise the invasive species unit at the Minnesota DNR. >> Uh good morning chair and members. My name is Nathan Wallers. I'm a project management branch chief with the St. Paul District Corps of Engineers. >> Thank you. So today DNR will be presenting an update on this project and we are also fortunate to be joined by our partners Nathan from USACE just introduced himself but also online we have partners from USGS, US Fish and Wildlife Service um and Erdic and I will let folks quickly introduce themselves on Zoom please. Starting with USGS. >> Good morning. Uh my name is Mary Beth Bray. I'm a research fish biologist with the US Geological Survey in Lacrosse, Wisconsin. Um I lead the Lock and Dam 19 acoustic deterrent project and also uh assist with um fish monitoring um and fish passage for the lock and dam 5 project. >> Good morning. Andrea Fritz, uh research fish biologist with USGS out of Lacrosse. um involved with large-scale fish tracking uh throughout Mississippi as well as um involved with the multi- agency team for the lock and BM5 fish passage assessment. And good morning. I'm Amy McGovern with the Fish and Wildlife Service. I'm our national carp coordinator and here to um provide um any sort of um expertise on the pilot study that we've done for the bio acoustic fish fence in Kentucky. Eric, do we have Dave and Christa on the line here? >> Sure. This is uh Dave Smith. I'm a researcher here for the Eric Core of Engineers and I support uh Carly and the team on the design of the fish deterrent at lock and dam 5. >> Hi, this is Christa Woodley. Um I'm also here at Eric. Uh I work with Dave Smith for eco hydraulics and fish passage and we also do quite a bit of deterrent development across several USA districts. Thank you. >> Thanks partners. I believe we also have Rebecca Neely joining us from US Fish and Wildlife Service online as well. >> Yes, good afternoon everyone. Can you hear me? Sorry I was I don't know what's happened earlier. I apologize for that. Um my name is Rebecca Neely. with the US Fish and Wildlife Service out of Lacrosse, Wisconsin, and my staff have been working with um the Minnesota DNR to tag and track fish in the upper pools of the Mississippi River. >> Thanks, Rebecca, and partners. So, DNR will be providing an update today, but during questions and discussions, you're free to ask questions of any of our agency partners. They bring a variety of expertise um and different permitting authorities for the project, and we're glad to have them present with us today. Today in the update, I'm going to give uh specific updates on the deterrent, but also a broad project overview for any council members that may have joined since this appropriation was awarded in 2024. I'll start with a quick background on invasive carp, an overview of our accomplishment plan, and then go through accomplishments to date for the project team, scoping, and design phases for the deterrent. And then I'll preview with what's to come for the deterrent, including ongoing design, permitting, and installation phases. And I'll also summarize some of the supporting technologies that are outlined in our accomplishment plan that we see uh as necessary to support the effectiveness of the deterrent. Invasive carp refer to four species of invasive carp. Big head, silver, grass, and black carp. Big head, silver, and grass have all been detected in Minnesota to date. We have not detected any black carp in the state. Invasive carp have cap been captured as far back as 1977 in the state. However, to date, there is no evidence of a successful reproducing population. So, all fish that are observed and captured in Minnesota have migrated upstream from downstream reproducing populations. The map on the left shows historic captures of invasive carp in the state, um, including big head grass and silver. You'll note that we have captured invasive carp above lock and dam 5, which is shown on the map. However, most captures of invasive carp in this state have occurred below lock and dam 5, which is why this is a good location that presents an opportunity to reduce um the numbers of invasive carp that move upstream further into Minnesota waters. Our accomplishment plan for this project incorporates deterrence removal and monitoring to develop an integrated system for invasive carp at lock and dam 5. Under the appropriation, it will involve the design and installation of a selective deterrent for invasive carp at the lock of lock and dam 5. Funds not spent on this activity can be used to um test and advance technologies to support the effectiveness of the deterrent. and those strategies include damgate deterrence, a trap and sort system and monitoring and adaptive management. Our accomplishment plan is outlined in a series of phase activities. We've moved through the project plan and scoping phases for the design and are in the midst of the design work for the deterrent. Um, and I'm looking forward to provide an update on our accomplishments to date as well as what's to come for this project. When the appropriation was awarded in 2024, DNR assembled an inter agency project team that includes state and federal partners u many of which are here today. Um we also work with Wisconsin DNR. These partners provide valuable expertise on invasive carp as well as deterrent um expertise and provide support for our field efforts on lock and dam 5 monitoring. DNR greatly values the support um and involvement of partners on the lock and dam 5 project. This project takes place at Lock and Dam 5. And if you're not familiar, this is located on the Mississippi River upstream of Winona, Minnesota. Uh the lock and dams are owned and operated by USACE for the purposes of navigation. Um and it's important to partner and work closely with USACE because this project is taking place um on a coreowned facility. There's three components of the lock and dam. You have the lock that is operated for navigation that is positioned on the Minnesota side of the river. Um the gates are open and closed for the purposes of navigation. The auxiliary lock is next to the navigation lock and is not operational. And to the right of that are the dam and movable gates that span across the river to the Wisconsin shoreline. And these dam gates are operated for the purposes of of maintaining navigation on the river. Fish can move upstream from lock and dam 5 on the main river through both the lock and the dam. Fish can move upstream when the dam when the lock gates >> excuse me when the >> sorry >> no raise test. Thank you. Fish can move through the lock when gates are opened and closed for navigation, but fish can also move through the dam gates at this location, particularly when dam gates are removed from the water under periods of high water. So the top right image is showing those dam gates pulled from the river. Uh under these conditions, there's nothing obstructing fish, invasive carp, or native species from moving freely upstream at this location. Um, despite the fact that fish and invasive carp can pass upream through the dam gates at this location, compared to other lock and dams in Minnesota, lock and dam 5 gates open the least. So, um, it does present an opportunity to, um, limit spread of invasive carp at this location with a deterrent at the lock. Tools that are available to reduce upstream spread of invasive carp currently are focused on um, upstream passage through the lock channels. There's not currently technology available to deter passage of invasive carp through the dam, but there is readily available technology for deterring passage through the lock channel, uh, which is one of the primary components of this project and something DNR is working to implement. This project involves a selective deterrent for invasive carp. And selective deterrents for invasive carp use sound. Invasive carp have a higher hearing range relative to most native fish. So acoustic or soundbased deterrence are considered selective for these species. There are currently two experimental installations of soundbased deterrence in the United States. Both technologies reduce invasive cart passage through the locks by about 50% with little to no impacts on the native species studies. So these technologies are proving to be selective in the field. Both of these experimental installations are installed at locks of high head dams. So at these type of dams, fish can only pass through the lock upstream. And we have expertise on our project team for agencies that have worked on both of these invasive carp deterrent installations. So, we're able to apply lessons learned from the other experimental installations to the lock and dam 5 deterrent project. As part of DNR's work to scope the deterrent for lock and dam 5, we entered into a cooperative research and development agreement with Eric. The crater will facilitate scoping, design, permitting, and installation of the deterrent. USA St. Hall district is designing the deterrent with technical expertise from Eric. There we have a road map under the crater to facilitate design and construction. In December of 2025, Eric completed a comparative assessment of deterrent technologies for lock and dam 5 to support DNR's scoping efforts in advancing a deterrent for design. And USA St. Hall district also completed a project plan that set forth a schedule and plan to complete the deterrent. Um so we've completed those tasks and are now in the um design phase where the USA St. Paul district is designing the deterrent with technical support from Eric. To give you a little more information on the comparative deterrent assessment I mentioned Eric completed, they evaluated both of the acoustic deterrent technologies that are currently installed on an experimental basis. That includes the underwater acoustic deterrent system or UADS as well as the bio acoustic fish fence which uses sound in addition to lights and bubbles. So Eric evaluated these two dirt deterrent technologies for a variety of factors including how they'd interact with lock discharge, bethimemetry, river flow, operational considerations, costs, and interactions with navigation and also evaluated six different potential deterrent alignments. So this assessment was really critical to informing DNR scoping for the deterrent. We discussed the results of this assessment with our inter agency team and um discussed potential fish interactions with the deterrent which allowed us to make a final selection and make a proposal for design for the deterrent. DNR selected an underwater acoustic deterrent system for design at Lock and Dam 5. um otherwise known as a UADS. I'll refer to it as the UADS was developed by USGS and Eric who are both represented on our inter agency project team. It's currently installed on an experimental basis at Lock and Dam 19 in Iowa. The UADS is essentially a sound bar. This this deterrent system uses only sound. Uh the image on the left shows scientist Christa Woodley with Eric pointing to one of the speakers that is housed along the soundbar. And the soundbar is essentially submerged in the lock approach and creates a sound field that plays complex sounds that are deterrent for invasive carp. The image on the right is showing how the UADS performs in the lock approach. So it creates a sound field um and the more red colors are louder noise and as you get more orange and yellow uh it gets quieter. So the UADS is creating a sound field that is um both present right above the deterrent system but also projects sound into and out of the lock approach. Um and that is how this deterrent system is operating at lock and dam 19 currently and similar to how we will expect it to perform at lock and dam 5. Once DNR selected a deterrent to be designed for lock and dam 5 and formed a design proposal, we submitted that information to USACE and the design team who began design work in February of 2026. The design team has already completed the 35% design stage and design is underway for the 65% design currently. There's a few upcoming dates to be aware of. One is that permitting will begin later this summer once 65% design are available and construction costs will be estimated toward the end of this year once 95% design plans are completed. And our current expected timeline for completion of the deterrent design is February of 2027. Um this is ahead of our newly amended design deadline that was extended from June 2027, June 2026 to 2027. and DNR thanks the support of the council on that amendment that will allow us to continue to make progress um on this project. So, we appreciate the support on the amendment there and the design is on track to be completed within the current amended design deadline and our expectations for construction remain unchanged. Some updates for the 35% design. At this stage, we were really focused on exploring design options that were likely to be constructible and permissible from a dam safety standpoint. Again, this this deterrent is going to be designed and installed on USACE own lock and dam. So, it needs to be compatible with navigation and lock operations. Um discussions with the USACE design team focused on final placement for the UADS. So where exactly it was going to be put in the lock approach as well as the location for the support shed that will be needed for the deterrent to house um amplifiers for the speakers and monitoring equipment. USACE is currently working on the 65% design with the support of Eric. The placement is similar to what is shown on the image on the left. So the deterrent will be straight across the lock approach as shown on the dashed line here. I mentioned an important phase is coming up for the deterrent and that is permitting. Once 65% design plans are complete later this summer, um DNR has already done early coordination to try and get set up and ready for the permitting phase so we can make sure the project remains on track. Um, this includes negotiations with USACE and Minnesota DNR on a real estate agreement that will allow DNR to install a uh deterrent on the lock and dam if permitted, as well as early coordination to determine environmental review needs. After the design and permitting phases close, the next phase will be construction and installation. We are anticipating construction in the winter of 2027 to 2028. The construction will take place outside the navigation season. So when the lock is closed to navigation um so it will not uh interfere with navigation operations. Despite our design being um extended by one year for the design deadline, we are still on track on our expected construction timeline that we set out um at the beginning of the appropriation. So the soonest possible construction is likely winter 2027 to 2028. I will also note that the appropriation is available till 2029. So in case of permitting timelines or adverse weather, there is a second construction window um that would allow construction of the deterrent within the current appropriation. Um if for some reason we were not meet able to meet our expected construction timeline, uh estimates for construction and installation won't be available until we have 95% design plans at the end of this year. However, as part of Eric's assessment of deterrence, specifically for lock and dam 5, they provided estimates of what this might cost based on the lock and dam 19 deterrent installation. And that extrapolated estimate for what the lock and dam 5 U ads might cost to construct and install is 3.5 million. That's our current estimate. But uh a specific estimate for lock and dam 5 will be available toward the end of this year. After installation, we are expecting a period of initial operations of the UADS. This appropriation is available in until June of 2029 and we are expecting construction either in the winter of 27 to 2028 or 28 to 2029. Um after this appropriation expires, there is currently no funding identified for ongoing operations. Um Eric also provided an estimate of annual operations and maintenance specific for this deterrent um based on lock and dam 19 and that extrapolated estimate is about $86,000 annually required to um operate and maintain the UADS and this system also requires a larger management event every 5 years you know swapping equipment making sure everything is running smoothly um and that large 5-year maintenance event is estimate estimated at around $581,000. That is a summary of DNR's progress in implementing the lock deterrent portion of this project. We've also identified additional strategies that are needed to support the effectiveness of the deterrent um at the lock and one of those is deterrence for the dam gates. So, a deterrent at the lock will not deter passage of invasive carp through the dam. Um however, damgate deterrent technology still needs to be developed. So scoping for this component of the project is really more of a longer term vision because this technology is not currently available. Um fortunately we work closely with Eric on this project who has uh very strong expertise on modeling performance of different deterrent systems. uh for example, they could potentially model performance of a deterrent at specific dam gates um and modeling expected fish interactions. So um the damgate deterrent piece of this project is really a longer term vision um and DNR is doing what we can to um scope this component and perform necessary monitoring to um hopefully set this work up in the future. For example, determining if there's specific gates that invasive carp use most frequently when they pass upstream. And maybe we can target deterrence for a specific subset of gates versus trying to implement it across the entire dam, which is very large. Deterrents are one strategy to manage invasive carp that focus on reducing upstream spread. However, deterrents do not remove fish from the water. So incorporating removal is another very important piece. Um DNR pursues contracted commercial fishing with our invasive carp team for invasive carp through throughout Minnesota waters. However, DNR is also proposing a trap and sort system to enhance those ongoing commercial fishing efforts. And this trap and sort system would be an automated system that would remove invasive carp and would operate continuously along with the lock deterrent. This trap and sort system would be automated and operated continuously with the deterrent. The focus would be to trap and remove invasive carp from the river. And we think this could really support the effectiveness of the lock deterrent because it would reduce the chances of invasive carp to repeatedly challenge the deterrent. Um there's also a potential to incorporate native fish passage through the sorting and removal process of invasive carp from native fish. Uh we see this as a really important component of the larger lock and dam 5 project. Um however funds are priority for the deterrent and we'll have a better understanding of remaining funds on the appropriation later this year once the deterrent reaches 95% design phase. Um, in the meantime, we are learning from ongoing projects, working with researchers to fill knowledge gaps, um, and completing necessary monitoring to help us site the system um, when we move it forward. Um, we want to know where fish and invasive carp are naturally moving so we can put the trap in an area they're already crossing. To give you an example of what a trap and sort system might look like, there is an ongoing research project in Illinois that's using a whoosh system for invasive carp removal. Um, this is an automated system. It's essentially a fish guidance system installed on a floating or stationary barge. Fish that enter the system are imaged and an AI sorting system sorts invasive carp from native fish. So, there is currently technology available that would fulfill our objectives of the trap and sort. Um, and this is one project in particular that we're hoping to learn more from and we're in coordination with the researchers there. But this is an idea of what a trap and sort might look like at Lock & Dam 5. The last piece to creating an integrated system for invasive carp at lock cam 5 would be adding monitoring and adaptive management. Um using deterrence and removal and monitoring and adaptive management would allow us to learn from and improve these systems over time. Like I mentioned, there's only two current experimental installations of deterrence in the US. Um and some of these other project components have not been implemented at a lock and dam before. So, there's a lot to um evaluate and learn from and make sure we're optimizing these systems over time. DNR has already started monitoring for this project. We began tagging invasive carp and native fish in 2025. Um, this fieldwork is supported by partners. We are sampling invasive carp and five species of native fish near lock and dam 5 and tagging them with acoustic transmitters that allow us to um track their movement and determine if they're passing through the dam or the lock. And this information is really critical to helping us develop the project components, but also uh evaluate the deterrent once it's installed, both for effectiveness on invasive carp and for ensuring uh non-target impacts to native fish are minimized. DNR has made significant progress since this appropriation was awarded in 2024. Main updates that I want to share and focus on are that for the deterrent, an underwater acoustic design system is currently being designed by USACE and Erdic. We are scoping a trap and sort system and are waiting till we have a better understanding of full costs for the deterrent before moving forward with the trap and sort. And we've already started predeter fish moni monitoring that will allow us to evaluate and adaptively manage these deterrent systems once installed. DNR is managing this project, but the inter agency partners that are on the call and also not with us today are really instrumental in developing this project that is using newer technologies. Um, and we really appreciate their support and expertise that they bring. DNR is aiming to use deterrence removal and monitoring to develop an integrated system at Lock & Dam 5 for invasive carp. This is consistent with DNR's statewide approach to invasive carp, recognizing that no one single tool is the solution to this issue. Instead, we need multiple strategies, adaptive management, and sustained commitment to um slow the spread of invasive carp, minimize their impacts, and reduce the likelihood of reproduction in Minnesota waters. Thank you. and DNR and partners would be available for questions. Now, I also have a project web page linked for more information. >> Great. Thank you. Questions? Darl? >> So, from a funding perspective, from a funding perspective, um what's the plan for the long-term operations and maintenance expenses for these projects? Will you be coming back to Lassard SAMS for those? Do you have other funding sources for those annual and every fiveyear project costs? >> Chair, members, um, as Carly mentioned, no funding has been identified for those ongoing operations and maintenance costs at this time, and I think the the plan is yet to be determined in in consultation with our our partners here at the legislature. Okay. My my second question is um we're going to use sound here, but it's my understanding that in Kentucky we also had lights as well as sound. Is that correct? >> Barrier. >> Yes. So, the underwater acoustic deterrent system that is being designed for Lock and Dam 5 uses only sound. Uh we also evaluated the bio acoustic fish fence that is installed on an experimental basis in Kentucky that uses sound lights and bubbles. Um and Eric's comparative assessment of the two deterrents. We thought the underwater acoustic deterrent system uh was the best choice for lock and dam 5 based on the two deterrent systems having similar levels of effectiveness on invasive carp um and costs being lower uh for the underwater acoustic deterrent system. >> So they're they're they're running at a 50% rate as well as far as escape. Okay. Thank you. >> Ted chairman. Now, common carp are invasive. Do they respond the same way to the soundbar as the uh silver and black and grass and big head? Chair, members? Uh no, they do not. They have different hearing ranges than uh the species we collectively call invasive carp. Um it seems to be uh most impactful on uh big head and silver carp. Um, does anyone online want to add anything additional about common carp uh effectiveness from your studies? >> Can this is Mary Beth Gray at USGS. Um, we have done some lab studies uh using common carb and do see a reaction to the sound. So there is a deterrence rate. We have not evaluated those for um our project at Lock & Dam 19 nor at the for the bio acoustic fish fence in Kentucky. Um but there is some deterrence uh just not as high as what we see in in the silver and big head carp. >> Go ahead, >> Mr. Chairman. Uh I assume the trap and sort would take carbon cart common out also because that's I think you said that was done with video and AI that uh you wouldn't limit the sorting just to the big head grass blacknake whatever silver okay yes I would assume we would remove all invasive fish that come through there and if possible past native fish over the dam at the same Thank you, >> Matt. >> The common car prefer opera versus classic rock, I think. >> Um, we all obviously want to see this be successful quickly as possible. What do you see as the the biggest risk factors to the project being completed on time and and getting up and running? I I noticed the the winter construction as being a variable. What are some of the other risk factors that you're trying to mitigate? >> Mr. Mr. Chair and members, thank you for that question. Um, this project does take place on USA so lock and dam. So, we know the design needs to be compatible with lock operations. Um, that was a big risk factor with the project. However, um, pursuing the design work with the core um, has really minimized that because um, their design team is working with their real estate office and ensuring the deterrent that will be designed um, is likely to be permissible. Um so that was one risk factor uh that we really minimized moving forward with USA St. Paul district completing the engineering design. >> Thank you. Other questions? I've got a couple. Uh um so the the project as it's seen today is is really to put the uh acoustic barrier in the lock itself. Nothing about the dam. Do you have any idea how many fish currently get through the dam versus the uh the navigation lock? Uh are are we blocking the lock and allowing fish through the dam essentially? >> Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. For that, I will turn it over to USG USGS, which um has expertise in the acoustic telemetry and fish movement at lock and dam 5. Um and they've done some evaluation of passage between the lock and the dam. >> Yes, I'm happy to field that one. Thank you for the opportunity. Um, through the use of acoustic telemetry, we've been able to identify passage routes at lock and dam 5 for fish that move through the lock chamber versus fish that pass through the dam gates over a series of of years. Um, as Carly had mentioned earlier, this is a location that has the potential to enter open river condition. That doesn't necessarily happen every year. During the time that we've had monitoring in place, we have had years that have had flood conditions and open river. And then in this year in 2025, we had no open river conditions. We've been able to evaluate the fish response during those different years. Uh with 2025, this current year with no open river condition, we did not identify any fish that completed upstream passage through the dam gate portion of the structure. But in 2024 when we had flooding available at this location and open river conditions for a period of two weeks, uh we did have a a significant number of fish that made upstream passage through the dam gates for both invasive carp species as well as native fish species. During the period of the year when the river was in controlled conditions, we did document fish upstream passage through the lock chamber when those dam gates were in the controlled location within the river. >> So if we have floods, we're going to have carp. Is it worth it? Is it worth spending the money if if we know we're going to have carp upstream? Anyhow, I I'm just to be honest and give me your assessment. As Carly noted, there are already invasive carp that have been detected upstream of this location. But because of the relative frequency of dam gates opening at Lock & Dam 5 compared to other locations in Minnesota, this is a opportunity to um achieve the multiple objectives that Carly mentioned. We do have an opportunity here with the available technology to slow the spread and reduce the likelihood of reproduction in Minnesota. >> Slow the spread. So, you're expecting that there will be carp breeding above the lock and dam 5. It's just a matter of time. >> We have not yet detected reproduction in Minnesota waters. Um, in general, invasive species prevention is a is about trying to slow the spread and reduce risks. um we only have so many technologies available to us at this time. The lock deterrent is one that is is available because there have been two um installations in the US on an experimental basis. So the technology even for lock deterrence is relatively new but this has been identified as a location where it could have an impact in Minnesota. While we will also continue to apply the other integrated strategies, um doing the trap and sort I think presents a real opportunity to reduce pressure on a lock deterrent and increase its effectiveness and continue to look into those damgate deterrent technologies. >> My guess is that the trap and sword is an expensive ongoing cost that someone's going to have to pay for >> and and I'm not I'm not asking you to opine on that. It's just clearly anytime you do that kind of work, it it's going to be costly. There's a capital cost of putting in a system and then there's an operating cost of what are you going to do with the fish? I doubt you're going to throw them back in the river. >> I can add a comment on that, Mr. Chair and members. Thank you. um as part of a prior separate legislative appropriation for invasive carp to the DNR. Um it involved the completion of a selective fish passage feasibility study that was completed by WSB LLC. Um and that um project scoped potential um strategies for selective fish passage which would be intended to pass native fish and not uh pass invasive carp and route them for removal. Um through that feasibility assessment um WSB evaluated the whoosh system which is the example I shared from Illinois and estimates for that system were around $4 million uh for capital costs to um acquire that equipment. So that's the current estimate we're kind of benchmarking. Um based on projections for costs for the lock deterrent, we are hoping to be able to pursue the trap and sort. We just can't move forward with that project component until funds needed for the lock deterrent are better understood later this year. >> Did you get any estimate of annual operating costs for that system in Illinois? >> Um not the system in Illinois. So that is a ongoing research >> okay >> project um that is working through Illinois natural heritage >> natural history >> natural history survey >> but do you have any idea of any guesstimate of annual operating costs for a trap and sort system >> yes >> I'm not trying to hold you to it I'm just asking for a a scale of the issue so we understand >> yes so the feas Yeah. Sorry, I don't know what happened. The feasibility assessment by WSB estimated the cost to acquire the whoosh system if we went with that option. There are potential other options as well. Uh would be around $4 million and annual operations and maintenance was estimated at um $61,000. So it is a bit smaller um in terms of cost for annual operations and maintenance, but that's our our best estimate uh currently. >> How do you dispose of the caught carp? >> That is an ongoing question. Uh chair and members, >> there's a cost for that. I'm sure >> we'd have to consider different um things like is there a way that we could get this to folks to use the the carp um maybe as fertilizer or animal feed or something or would it be best handled disposed of in another way? Um that's that's an ongoing conversation at this point. Um, and it may somewhat depend on uh what's feasible at the lock as well because we'd be looking at citing this in the auxiliary lock. Um, so if we were trying to get these to land, uh, they might be somewhat complicated. We have to go over the lock. I had the opportunity a couple years ago in San Francisco in a Google facility to watch them sort male from female mosquitoes um so that they could release infertile mosquitoes uh in Hawaii to try to protect endangered birds. And if you can use AI to determine male from female mosquitoes, you absolutely can do it for carp. It would be far easier. Did they have trouble disposing of the mosquitoes? >> They had no trouble. Big flat. >> Um I I have had some people send me stuff saying they have huge concerns about the level of sound uh that would not be contained underwater. And I have absolutely no idea uh what we're talking about. But um there was a a comment that came from a riverboat captain that was you know like I can't hear anything if you turn this on. Uh it's a a danger to navigation uh to people around the facility. What is the truth when it comes to the level of sound that you're going to hear above water? >> Mr. Chair and members for that question I will um ask Eric and USGS to chime in. They are the partners working on the lock and dam 19 installation where the UADs is currently installed um where um those comments would have came from. Can >> can I intervene just one thing? You say above water, but is the captain's concerns about his electronics for what he can see as well? >> It's above >> it's above water. It's what leaks from the water up was. And as I say, I have no clue. So I'm curious what others would say. >> So Mary Beth, do you mind if I um answer the question and have you jump on? >> Great. >> Okay. Um so this is Chris Woodley at Eric. Uh thank you for the question. Um, so there have been various comments that have been made over the years about the soundbar. Uh, at times it has been an annoyance to people and we've gone in and made strategic adjustments at that point in time to reduce the impact. Um, depending on the year, a couple times we were playing it specifically louder. Um, that was giving us a chance to get feedback from navigation. And so just in terms of lock 19 and any data related to lock 19 that needs to be weighed against the fact that this was a prototype and that we were actively working on all of the the various things that have been addressed between its impacts to navigation, impacts to recreational vessels and impacts to local fishermen as well as impacts to the lock personnel. the um sound itself. By and large, if you were to stand next to it and sitting on the lock wall standing next to it, we could have the very conversation we're having right now without any impact from the sound. If it is very low water and you go over it with an empty hall bolt, we do have some potential for what they call mechanical coupling. That is where the soundbar itself vibrates the vessel. um that has most often happened relative to barges and not our recreational vehicles and um most of our uh larger sort of passenger ships. They don't have the same type of mechanical coupling. So it it is one of those things that it's re relative to the person that hears it. It's also relative to where we were in the experimental process at the time we were running it. Um we have gone out and done in air sampling at lock 19 and have a technical report that's actually coming out this year. Uh and we have presented the results at scientific conferences to show that while you were standing next to the soundbar, we're about 80 60 to 80 dB. Um and that would be on the vessel, 60 dB on the shore. And then as you went to the end of the lock itself um which is about 1,000 ft there, you couldn't actually hear the soundbar over the other noises um at lock 19. We've started these measurements at lock and dam 5 so that as we do the design we'd be able to control for some of that information based on what we have learned with lock and dam 19. So we are actively working to make it safe um not just for navigation but for the recreational vehicles in the area and make sure that everyone can communicate effectively. Um Mary Beth, do you have more to add on to that? Only thing I'd add is that we invite you to lock 19 if you'd like to hear it for yourself. Um it's we've worked with navigation and the lock over the last five years to mitigate any impacts to both navigation and lock operations. So um feel like we're we're in a pretty good place with with that. But um you're welcome to come experience it for yourself. >> I don't know. What music are you playing? >> We can play whatever you want. careful, I can get you cancelled. >> If I might just add to um chair and members, we uh do have a visit planned um in in the next few weeks to also go down to Lock 19 and hear the sound from a boat um so that we can kind of experience that ourselves. Uh we we did go um last year and heard it from the wall. Uh to me it sounded it was audible but quiet. Um sounded, you know, like a kind of a whisper level to me. Um, but from a boat maybe it's different. We'd like to experience that firsthand as well. >> Gerald, >> so I I've heard the statement a couple of times today and since I'm new on the board, relatively speaking, I'm not that familiar with your project, but but as I understood it, you you're saying that those carp can't reproduce. What What drives the nonrduction as they get further up the river? Um chair and members, uh it's not that they cannot reproduce, it's that we have not yet detected um any eggs or larae of uh invasive carp. Um we have seen um mature invasive carp in our waters. Um there seems to be some sort of a density effect. They need a certain density of invasive carp to reproduce. Uh we are there there's not not a known density though. Um so we we see invasive harp reproducing annually below lock and dam 19. Um that again is that high head dam and it's difficult for fish to move past. So there's more carp below lockam 19 and they reproduce annually there in the pools just above lock and dam 19. They reproduce intermittently. Um, again, we haven't detected eggs or larae here, but we do monitor annually um at locations where that we think may be the most suitable for a spawn to occur. So, we're we're basically looking at spending $7 million between the the the catch and release uh system, the trap and sort and the dam uh acoustic stuff and basically an operating cost of about $300,000 a year by the time you average out the the extra expenditures on the five-year stuff. And we we hope we can cut them by 50%. >> Uh I would add to I think the key is that we continue removal. I think that's an important part of the trap and sort is that we'll be removing fish from the system. Um if we are making a good deterrent, we're going to have carp getting stopped there and we want to reduce their abundance then um because we wouldn't want a large group of carp sitting there. Um so it's important that we continue uh removal efforts um our commercial fishing our contracted commercial fishing as well that we do as a regular part of our program not as a part of this appropriation but uh funded primarily through federal and state grants. Um as well as um the trap and sort I think would be an important piece to to keep abundance low and try to prevent that reproduction event. trap trap and sort makes sense if you can provide a a way to get rid of the carp ultimately whether it's fertilizer or cat food or something I guess. >> Okay, thank you. >> Yep. >> Other questions. Any online that I missed? >> Great. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh next is uh uh a discussion on uh performance audit and allowable expenses. And Christina, I'm going to let you introduce this if you would. >> Sure. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, as uh folks from the office of the legislature legislative auditor come to the table. Lori Le and Ryan Baker. Um members, in January, you may recall that um a report was released from the office of the legislative auditor. It was the Department of Natural Resources Outdoor Heritage Fund Grants Performance Audit. Um members, uh folks from the legislative auditor will um present the overview, the the timing of the audit, their findings, and then we also have um representatives from the Department of Natural Resources here available to follow up in response to those findings and staff have been working with uh the DNR as well to address one of the comments in the findings related to clarification around eligible reimburseable expenses. So with that, Mr. Chair, I think we should turn it over to them. >> I I will just say if you haven't had a chance to read the report, >> uh I'd encourage you to do it, but the we really were given a report that's good news. There were some technical corrections that are recommended which we're going to hopefully act on. Um but by and large our process uh um came through with I won't call it flying colors but almost flying colors. Uh and you can correct me if I have misspoken but tell us what you know. >> Sure. Thank you Mr. Chair and members. Um for the record my name is Lori Lson. I'm the deputy legislative auditor for the financial audit division at the office of the legislative auditor. Um this is our performance audit of the Department of Natural Resources Outdoor Heritage Fund grants. Um a performance audit for us is an audit that's really looking at um compliance with state laws with policies, procedures, anything out there that a entity is required to follow. And then we also look at internal controls to ensure that compliance. So that's really the focus of what we do on these performance audits. And this particular performance audit was really focused on those grants and specifically we looked at legislatively named grantees. So those that the legislature has determined should receive funding. Oftent times these are entities that received funding um year after year. Uh because there is multi-phases of the project. Um, and although there are responsibilities by both the Department of Natural Resources and Lassard SAMS to kind of oversee these grants, our audit really is just focusing on the Department of Natural Resources responsibility. And as the chair mentioned, um, you really did see that this report uh, the Department of Natural Resources generally complied with what we had tested. So when we look at grants statewide, this was a pretty clean report. um we do see some non-compliance and Mr. Baker is going to talk about that today, but overall um we can say that this was a good report. So, at this time, I'll read I'll turn it over to Mr. Baker. >> Um Mr. Chair, committee members, for the record, my name is Ryan Baker. I'm an audit director with the financial a division at OA. Today I'll be presenting the results of our performance audit of DNR um outdoor herage fund grants that was released on January 15th. Uh for this audit um our objective was to determine whether DNR administered OHF grants in compliance with applicable requirements. Um, and since OHF uh fund projects uh take multiple years to complete, our scope primarily focused on grants awarded in fiscal year 2020 that were completed by January 31st, 2025. First, I'll give a little bit of background on the outdoor heritage fund before I get in the audit results. Um, the outdoor heritage fund is one of four legacy funds that receive a portion of the state sales tax. The state constitution provides that 38s of 1% of the state sales tax should be distributed to the legacy funds with the outdoor heritage fund receiving 33% of the 38s of 1%. So in the last um five years the funding was approximately 100 130 million appropriated for projects each year. Um, in order to obtain funding for a project, interested entities such as nonprofits and DNR submit project proposals to you, the council for review, and then you score the project proposals and make final recommendations to the legislature. Um, once the legislature awards the funding, DNR is prim primarily responsible for administration oversight of the funding. This includes pre-awward financial review, contract execution, um monitoring, payments to grantees, and then also the close out of the grants as well. Um the council provides some monitoring um such as review and approval of progress reports and approval of parcels of land for restoration enhancement. The awarding of OHF money is done primarily through legislatively named grants to nonprofits or an appropriation to DNR. When DNR receives an appropriation for projects the department has been awarded funding for um the they will choose to administer the project internally or partner with a nonprofit to complete a portion or all of the project. For this audit, we focused our review on grants administered by DNR which included single source grants and then also um those legislative main grants as well. For the audit, we reviewed all grant agreements, amendments to those grant agreements, and grant payments for 13 grants. In addition, we reviewed DNR's payments to each grantee, as well as DNR's monitoring of the grantees for the entire life of the grants. And then we also performed a few site visits to determine whether the grant's stated accomplishments in submitted progress reports could be observed at the project sites. Our overall conclusion um was that DNR generally complied as stated earlier with the criteria we tested. Um we did identify two findings, one related to grant payments and one related to grant monitoring. The first finding in the report relates to grant payments. We found that for three grantees um totaling approximately 400,000 in payments invoices uh were submitted for reimbursement that did not contain enough detail to determine whether the expenses the grantee was requesting reimbursement for were for an allowable expense allowable cost. Additionally, DNR paid approximately $5,000 to two grantees without obtaining uh detailed documentation to support the expenses the grantee reinquested reimbursement for. Finally, the last part of the finding is more of a broader issue um that we identified and that's that um DNR did not have policies and procedures in place to define an allowable cost. Um state statute requires that payments be made for activities that are directly related to and necessary for a specific appropriation. Those policies also do not define what directly related to and necessary means. Finding two of the report relates to grant monitoring and we identified issues with monitoring visits, progress reports and closeout evaluations for monitoring visits of the 13 grantees. Um DNR did not conduct all required annual monitoring visits for four legislative legislatively named grants and two single source grants. What's the difference between legislatively named and single source so that everyone understands that? >> Yes. Um so legislatively named uh the entities named in law. Um so could be feeasants forever. They're given a specific appropriation. They're named in law to receive a specific amount. Um single source grants uh the ones that we reviewed. So those would be um something that DNFR DNR identifies as um an entity who can provide the expertise and project knowledge and only that entity can do so. So that money is given to that single source um grantee and that's done through a DNR appropriation um and then they grant it out from their appropriation to a single source grantee. So that would be like a CPL grant. >> Um, yes. We didn't review those. Um, >> okay. I I'm just >> Yeah. >> trying to make sure everyone has an understanding. >> Yep. >> So it's not CPL grants. >> It's not CPL grants. >> And I believe the CPL that's competitively those those are competitive grants. Most most of those are. So >> Okay. Um so moving on uh so for progress reports that are required to be submitted to DNR by the legislatively named grantees and ziggle source grantees um DNR made 10 payments to two legislatively named grantees without a current progress report on file. Um those payments totaled 2.1 million and then DNR also made 25 payments to three single source grantees totaling 2.7 million without obtaining any required progress reports from those grantees. Um in addition two of those three single source grantees we tested were were required by their contract to submit progress reports but the frequency was not specified in the contract with um how often they should submit those progress reports to DNR. Finally, the last area was related to closeout evaluations. Um, of the 12 grants we reviewed for this area, we found eight grantee closeout evaluations were missing elements required by OGM policy such as whether there were any unresolved issues or concerns with the grantee and whether the grant's timeliness, quality of work, and overall performance were satisfactory. Um, six of those, eight were completed between 72 and 790 days after final payment with two of those six receiving sub subsequent awards of funding before the evaluations were completed. And then last thing on the close out evaluations, uh, for two of the 12 grants, there wasn't a closeout evaluation completed by DNR for one legislatively named grantee and one single source grantee. So, as a result of our audit, um, we recommend that DNR obtain adequate documentation to support costs, work with the council here to establish guidelines regarding allowable costs and activities, conduct timely monitoring and close out evaluations, um, obtain progress reports before making payments, and strengthen internal controls over each of these areas. Concludes our presentation. Happy to answer any questions. questions. >> Can you just give us an example of the single source? >> Yeah. So, you mean the um of of who the single source grantes were? >> Yeah. Just or you don't even have to name them. Just what is that? Because I think I'm confused. So I suspect others might be as to what that who would DNR pay under a single source, not a legislatively authorized. How does that work? >> Sure, Mr. Chair and members. Um so I think of grants um kind of given out in three different ways, right? There's the legislatively named grants which you're involved in. The legislature names them. they're put in law and it's clear that uh the department of natural resources is going to give those entities money. There's still um oversight responsibility. So at any point in time they can you know withhold money or not go forward if that is the case. Um then we have what is considered a competitive grant. They're not named in law. There is a request for proposals that is um placed out there for the public. Then entities can apply for that grant, submit a proposal. The um state reviews those proposals and selects granties based on a selection of criteria. Then the last is a single source grant. So there's a need that needs to be met. Um oftent times uh when the department of natural resources, and I am the last person that should be talking about this, Mr. Baker knows more than I do, but I'm going to uh muddle my way through this. So, the Department of Natural Resources has a project and there's a need that needs to be met and that need can only be met by one entity. Um, there is no need to put out a competitive bid. Um, but the Department of Natural Resources might be completing a project and it's like a watershed district. Um, it's their parcel of land. They're the only people that can um go ahead and do anything on that land. So we're going to give that grant to that entity um because they are literally the only entity that can meet that need. So the state can directly give that grant to that single source entity without a competitive process without naming it in legislature. So hopefully that helps. >> Yeah. Does that help everyone as much as it helps me? >> Is it is it like the comfort lakes? Or wasn't there a a city park aspect in there where they had to do >> Yeah. Or perhaps a dam removal on someone's property or >> something? It's where we've appropriated the money. We've recommended the legislaturator has appropriated the money to the government agency and then they're single sourcing the the component of that work. Um >> yeah, I'm seeing nods. So >> that's that's correct, >> Mr. Chair. So this the way I understand it would be like um Dean Peron's uh projects where we give uh a lot of money to DNR for their fisheries work and then they want to remove dams and so the DNR will work with the city of whoever that has the dam and they give them the money essentially granting them the money to do the dam removal. So, it's more like um where DNR is receiving large pots of money and then they're gonna have multiple projects. >> It's all been disclosed in the accomplishment plan. It's just >> it's it's it comes through what we do, but it isn't directed by what we do as much as directed to the agency that then >> spends the money. >> Those sources. >> Yeah. >> Thank you for the clarification. I I thought it was important that everyone understand >> that. Thank you. >> So, you know, this leaves us with what can we, you know, we can't fix the DNR's processes, which I'm sure they're working on, but we can fix our processes, which are about uh uh the eligible and reimburseable expenses primarily. Correct. >> And in your packet, there's a recommendation for what we would change to be clear clearer than we've been. Um, and I I want to just emphasize there's no bad intent here. There's nobody who's done terrible things. There's gray area that we haven't had to address. Um and staff has put together uh based on this uh some recommendations which are in uh agenda item 9B uh in your packet um for uh u some cleanup of the recommended reimburseable expense document. um and a discussion of define uh discuss and approve outreach expenses. Do you want to someone on the staff want to give a little more background than I did? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. Um I'm actually going to turn it over to I will remember that going forward. I'm actually going to turn it over to Sandy Smith and Cara. They've been really spearheading this. Um but uh obviously we've been working with our partners at DNR, Katherryn Sherman Ho and Mary Robinson on how we can clearly define eligible reimburseable expenses getting to those allowable costs in the directly to and necessary for and as part of that process our NGO partners and other partners were queried. We received information from them regarding their current um reimburseable expenses evaluated that had a lot of robust discussions and before you are recommendations from staff. So Sandy and Cara are you comfortable providing more background? >> Um correct. So this uh this um attachment a list is coming out of um something more detailed that came out of the audit. So, first I just want to say that um since the inception of the OF we have been working under what we call budget definitions and those have not changed very much at all from the very beginning. Um they give examples of things um that are reimburseable but it's not very detailed. Um, and so, um, what we did to come up with a more detailed list was we sort of, um, I looked at a bunch of database reports that pulled out things that we have been paid for, uh, that we have paid for in the past and also things that the council has approved in accomplishment plans in the past. Um, DNR grants management did a similar process as well. We sort of blended all of these things together um, into what is attachment A. And I think um the takeaway from attachment A is um for us to put some specity around the budget definitions. I would say nothing in this attachment A are unusual or out of the ordinary are new things that we're asking um the OF dollars to pay for. These are standard things that have been being paid for all along. We're just kind of itemizing them up here to be very clear. Um, and so attachment, if anybody has any questions about attachment A, um, we're happy to answer them, but this is probably what we've been doing all along. >> Um, um, throughout that, well, what's been happening more recently is we've been getting a lot of um, questions about outreach expenses. And, um, I did send out an email to all project managers asking about um, what outreach expenses do you have um, that you've been paid for? which ones um have you you wished you would be paid for? Um and it was really interesting the responses they came back because um some folks were um happy with what they got paid for. Other folks wished they would have gotten paid for things that are pretty much a standard thing that everybody's been being paid for and they just didn't realize that they could submit that. Um and then we had other organizations that had some very specific um things alto together that felt a little squishy like potentially might border on marketing. So we attachment B1 is um outreach expenses and we sort of um spent a lot of time even with DNR contracts management staff going over these um because we also were trying to understand from an from their point of view how they administer these um and how what the accountability and transparency then is for these costs. Um, so we're asking for the council to take specific action on B1 or provide advice to us. Um, and you know, I just I I think the process was very good. Um, it took us close to six months to get through it all. Many back and forth meetings. um reviewed documents from other granting places, LCSMR, um the CPL program, um as well as looking um at uh office of grants management policies as well. So um I put this before you for discussion. >> No, you put it before us hoping we'll take action. >> Well, discuss and action both hands. Are is there discussion questions? Would there be a motion to approve uh attachment A and attachment B1 as allowable uh expenses going forward as per council policy. >> So moved. >> I'd second that. >> We don't need seconds in this world. >> I keep for the only meeting I have where there isn't a second required. But I'll take I'll take you sir. >> How can that be anyway? Matt, >> it's it's not Robert's rules. It's Mason's rules. >> You can take you can take it up with Mr. Mason or Mrs. Mason. I don't know. >> Um any discussion questions? >> For uh those that haven't gone through their their book that was part of your packet, I was my finance hat. I can't help myself. I got to dig into the meat a little bit. It is it is some interesting reading in there as as I started highlighting things in mind going I got to read to understand some more and I probably have to talk to Sandy when we get done but I would I would recommend you look at the a little bit more detailed information if you have a few minutes. >> Okay Tom, will you call the role? >> Member starting with number 10 Saxhog. Yes. >> Saxhog. I sus >> Sus. I Representative Vang. >> Hartwell. >> I >> Hartwell. I >> Baird. >> I >> Baird. I Representative Burkel. >> Burkel. I >> Representative Burkel. I Egger. >> I. >> Eggerling. I. Kaharski. >> I. >> Kaharski. I. Senator Lang. >> I. >> Senator Lang. I Palmer. >> I. >> Palmer. I. Mr. Chair. There are nine eyes's, zero nays. >> Motion passes. Matt, you have a final question. >> Yeah, a question. I don't know if this is for staff or or for um for you guys. Um when when we have uh grantees who aren't submitting their progress reports on a timely manner, something called out in here, do we have that information available to us when we're reviewing the next grant proposal? And at what point is that brought brought forth? Um there are delinquencies and status updates. They're due twice a year. Um if a status update is not submitted, the the project does not get paid or reimbursed. So that is kind of our little trigger that gets people pretty motivated when they have receipts that need to get paid. Um I I could put together something about those that are late. there are very few of them um that are late. Um and it was interesting because that was one of the questions that the auditor asked were please provide the dates of all the submissions. Um and there were a few that were late but I found documentation usually for all of them like someone was having surgery and they were going to be gone for a month or you know there was an excusable reason. But yes, I can put that I can put a list together for you. just nice to know if there's a particular like chronic non-compliance is is really you know >> we don't just want we want to do make work >> and I do remember actually when we were going through the project Sandy did provide some of that input to us uh where where folks had been negligent in getting back to us >> great thank you >> okay thank you appreciate your help >> um next is uh a discussion about uh uh forest of the future land bank. And I'll just briefly tell you for those of you that weren't here, which is all of you, um when the the leg when the voters approved the legacy amendment, one of the first projects was a huge conservation easement with uh UPM Blandon, 90,000 acres roughly. Uh Tom will know the exact number. Mhm. >> Um and subsequent to that, this was many different parcels all over northern Minnesota. It was a great project. It was very costefficient. I think the cost was $200 an acre or something um to get permanent conservation easements prohibiting subdivision and development. Um there was no way uh to to survey 190,000 acres at the time. the conservation easement was done. There there was general surveying and such, but the reality is there have been a few things that have come up uh on some of those parcels uh that have uh um existing buildings. Uh and uh the DNR would like the ability to fix that. And their basic concept is to find comparable wildlife habitat. somewhere to use as a bank. Um, and trade the easement on something that was compromised that nobody knew about for something new to make it right from a dollar and and acreage standpoint. And we're talking 16 acres in total. So, it's not a big deal and they would like approval to do that. And now I'll turn it over to you. >> Yes. Good morning. Um, thank you, Chair Hartwell. Thank you, council members and staff. My name is Christine Austern. I am in Minnesota DNR Division of Forestry. I'm the forest legacy program coordinator and I have with me here today Andy Kernan, the new forest legacy program coordinator. And we do have a team of folks um online, two staff from DNR, Lands and Minerals who might be able to answer questions if you have any about the uh process and um the uh the uh you know basically processing the amendments and the uh valuation determinations. And we do have two staff online also um available for answering questions from UPM Blandon um the land owner in this case where uh we do the state owns a conservation easement. So yes I thank you chair Hartwell for the introduction and the background information. Um, we provided a memo from DNR in your packet that explains more of the process and details, but basically um, these are a specific type of encroachment that were recently discovered by UPM Bland and staff and reported to DNR. They are encroachments that were pre-existing to the purchase of the conservation easement. And so um that you know has been some time now and they would be also considered adverse possession cases um for the land owners. And so we we would like to be able to have u a more efficient process and more certainty about the process for solving these very specific types of encroachments. And that's what we're asking here is um for the ability to set up um create and implement a land replacement bank where we would determine the value of the the land in the bank um by appraisal method and then we would amend the conservation easement to include that um bank land which in this case is 16 acres of land. Um, and then we would amend the conservation easement to extinguish the conservation easement on the land that is affected by the encroachments. And we would determine the value of that land through a minimum value determination that would be led by our um appraisal unit staff in lands and minerals. And so we would keep track of the transactions um the valuation determinations and the transactions out of in and out of the bank um through our annual monitoring um stewardship uh process that we have already in place um for all of our conservation easements. And um that would include you know um annual um interaction and and updates and information exchange between DNR and the land owner UPM Blandon. And uh we would keep track of these um types of transactions through that process and we would bring them forward um annually or less frequently hopefully if that's uh what was determined um to the council again for approval as we do with other um types of changes to the bland and easement that we have that process already in place. So that's kind of a very brief overview and I can provide more detail or like I said we have folks online that can help answer any questions you might have. Thank you. >> And just a clarification because these would be minor. This would come to the staff versus the whole council for approval from the staff. We would just bless the concept here >> essentially. I'm sure there's a better terminology for it. >> Any questions? So, I'm looking for a motion to approve the establishment of a 16 acre parcel that would be used as a land bank to offset uh transfers. >> Yeah. >> Uh out of the conservation easement to be covered by an conservation easement. >> Yep. >> I Suzanne beat you to it. >> Let the record show Suzanne beat Tom to this. Was there a first tie or a first second motion? >> I'm sure there was. Uh, any questions, comments, concerns? >> I think it's a good plan. >> Tom, will you call the role? >> Member starting with number 11 on our list. Sus. >> Yes. >> Sus I. Representative Bang. >> Hartwell. >> I. >> Hartwell. I. Sher. >> I. >> Sharer. I Baird. >> I >> Baird. I Representative Burkel. >> Burkel. I >> Representative Burkel. I Eggerling. >> Yes. >> Eggering. I Kaharski. >> I. >> Kaharski. I Senator Lang. >> I. >> Senator Lang. I Palmer. >> I. >> Palmer. I Saxhog. >> Yes. >> Saxhog. I. Mr. Chair. There are 10 eyes's zero nicks. >> Motion passes. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Have fun. Seems like a lot of work that won't >> hopefully more efficient. >> Um, >> next we have a discussion of some uh >> discussion on that >> accomplishment plan amendment requests and I'll turn it over to you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. There were originally two accomplishment plan amendment requests that you may have seen. The agenda's been updated as one of those has um requested to be pulled from the agenda. >> There were originally three, right? >> I think only two. >> Two. Okay. So, we only have one to work. >> We only have one to work with today. Um and this is an amendment request for the Anoka Sand Plain Habitat Conservation Appropriation. Um Wy Buck from Great River Greening and Carrie Taylor from Anoka Conservation District here to present the amendment request. This one relates to when there's personnel costs that exceed 10% um then those requests need to come before the council and this specifically is for a biochar unit and utilization of that biochar unit as part of their um their work. Originally that was going to be contracted out work and now as you'll hear that that's going to be suggested be brought inhouse to um which will extend above that 10% then personnel costs and with that Mr. Mr. Chair, I think we should turn it over to the project managers. >> And I suspect you can keep it very brief because you're really just trading your internal staff costs for contracted labor >> here. It's it get the same work done, get it done a little more efficiently and and uh >> um perhaps quickly since you can do it yourself. >> We'll do our best. Thank you, Mr. Chair and council members, for considering our request. Um there is two parts. I'm WY Buck with Great River Greening and I'm here for an Okasan plane 9 ML23. Um two years ago it was approved and budgeted uh to purchase a large um mobile biochar kilm. Uh the reason we are here asking for more labor budget is those capital expenses came in way under budget. Um and we would like to use that for labor. Um happy to report that we are also exceeding our match. This is a very popular initiative with many many funders. Um you purchased a large Thank you. You supported us by helping us purchase a large big box kil. We now have three of those and uh 14 smaller kils. Um so why continue to support our biochar initiative? This is a improvement over open pile burning. Um by charring instead of burning we are storing um 50% or more of the carbon that these trees have faithfully sequestered for decades. Um it's a lot better than just um admitting it into the atmosphere. In terms of natural areas, it eliminates burn scars that pile burns. um uh result in uh it does it through a very simple process. Uh regardless of the kiln design, there's a reburn um component to it and this results in much less particulate matter and much less flying embers. So, uh there are some other benefits there as well. Um to date, we've done nine charring charring projects on OFF sites. Um and this again is through lo rob robust leverage um and through the trust fund as well as P uh PCA. These leverage funds are sun setting and we're really starting to lean into the OF scale projects. We've got five more scheduled just for uh the rest of 2026. And this is where we can start scaling up um appropriate for OF projects where we've got multiple kils, excuse me, multiple kils fed by one skid steer. So yes, uh as chairman Hartwell said, we want to the option of using our greening staff. We are finding that we are still the state experts. Um when we do hire contractors, they typically ask for a greening rep to come out and be the project manager. Um, and also our crew is very skilled. Uh, tends to be less expensive since we're not charging overhead and profit, full overhead and profit. And since it is a uh, uh, a burning situation, we still pull a DNR burn permit. We like the nimleness and the option of either going with our crew, which we can mobilize fairly quickly, um, as well as contractors. So, it it is still a hybrid of crew and contractors, but we're here today to ask for the money for our crew. So, all right, with that, I'll hand it over to Carrie. Is it just yours? >> Yeah. So, I'm here also requesting to shift funds into personnel. And so I'm requesting to shift um $70,000 from contracts into personnel. For similar reasons, we're finding that some like the local staff can mobilize on different projects. Um and one specific project in the ASP8 is the rare plant rescue program. It's a program that is we've we've started and with a partnership with the uh Minnesota landscape arboritum and critical connections ecological services. We did our best to budget um between the partners based on the different activities um which you'll find in your handout. Um and we're just finding that local staff are able to coordinate and mobilize because a lot of times these rescue opportunities are need to be done within two weeks. So, I'm able to coordinate and localize our local volunteers and some of our ACD technical staff. Um, you know, and sometimes it's we've just I ACD actually had the least amount of funding allocated to ourselves. Um, and we're actually finding that local like the having internal local funding would help make the program run more effectively. Um, another part of our ASP program is all of our ecological restoration projects. And so I coordinate those and implement those with a mix of ecological contractors. And then also ECD staff does the labor. Plus in the winter I hire um additional staff. They're typically from the CCMI. Um, so they're CCMI graduates, so they have all those skills and they kind of have a gap in employment and they're great to work in the field. So I basically break apart our ecological restoration projects based on the activities needed. Contractors are great for the big um big lift like a lot of the larger equipment. Um, but then the ACD staff plus CCMI winter crew which is basically they're hired as ACD staff can do a lot of other types of work too. they have the skill set to do a lot of the other work. And like WY said, we're able to mobilize. We're able to adapt based on weather and needs. Um and and additionally, um the the ASP partnership received, um a federal grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Monarch Fund. Um, and so I was able to put a lot of that money into um, seed and contractors, which um, and that saved money in the OF grant. And so now we have extra money for staff and so we've been able to overd deliver, especially working with our field crew that we have in the winter. Um, so yeah, so I guess in summary, local staff are able to mobilize faster, get a lot of work done. We're over we've overd delivered on acres and projects and if we were able to have more funding for staff we would be able to do a lot of like the necessary adaptive management and followup work um before we hand these sites back over to the land land owners. >> Great. Are there any questions? >> Great motion. you you'll move to allow them the 70,000 and the 45,000 to go to staff cost from contract. >> I think moving money that we've already approved should be pretty pretty routine. >> We have a motion. Is there any discussion? Tom >> members starting with number one on our list. Hartwell >> I >> Hartwell I Sherah >> I >> Sherah I Baird >> I >> Baird I >> Representative Burkel >> Burkel I >> representative Burkel I Egger >> I >> Eggerling I Kaharski I >> Kaharski I senator Lang >> I >> Senator Lang I Palmer I >> Palmer I Saxhog I >> Saxhog I Sus I >> Sus I Representative Mr. Chair, there are 10 eyes, zero nays. >> Motion passes. >> Go have fun burning. >> Um, next is a discussion presentation uh by Ted Dick on uh uh forest pests. >> Hello, Ted. Long time no see again. >> Hello Derek. Sorry, sir. Hold on one second. I've got to go pull it over. So, while Tom uh gets the slides ready, I just like to say good morning uh Mr. Chair and good morning to the council. I'm Ted Dick. I've been here before with DNR forest habitat grants and this morning. Uh Joe asked me to come and discuss some of the he called them pests. I'm going to have to talk to Joe about getting a little better billing on that being at lunchtime and then being the pest guy. Maybe exterminator would be better, but we did a lot of forest grants and so we're happy to talk about it because it's one of those that's had questions in the past. you know, how do you do these and and are there better ways to do it or why should they be funded with um with council money? So, um um is it ready to go, Tom? >> Almost. >> Okay, that's fine. Um, so I was going to ask uh when the slideshow started, you know, to imagine that your forest manager, state of Minnesota, we have 7 plus million acres of forest, I think 2.75 million in the managed pool where we do all of our timber harvest work, but there are other things that need to be done there. Obviously um uh working with our partners in the division of forestry um on this grant and in general day-to-day is extremely important to us. Thank you. And um it's mainly what we do, but with the grant money, there are opportunities to do other things that that don't get accomplished in the normal course of what we call typical habitat management or um uh timber activities. And so, um, thanks, Tom. Um, we we have a lot of acres. We we're privileged to be able to manage for the people of Minnesota some extensive public lands. Not not many agencies, get to get to work on that many million acres. So, it's it's interesting and it's what we do for a living and we appreciate the chance to do it. But, we've heard a lot lately about sustainability. Um and that can cover a lot of things when um the slides running now, you know, timber productivity, we want that to be sustainable. How we harvest over time, making sure we um uh we we supply what we can in an environmentally friendly manner to industry to keep that functioning because those are our most important partners in northern Minnesota. I I don't know if I mentioned, but I live in Cohassid and I work in Grand Rapids and most of my friends and neighbors are a lot of them are are Blandon employees um right there uh in our town. And I don't know if you've been paying attention lately, but Blandon um recently switched hands. You know, they were owned by an overseeing company, UPM, a Finnish company, and that just changed in um in uh December. They were they were spun off with a sappy group and um pot latch is our biggest 2x4 stud mill in Baiji and they recently underwent a merger with Rayaner a national merger. What I'm getting at here is the timber industry, particularly the paper industry, um, is is undergoing a lot of change. And I just want to tell the group that we do everything we can as wildlife habitat people to make sure we're all working together to to keep those um, industries in the timber that they want and need. because there's no more important activity for wildlife management than to be able to manipulate the age and composition of timber stands in our forest. So, I just wanted to say that upfront. But then the other if you're a manager, say you're the commissioner or if you're a leader at the DNR managing those 7 million acres, 2.75 in the pool. Um there's timber productivity, there's biodiversity, then wildlife habitat, water quality, economics. I think when we write these up, there's seven overall values that we try to manage for on all of our lands, and they're they're all important, but one one thing that um uh is important to all of those is being flexible, being adaptable um to the to the changes that are going on. A lot of times managers will throw around the term ecosystem function. You know, what what exactly is that? that's making sure that that the the growth in the forest is continuing the particular species are continuing to thrive. Um the the change in the forest right now in northern Minnesota, you know, it I'm sure it's been greater at some time in the world, but not during my lifetime. There there's a lot going on there. You know, the amount of snowfall, the rainfall, the the fire dangers, it's it's all affects how healthy the forest is. And a good diverse um forest is more sustainable and more resilient. And uh a couple of the things that um really affect things lately in a way different to what they did in the past are some of these pests that we're calling them uh insects or invasives that are changing the way the forest grows. And I' I've listed three of them here that I want to talk about. there's spruce budworm, emerald ashbor, and buckthornne are are the three biggest that we tend to ask the council for money to treat. So, I'd like to go through a little bit of the ecology of of each one of those. Starting with spruce budworm. Um, spruce budworm is a native insect. Um, it it's not an exotic. You know, a lot of these emerald ash, boar, buck that we talk about, species that come from other parts of the world. Um, spruce budworm affects balsam fur primarily in Minnesota and um, it's native here. You can, our insect and disease people can track over time where outbreaks will occur in northern Minnesota. You know, it's a it's a regular occurrence. I think it's like a a 35 year sort of rotation, if you will, where they um, you know, we had an outbreak here. it it subsides for a while and um and then it comes back in 35 years. Um balsam fur is an extremely important understory species for a whole lot of things and up until recently it was an important species for for timber markets and utilization and that's changed a little bit in in recent times. So what we have lately we have a lot of dead balsom fur in places more than we used to have. I'm not sure of the correlation between winter temperatures with with spruce budworm like there is with emerald ashbor and other insects. You know, when they say you need you need um a certain amount of days under 40 below in the winter to reduce survival from year to year. But but anyhow, when the weather's milder and um um the the the climate's different than it was, balsom fur, spruce budworm is affecting a lot more balsom fur in those same areas than it used to. And one big effect from that is it's a it's a ladder fuel. It's like it's like dead Christmas trees, you know, they're balsom fur is underneath the the um overstory. They're they're in the in the shrub layer and in the understory layer. And if you if you kill um uh a significant amount of that in an area, the fires from last year, you saw Patty Thelen and the commissioner on TV last year when the campfire and those those big Northshore fires were going, they were saying Balsam fur is really exacerbating this problem. It's making these fires burn hot and travel fast and um it's it's a problem like we've never had before. So, it's important in the understory. It's critical habitat for deer in the spring after winter and you don't have a lot of green up yet. They really focus our research paper people tell me on balsom fur and um it's important for moose and for rough grouse in the winter. One thing it does more than the nutrition is snow loading. This these are the places you get deer yards and moose yards and grouse in the winter. When you have understory conifers that hold snow off the ground, it affects the how the snow hits the ground and that makes it um it's easier to escape if you're a prey species and the wolves are in the neighborhood. So balsam fur is an integral part of the um northern forest and um it it is becoming more challenging to to manage these days. So um I mentioned the human safety you know if it's a if it's a factor in the fires that to me is is sort of a stage one if it's going to cause more damage more fire um DNR is going to reduce some of that. There'll always be balsam fur on the landscape, but we need less of it, particularly the the dead and dying. That again, I'm not an entomologist, but the the story I hear with the ecology is once balsam fur gets to a certain height, it might be about at that 35 year range when I said the the um outbreaks occur, it gets above the canopy. And the adult version of the bud worm is a is a moth. And I've heard that when they're flying above and when they can find the top. So I don't know if that's true. Don't quote me on it, but that sort of makes sense. They get to that to get to that point. So they'll always be some around. There'll always be the younger balsom fur providing those benefits. But we've worked with the Division of Forestry um to try to reduce that hazard, that fire hazard. If you talk to people around Graham Marine after this fed, it's there there's people online that, man, I've just got all this dead all this dead wood, all these dead Christmas trees all over my property, and it's a it's a hazard. But um um so what we do is working with the Division of Forestry, we want to maintain that ecological function. We want other things in there. So, we we've worked with forestry to to come up with a way, and we were here a couple of years ago um with a letter of support from Rick Horton and the forest industries to um to ask for some money to to um manage differently in those areas where there's balsom fur. You know, there was a question of is are you trying to remove balsom fur from the landscape? We're not, but we're trying to get it um that that dead control those outbreaks a little more and replace it with some surrogate species that would have the same ecosystem function. So if we plant other conifers in the understory and the new thing we're doing is planting um conifers in the overstory at the same time that to grow into the overstory uh to make healthier conifer forests that are less um less susceptible to fire over time. So we like it. I was skeptical at first, but after we've done it for a couple years, I I think it's I think it's a great idea and that's how we handle that particular pest um based on the ecology that I know about it. So, um jumping quickly to the next one, emerald ashbor, excuse me. Um this is an exotic um uh introduced from Asia. Um, it as the name implies, it it bores into ash. And as many of us know, all of us know, we have a ton of ash in Minnesota. It it's um ash it's it's place where it where it outco competes others is in very wet forest. And Minnesota with 10,000 lakes, we also have 100,000 ponds and wetlands in the forest. So there's no place wetter and I think I've heard there's no place that has more green ash than than northern Minnesota. So it's kind of devastating that we have a pest um with such a high mortality rate in in Minnesota now. So the thing that's a little bit different for this one to me when you look at the ecology um those trees that grow in the wetest places really we call it pump a lot of water. the hydraology, the action where they can move water has the effect of keeping the water table lower and keeping the rest of the forest lower. So, if my if my hunting spot is near um you know a wet area, wetland, a beaver pond or something, there's a lot of ash there, you can you can bet that that that water table is lower. They just pump gallons of water. So that's a hydraologic function when we talk about the ecology of that part of the forest that we really want to maintain. We you know people are working on looking at ash resistance to the bore you know whatever they can do to do that but in the meantime um we want to maintain those functions. there is a threat in areas. You know, you end up with more cattails than you do forest if the water table gets higher and higher if you don't have ash or some other tree to to um uh help with that transpiration. It's lifting water and it's, you know, it's it's normal day-to-day life and it and it's moving it into the atmosphere. That can make a a huge difference. And so that's an ecological function of a species that's being diminished because of an invasive pest. Um, when you look at the economics, Reamer, Minnesota, if you know where that is, not too many people do. It's not far where I live from Cohassid, but as Ron and others know, we've talked in the past, that that's where I grew up. That's where I became a a grouse hunter. It's it's kind of um southeast of Grand Rapids. And um wouldn't you know the first place that Emerald Ashbbor came from the West Daryl knows where where Longville is and Mug Goose is. The first place they discovered it after it jumped the border was near Reamer. And so I was talking to the timber industry people one day and I said, "I don't want to know where it is, but where is it?" And it was right it was within 50 yards of the place I shot my first grouse. And you go, "Oh, great." But it if it's going to be somewhere, it might as well be there because now you can watch how it works. see what happens and and how it gets mitigated. But the other thing with that, two other things. Savannah Pallet, and I misspelled Savannah here. I just noticed. Um um they have a pallet mill in Reamer. It's probably the biggest Reamer is a very small town, a couple hundred people, but if you drive through there, there's a big um pallet mill there. They're related to Savannah Pallet in um uh I think it's McGregor. um they they make pallets out of out of ash. And so when you talk about disease outbreaks and you talk about those threats that affects that local business right away to how can is that going to preempt them from being able to move their products or are we going to have to have quarantine rules and department of egg has been handling that. But the other um significance of that spot in that area is that's right on the south end of the Chipoa National Forest and and ash use in cultural activities, basket weaving and things for um uh our tribal neighbors um is a is a great thing. And you talk about moving things around. If there's emerald ashbor on the south end, um naturally it only moves 6/10 of a mile a year. I've heard if it's just the the bugs moving to to spread it. So slowing the spread is one thing we want to do. But you know, if you put it in trucks, it could be on the other end of the chip in excuse me, in um black duck, you know, within a matter of minutes. So we try to control things. We try to limit things. So, we still want to harvest those, make that product available for that company and the others that use ash, but be as careful with it as if we can um as we're doing things. So, the mitigating solutions there. Uh we work with the division of forestry and there's a lot of people doing research. You know, you've heard in the news lately the North Central Experiment Station. Um uh they do they do a lot of great research right out of Grand Rapids and Marcel on a lot of things for the Forest Service. But they do research on what the best species are to replace the ash to maintain that that hydraology that that function to to keep that water pumping out of the wetest parts of the forest. So more of the forest is um is upland instead of lowland. And um I wasn't a big fan of it in the past, but I have been now. They're looking at different species. Several of the tribes are are doing research projects on the same thing where they're looking at the best species to plant in those wet areas that'll still have those functions. And I heard someone mention swamp white oak or something in one of the things this morning. You know, that idea of bringing species from somewhere else seems sort of non-native, non, you know, it's a little bit be careful what you do, you'll bring in another invasive or something. But we do that. And Chris Grwald in Florida, he's kind of got a thing. Anybody who's going to touch an ash stand, they want them to contact him first so we do it the right way and we get a planting program set up so we can replace jumpstart as quickly as possible something to to um get on the landscape. And so I like that project too and that's um that's one we've um asked for money in the past and we'll continue to do so. Quickly um common buckthornne um everybody's heard about that. We've talked about it from these seats a year or two ago. Uh it's spreading relentlessly. It's an invasive. Um you know, it's more prevalent in the south than in the north, but I used to work in the dead a few years ago and it was there even 10 years ago. So, it's around it. Typically, you know, it was used as a as an ornamental shrub in yards and things. So, somebody in Bedet liked it, brought it to town, and then it spreads out into our state land wise from there. So, it's a big problem and um it it grows rapidly. It establishes in the ground layer, in the shrub layer. And the the thing that I want people here to understand is and I know most of you do, but we we've talked about it before. um in in like central Minnesota where it's well established if you have a pretty thick shrub layer and then you want to harvest those trees when you take the top off it's just boom game over you know that you get the sunlight in you reduce the competition it becomes a buckthorn forest and that is a challenge to get rid of and so um one of the things we've asked for you need buckthornne's never going to go away but if you hit it hard for a few years you can you can knock it back so you get a a few years of of breathing room. But if you you need to treat it before you remove the timber because it it's too late after that. So we we talked about that here. If you if you pay a contractor to go in and do a do a treatment, knock it back, then when you take the timber off, you can you can help those trees, if it's aspen, regenerate or plant whatever you're going to before the buckthornne takes over again. And so it's really multiple treatments, but it but it's key to do it before you you harvest. And so we we work with the people at the university on the best science and the best treatments there and um across partnerships within our divisions. Um so that's cut service herbicide. It's pretty straightforward, but it's very tedious and it's expensive when you look at the price of aspen versus the the price of treating that. you know, last time I was looking at a couple years ago, it's5 or $6,000 an acre to do the treatment. And it's um it's very time consuming. And so my my last thing on Buckthornne here when we talked about it, we you know, was why can't if a logger's there working anyhow and they're going to cut those trees, why can't they do the do the treatment? It's it it it's kind of a completely different thing. One, there's rules with timber harvest. You know, most of the loggers um working with their expensive equipment, they want to keep the equipment moving and do that work and they're not really set up um it it takes away from their logging work to do the treatment. That doing the treatment could take significantly longer than keeping their machines moving from stand to stand um cutting the timber. And so they can certainly bid on contracts, but um uh that's their option, but then they'd be giving up some of their time doing other things. And there are rules with the state as far as how you do permitting with timber sales and and uh it's my understanding you can't add in that kind you can add some things in. You know what? The balsom fur, we've we've added some of those into sales where they say while you're here, even though you don't want the balsom fur, we're asking you to kind of do a site preparation by harvesting it, moving it, and burning it or something like that. And then that's worked into the bid price. But in general, we do that when we can, but loggers are less excited about that than just working on the logging. But that's the biggest thing. It's a it's a whole another job that takes as much work and and different skills than than the logging does to remove the treatment. So, we'll we'll look at more of that, but but that's why that's why we're here asking for money to do it because it's separate from timber work by by design. Um, every other species in the forest lately, there's some things some challenges that could be maintained or enhanced, but those are the three big invasives. the pests, one native, two non-natives that I wanted to mention. But when you when you look down the list when when we do our grants, there are things with oak management that we that we can do differently. Cedar, you know, regeneration of white cedar is another big big challenge, a species that has a ton of wildlife benefits. and then aspen tamarak has its own invasive larch beetle and then birch pine and butternut. So they all they all have things we can do. So with our grants um pests and ecology affect forest management as much as anything and we appreciate your time and attention and willingness to fund some of what we do there because there's millions of acres that need attention and the the problem isn't going away. But >> we are having an impact with with the grants we've been doing and the work we've been doing. So, um I don't know how long I went there, Tom. I I'm happy to answer questions, but I wanted to put in a plug at the end here. Uh field tours, our group, we haven't been on a lot of the field tours. And I think I saw Jason um um sending around a thing and Pat was mentioning a a tour in the southeast. I I you know, if you go to Whitewater and talk to Christine um and the foresters down there, they're spending money from the grant that that you provide to us. So, we can do that. But there's also statewide other things that we'd be happy to talk about anywhere we go. And I'll just um Joey Joe said when I came that if I didn't bring walleye way points, he wasn't going to let me speak. But I already spoke, so I didn't get them. So, um fishing's been good. We should all get out of here right now and get back to winning because it's if I can catch them, it's a really good day. So, everybody should be out there. So, thank you very much for the time. I appreciate it. >> Any questions, Darl? >> Ted, do you have a request in to us now for this funding cycle? >> We do. It's just going through. Um Jason and our DNR team have just been reviewing uh the last couple days and I think ours is uh uh $4.51 million for this year. We're still working on at least four existing grants. They're on schedule. They're they're um getting spent down on time. So that's that's good. But we like coming back for another one. >> And and >> money we don't have and >> we're going to have an opportunity for him to talk to us about that. >> This wasn't a plug for money. This was an education process. >> Fair enough. I just figured I'd find out if he had something coming in. I wanted to know where he was going to do logging or my my hands are gross. >> That's out of order. >> Suzanne. >> Yeah. Um uh I appreciate the importance of invasive species control and the impacts that that these invasives um can have on on forest health or on in in any habitat health and how important that is. I'm just curious, you know, for the spruce budworm and the uh emerald ashbor, you know, the solution seemed to be, well, we're going to remove the target species that's being affected and replace it with something else um that is not being targeted. Is there any consideration for trying to control the pest spec species itself or not? or is that or is that sort of outside of the realm? >> That's a very good question. And um one of one of the things I didn't mention, you know, they talk about um insect and disease and things that happened out there sometimes they have some benefits for things too. And spruce budworm, from what I know, I like to think I'm a bird biologist more than, like I said, I'm not a forester. I'm not an entomologist. But um people will tell you that when you have a spruce budworm outbreak, it it affects the the um breeding bird surveys of some of those charismatic, you know, like the the great winter birds like the uh gross beaks, you know, the evening gross beaks. And and I've even read, you know, people talk about does the does the predator affect the prey sort of thing. And I've I've read scientific things I can't give you the citation right now that that say that um bird impacts on an outbreak like that. One, the breeding bird surveys go up 500% for those charismatic winter species when there's active worms, if you will, in the area. And um so it would be an interesting thing to see. We're always looking for the best available, least toxic sort of solution to all of these things. But but right now with the with the fire danger and the giant increase in these that it seems like um we can all agree that the that the best thing would be get something that's growing there that's going to be less of a fire hazard and still be able to supply some of those some of those things. But yeah, I intentionally said before there'll always be spruce budworm around and there'll always be balsom fur around because they're integral to the landscape and that's one of them. Be birds eat those worms and they love them and that >> so there's a balance. I mean, isn't there going to be a correlation as you remove the, you know, the the the fur from the understory? There may be a decline in the amount of spruce budworm around because their food sources being eliminated. >> If it has to be a certain age or certain size, they're going to go down too. But um there's a ton of ballome fur up north and there'll always be some that's succumbing to the bug and you know barring some >> even even if you're doing a a spring or or whatever else. But um yeah, there's always trade-offs to consider, but but right now it seems like everybody agrees >> that there are other conifers that can still give you those um iconic forests with the understory and the green underneath in the winter time where the grass like to hide and the deer like to hide that >> we're we're always looking for new ideas, but your question is good. Doing what we can. >> Okay, thank you. >> Any other questions? I have one. >> Sure. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Ted, I'm just curious if the balsom or the spruce budworm is native as you said. >> Yeah. >> Which means the worm and balsom fur have been coexisting for teen years. Um, so so why suddenly is that worm a problem listed in one of the three top problems you have? because it seemed like they coexisted for a long time. Now suddenly we're concerned about the balsam fur. I don't get it. >> I think I think um Mr. Council, Mr. Sherah, um just speculating. I'm not an entomologist, but I think it's that reduction in winter kill that you get with some other insect insect species. I think if the winter is not as cold as it used to be, if you don't get that 40 or 50 below that their survival over time, they start at a higher baseline the next year. And so, um, just like emerald ashbor and some other, it's clear that if you don't get, um, that that real cold that they come back stronger and spread wider the next year. And so, yeah, that's why it's good that you brought that up. I I wanted to mention it's a native. You know, a lot of times people assume if there's a bug we say is worse than it was in the past that it came from somewhere else. But this one didn't and it had those ecological relationships and it's got benefits for some birds. But maybe even beyond that, if there's more of a fire hazard now with with some of the drought we've had lately, that's that's another thing to get something that isn't going to isn't going to be a ladder fuel. Just quick one quick followup >> and one more thing and that is um a number of years ago you promised to take me to one of your grouse hotspots and >> that's out of order too. >> Oh, I was I was going to vote no anytime as >> it's never it's never wise to criticize the council but I think I was standing at that spot when you called me and said sorry I can't make it. I got a better offer. >> Darl, did you have >> I know I know where that spot's at. So we can talk after. >> Yeah, Darl knows them all. Go with Daryl. >> So do you think Ted that the change in the dynamics of our timber industry? I mean the harvesting that we're doing is a lot different today both from species and age when they cut um from what I see has an impact on that. I see head nodding from another forester over here. Um so I I think that's part of it. I mean we we've changed. We don't, you know, we don't that there's no value. And Ted, please jump in because you're the expert. >> I'm not jumping in it. Yeah. Um, Mr. Council member, it's that I I said in there, change is in inevitable, unavoidable, and it's constantly occurring. And right now, that's what I do in in most of my job is we're right now working on the next 10-year plan for how much timber off of those 2.75 million acres of manage pool. And and things have changed since the last time we did the plan. And you're trying to anticipate change changes in the future. And those changes are not only in the ecosystem and the things we just talked about, but but in the the demand for those things. You know, Blandon in my town. Love Blandon. Love that they're there. Love that they're harvesting. I've got Blandon land 15 feet from my house that you don't know about. That's got great great hunting right there. But um >> I got on. >> They they make they make finecoated papers and um and you know, we're do what you can. There there's extreme changes in demand. We're trying to supply whatever we can, but do it in a way that that makes sense. And um it's it's a challenge right now. I don't envy the commissioner trying to make those decisions. We all go there every day saying, "Oh, it needs to be this much for this reason." And then somebody else said this much and it's it's not simple. >> Good enough. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. >> Uh we're at the end of our agenda. I have had no requests for public comment. Um, so you look like you have a question or >> I'm not a member of the Well, I'm a public member of the council. >> Thinking a little bit about the upcoming process of uh scoring and developing our proposal for next year. I'm not sure if anyone else on the council would agree with me on this or not, but I was frustrated going through the score the reading and ranking and scoring process last year with the number of times I had questions and I just didn't feel I number one didn't have time to call 60 people and I was wondering if we could build into our process some sort of an early question where, you know, by such and such a date, if we have questions, we could submit them and they could be sent out collectively to the applicants, you know, all the questions to the Minnesota Land Trust and that we could get answers back before we do our final scoring. I I don't know. I'm sure I could design such a system, but I don't know if anybody else would see any value in that. Um I don't want to say no >> but don't >> okay the you know we have two and a half weeks to do the scoring which um history would say some people don't get their scoring done until right before the deadline. Um, so the question is, could anyone get through all of their proposals in the first week to then get that back? I I I would say, and I've said this year after year, um, one of the most important things you can do while you're going through the scoring is to to put questions into your scoreeet. um because those get seen by the presenters and typically they answer them, not always. And so we would see that uh we could certainly ask for that to come back uh before we have our July meeting. uh because there is a 10-day period between when the the uh initial scoring comes in and and uh we meet to say who is going to present to us is there a cuto off which would give us at least an opportunity to to include that in the discussion about do we want to even hear the proposal but I don't know that we have built into our system enough time for sort of read the proposals and then get a response and then do a final scoring. We could certainly we would have to change our our system currently, but truly ask lots of questions and that's the best way to to get it. I I I keep saying it, but it really is helpful uh to do that. >> Yeah. I I think I uh I know I learned a lot after we did after I did my scoring and I kind of saw other people and uh I will tell the applicants there's going to be a lot more questions in my comments this year than previously and while I've uh have the microphone and I said this when I gave feedback to the staff uh to the applicants I find it really frustrating when the opening question is tell us what you're going to do and we get 12 paragraphs of why what they're going to do is the most important thing on earth and I appreciated the educational value of being told why it was important but I'd really like to see tell us what you're going to do because that's what the question asks for >> so >> that's >> I'd keep that feedback coming. Um, it is important to recognize that the initial scoring is really an opportunity for us to calibrate whether or not we see things the same and collectively how we see it and and it gets us to a point of the discussion. Is this worthy of of additional time? and and you know, we we could choose to not hear everything, which we haven't done as much in the past, and and those questions might get you there. But I I think it would be great to get the answers to the questions that we write down before we have our July meeting to see um if there's something there that sparks our concern or interest. >> Can we just work on that? Okay. >> When when is the expected date when the documentation will come out to us? Uh, Mr. Chair and members, probably um right at our meeting in June or a little after. >> That's the goal. >> Is is there any opportunity to get it to us even peace meal sooner or do you have to wait until it's 100% done to start feeding this documentation? I I think it would be preferred to get it all out at the same time. Just I think that would there might be some confusion. >> What What is the holdup from getting it tomorrow? Just to explain. >> Oh, sorry. Yeah, Mr. Chair and members. So all of them have been submitted now and then staff will go through and make sure you know they're complete and they make sense and if there's like any major issues that those get fixed and then um they get you know put into a format for you guys to uh review. But we do like an initial review to make sure that there's so we're not you guys aren't spending your time catching things that are should have been caught before it went to you. So >> yeah, and I guess when I was thinking peacemail, I wasn't thinking, you know, send us it as they're coming in. I meant when you had finished your review, you know, they're all not done the same day. So from my perspective, started to try to fit it into my schedule because last year I found myself on Lake Capama with a 8 in thick binder for a week of vacation, thinking this is a joyful week of vacation. >> So I'm just trying to avoid that again this year. >> We'll as soon as they're ready, we'll get them out. Yeah, we don't have to wait for the meeting if it happens before. >> Okay, >> because we're struggling. >> And Mr. Chair and members, if I could just add one administrative point, I'll send out an email to confirm, but if anybody knows that they would prefer a physical binder over digital copies, you can let me know in person or by email. >> Yeah, the sooner the better because that will >> binder. >> I'll take I'll take mine in in printed version as well. >> All right. Let Tom know. >> Yeah. >> Anything else? I I didn't mean to diss your idea because I think it's a good idea. >> Okay, good. >> I would have spoke up if I thought you had >> Okay, good. >> Anything else, >> Mr. Chair? >> Yep. Um for our um tour down in Winona for the boat, we need to sign uh liability waiverss. So, I have some copies here. So, for the folks that are going to be riding the boat, um I have waiverss that you can sign right here and that would help us with >> even if they're not sure. Yeah. >> Sign it. >> Okay. Yeah. So, >> just pass around the stat. >> Don't leave before you sign. >> Okay. >> The details. >> So, I hope to see everyone in Winona. >> That's all. Meeting is adjourned.