Advisory Council Meeting Minutes
October 22, 2008 – 10:00 a.m.
Rangeley Region Guides and Sportsmen Clubhouse
Skyway Road, Oquossoc
Roland D. Martin, Commissioner
Andrea Erskine, Assistant to the Commissioner
Mark Stadler, Wildlife Division Director
John Boland, Director of Fisheries Operations
Regis Tremblay, Director of Information and Education
Lieutenant Adam Gormely, Warden Service
Warden Steve Allarie, Whitewater Boating Specialist
Becky Orff, Secretary and Recorder
Joe Clark, Chair
Mike Witte, Vice-Chair
Bos Savage, prior Advisory Council member
John Forbes, State Director of USDA Wildlife Service
Silvia Bosse, Norway/Paris Fish & Game
Fern Bosse, Norway/Paris Fish & Game
Lori Weaver, Maine Bowhunters
Mac Dudley, Rangeley Region Guides and Sportsmen
Gary Corson, New Sharon
I. Call to Order
Mr. Clark, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.
Introductions were made.
III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting
Motion made by Mr. Witte and seconded by Mr. Kieffer to accept the minutes of the previous Council meeting as written.
Vote: Unanimous - minutes accepted as written.
1. St. John River Ice Fishing
Mr. Boland stated this proposal came about after we learned that New Brunswick had instituted some regulations on a section of the St. John River that had been in effect for about 10 years. We worked with New Brunswick to coordinate between the two agencies and come up with a set of regulations. We adopted our general New Brunswick/United States border water regulations for that section identified in the petition. Comments heard at the hearing and others were positive.
Mrs. Erskine stated we had received a petition so we acted on that and held a public hearing. The petition wasn’t specific as to what they were asking for for regulations so once we formulated the regulations it had to go back through the rulemaking process.
Commissioner Martin stated this initiative was found on page 14 of the fisheries rules packet.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Kieffer stated he attended the public hearing and it was well attended. He had sort of opposed limiting it to the area from VanBuren down but after reviewing it with Dave Basley he understood the position and agreed it was a good place to start. He supported the proposal as it was being presented.
A motion was made by Mr. Usher and that was seconded by Mr. Goodwin to accept the proposal as presented.
Vote: unanimous - proposal accepted as presented.
Commissioner Martin discussed the process for the rest of the fisheries rules packet. Normally when they voted on an initiative, the Council would vote up or down. Commissioner Martin stated he would make an exception with regards to some of the initiatives. What was presented at Step 2 had been modified somewhat.
2. Fisheries Rules
Mr. Boland stated the rest of the packet was made up of some rulemaking proposals aimed at paving the way toward a 2-year lawbook and a combined open water and ice fishing lawbook. We had divided the state into a northern and southern zone; 11 ½ counties under one umbrella regulation for year round fishing. In the wintertime under this proposal, if there was open water, they would be allowed to fish there with a fly rod in the middle of winter as long there was some open water. These would not take effect until April 1, 2010. Another item was the aggregate bag limit. In the past, anglers were allowed 5 salmonids. We didn’t really manage by aggregate bag, we managed water by water, species by species. The proposal would eliminate the aggregate bag limit. He thought that would mean you could keep 11 salmonids under general law. All the counties would be lumped under one heading, unlike the current book. 11 counties and ½ of Oxford would be under one heading and the remaining part of the state where wild brook trout predominate would be under another heading. He didn’t think it would be confusing; Oxford county had 100’s of special regulations and we saw an opportunity to get rid of a lot of them by dividing that county in half by the Androscoggin River. So we included with all the southern counties, Oxford county south of the Androscoggin River; with the northern counties, north of the river.
Mr. Boland stated as part of the packet there was another petition, a sun setting clause on Madawaska Lake, and there was also a petition on the Magalloway River. That petition had generated some interest as it was a premier trout water. We had, up until 2 or 3 years ago, a section of the river that was open to kids only built around a campground and as part of the book consolidation process also streamlined kids fishing waters. We established specific regulations that we identified with a special S-code. The Magalloway was one that didn’t fit in and the kids fishing was removed. There were some in Western Maine that were upset by that and petitioned the Department to reestablish that kid’s fishing section. This was not really a biological issue from the Department’s standpoint. However, based on public comments received at the public hearings, e-mails and letters, we decided to pull the petition from the packet of proposals.
Commissioner Martin stated most of the initiatives would not go into effect until April 1, 2010, however, that excluded the Long Lake, Cross Lake, Square Lake and Eagle Lake ice fishing. For the northern areas, including Aroostook that open to ice fishing for all fish from the time ice forms, that was true in some cases but for Long Lake, Cross Lake, Square Lake, Eagle Lake it was January 1.
Commissioner Martin stated on page 20 there was an initiative regarding the Magalloway River. We had held 2 public hearings and there was some opposition to the proposal. Ordinarily when the Department informed the Council that something had been pulled and was not before them, it was not something that could be debated. However, with respect to Mr. Bosse who had initiated the petition and were in attendance at the Council meeting, he would allow discussion on the subject matter. The Council agreed to further discussion; this was a social issue, not a biological one.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Philbrick stated 85% of the comments he had received were against the change to allow the kids to fish that section of the Magalloway. The Rangeley Region Guides and Sportsmen were adamantly opposed because they did not want to see the trout population jeopardized by worming and misuse handling, etc. From a personal standpoint he wanted to see every kid opportunity in Maine made available to kids. He felt that Mr. Bosse’s petition warranted discussion.
Mr. Goodwin asked if the area in question was well marked so local kids would know they could fish from the bridge up ¼ mile.
Mr. Philbrick stated the bridge was prominent and from that point north…the way the bankings were on the river there were few places to spin cast. There were maybe 6 spots.
Mr. Usher stated he had been over to the area a few times. We were moving around the state promoting kids programs and he did not want to put a barrier in front of a kids program.
Mr. Witte stated he would like to hear a summary of the opposition.
Chris Thompson stated he lived and guided in the area. The Magalloway was one of the finest brook trout rivers in the Rangeley area and possibly the state and it didn’t seem like the right place for the regulation. He discussed telemetry studies and fish movement. Rangeley had a long fly fishing tradition and didn’t feel this was the right spot.
Mr. Thurston asked if the fish were getting damaged in that section by the kids. What was the impact?
Chris Thompson stated the whole river was fly fishing only. The fish that were migrating through during the year, why were we even taking the chance that something would happen.
Gary Corson stated the current regulations on the river were FFO and S-8. The Department’s studies showed that hooking with worms could cause 43% hooking mortality vs. 2 and 3% with flies. Our studies showed that the fish used the entire river. He felt the river was the only one with the S-8 regulation in the state.
Mr. Thurston stated we needed to protect the resource and encourage people to come here to hunt and fish. Kids could learn the same rules that the adults did.
Mr. Kieffer stated in the past he had been very supportive of promoting kids fishing. A portion of the Aroostook River provided opportunity for kids to fish and that section had the largest and most brook trout of any part of the river. He was in favor of protecting the resource and yet the kids issue was very trying. He had not heard anyone complain about the small amount of fishing that kids did there.
Mr. Witte asked how much fishing pressure was there (that section of the Magalloway). The camp was limited to 60 or so days of activity at the most?
Mr. Philbrick stated the campground was occupied at full capacity not during spawning time. The high volume of trout passing by the campground was not necessarily during the peak time that the campground was occupied.
Mr. Clark asked how many trout fishing opportunities were there for kids in the region.
Mr. Philbrick stated maybe one or two.
Mr. Bosse stated in the report the Department did on the section of the Magalloway on the movement of the fish in the fall and spring, most of the movement was done early in the spring and late in the fall. The stretch of water was not what most would consider prime trout habitat. The Department’s report also mentioned that there was nobody seen fishing that stretch of water when the report was done. It was not seeing a lot of fishing pressure. He had heard a lot about the issue of teaching kids to fly fish, but the cost of equipment was an issue.
Mr. Kieffer stated the proposal did not limit it to fishing from shore, could someone troll from a canoe?
Mr. Philbrick stated that stretch of river was wide enough for a canoe and he felt it was a problem.
Lt. Gormely stated he was not familiar with that stretch of the river but anytime there was increased opportunity the abuse was inherited with that increased opportunity.
Commissioner Martin stated the options to consider were that he could decide not to move forward with the initiative, they could table it and see if there was room for compromise, or take an up or down vote on the issue.
Mr. Boland stated the section of river had been open for several years already. We did a couple of surveys when it was open and it was lightly used. It was not a biological issue and would not impact the management of the river.
Mr. Goodwin stated he would like to table page 20 until the next meeting.
Mrs. Erskine stated the deadline for comments that was established for the regulations was October 20. The Commissioner had 120 days from that point to adopt and then it had to be signed by the Attorney General’s office 30 days after that.
Mr. Witte stated he concurred with Mr. Goodwin.
Mr. Poulin stated he was in favor of youth fishing and that it was a good idea. He agreed with the tabling but also wanted to inject that there was limited fishing in the area for youth and that should be included in the discussion about where other possibilities were.
Mr. Kieffer stated if this were limited to fishing from shore in the specific area he could support it but if we were going to allow trolling out there he felt it would be an enforcement nightmare.
A motion was made by Mr. Goodwin and seconded by Mr. Philbrick to table the Magalloway River proposal on page 20 or the packet until the December meeting.
Vote: Unanimous - Mafalloway River proposal was tabled until the December meeting.
A motion was made by Mr. Goodwin and seconded by Mr. Witte to accept the fisheries rules proposal with the exception of pages 14 and 20 as presented.
Vote: 8 in favor; 1 opposed - fisheries rule proposal accepted with the exception of pages 14 and 20.
3. 2009 Spring Turkey Season
Mr. Stadler stated that based on public comments that the Department received, the proposal would keep the closure time for the turkey season at noon. The proposal would eliminate the A, B season with the closure at 12:00 p.m.
A motion was made by Mr. Poulin and seconded by Mr. Witte to accept the proposal as presented.
Vote: Unanimous - proposal accepted as presented.
1. Piping Plover/Least Tern Essential Habitat Designation Criteria
Commissioner Martin stated this item was still at Step 2 because at the previous meeting in Ashland they should have spent more time discussing the matter. He asked them to look at their responsibility as to whether or not they wanted to protect a species as opposed to whether or not they favored ESA or opposed it.
Mr. Stadler stated they needed to draw a distinction between the State and Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). What was up for discussion fell under the Maine ESA. IF&W and all state agencies had to abide by the bounds of Maine State Law. The people of Maine, through Legislators, set the laws and then state agencies were bound to adhere to the laws as promulgated by the State Legislature. Back in the early 70’s the Legislature and the people of Maine passed the Maine ESA. Mr. Stadler read the declaration of purpose for the Maine ESA. The ESA had a number of opportunities for the Legislature and public to have continued involvement in the process. The first of those was through the listing process. The proposal was for the piping plover which was a state endangered species and before the piping plover could be put on the endangered species list there was a lengthy process that occurred to review the relevant biological information about that species before making a determination.
Mr. Stadler stated the Department used a systemized process of evaluating all species for consideration of listing as either threatened or endangered. The Legislature kept the authority for the designation and listing of threatened and endangered species in Maine. The Commissioner recommends to the Legislature the list of threatened and endangered species. The Legislature can either approve the entire list or they disapprove the entire list. The species that are put on the list are fully discussed in a public forum by the legislative process.
Mr. Stadler stated if loss of habitat was a problem in the recovery of a threatened or endangered species, the Department had the authority to designate that habitat which was essential to the recovery of that species as essential habitat. The rulemaking proposal was to designate several additional essential habitats for the recovery of piping plovers in Maine. There was also further opportunity for public input into the process when the Department designated essential habitat. Before the Department could designate an area as essential habitat, they had to undertake a rulemaking process. Prior to that, for the piping plover habitats, the Department conducted a series of public informational meetings in the effected areas and invited landowners to come to the meetings and discuss the data, maps and what essential habitat meant. A formal public hearing was also held in the area. A gentleman from the Biddeford area had attended the Advisory Council meeting in Ashland and spoke about the proposal.
Mr. Stadler discussed essential habitat as it related to piping plovers. When we designated the areas for piping plovers we drew the boundaries so that no one’s home was effected by it. The line stopped where the sand beach ended. The white sand beach in southern Maine was the habitat the piping plover used to nest and it was the protection of that habitat and the 2-month nesting period that was important for recovery. Piping plovers generally return to sand beaches in the early part of the spring. The bird is colored to blend in with the white sand beaches, as are the eggs, and the nests are little scrapes in the sand. The birds whole defense is its camouflage. At that time of the year any activities on the beach such as beach cleaning or construction projects or dredging or sand deposition, etc. could kill the birds because they’re not easily seen. The Department monitors the white sand beaches in Maine and we have a contract with the Maine Audubon Society who provided assistance. When the birds begin setting up nesting habitat, with landowner permission, we put up a series of stakes and twine to delineate the nest. Eggs hatch in about 1 month and once the eggs hatch its about another month for the plovers to be able to fly.
Mr. Stadler stated piping plovers in Maine were endangered. Of all Maine’s endangered species they were probably most at risk. Essential habitat was one way to ensure the protection of these species. Essential habitat basically said that if a person wanted to undertake a project within an essential habitat, and if that project required a permit from the town or the state or if the project was funded and carried out by the town or the state, before the town or the state could issue a permit for the project the project had to be reviewed by the Commissioner of IF&W to ensure that it was compatible for the recovery of the piping plover. Mr. Stadler then discussed essential habitat as it applied to bald eagles. Piping plover and least tern essential habitats worked the same way. Generally the activity could occur, but it needed to occur after the nesting season had taken place and the young were fledged and off the beach.
Mr. Stadler stated that a unanimous vote by the Council on the proposal was the appropriate thing to do because IF&W was being faithful to its legislative responsibility. The proposal had been fully discussed through public discourse both through the legislative process and the rulemaking process and that the areas designated met the criteria and because of that was an appropriate course of action for the Council to give a unanimous vote to the proposal.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Usher asked if the Hills Beach area was affected in any way by the activity at Camp Ellis.
Mr. Stadler stated he was not sure. If in a designated essential habitat during the spring surveys there were no piping plovers on the beach projects would not be turned down. There was a great deal of flexibility but that was dictated by if there was a bird there or not.
Mr. Witte stated after reading through the comments, he thought essential habitat seemed to be the key area of concern. Half of the contradictory comments were from out of state people who could not attend any of the meetings and enter in the discussion on what essential habitat was. He was reading that there was a lack of information on the out of state property owners that they didn’t have a full understanding on how essential habitat affected their property.
Mr. Stadler stated all property owners in the proposed areas as part of our rulemaking process were mailed information.
Mr. Philbrick stated that Mr. Archibald when giving testimony suggested we were down to 22 pairs was that correct? Aside from protecting the habitat area, was there anything ongoing to increase other areas for the birds to nest? Were we doing anything other than just protection of essential habitat?
Mr. Stadler stated that on occasion along the white sand beaches of southern Maine there were projects called beach nourishment projects where harbors and gettys were silted up by the normal movement of sand. Many times, to reclaim those areas, the sand was removed and redistributed back onto the beaches. In that process we had been working with some of the municipalities in the permitting to try and establish additional breeding habitat for the birds.
Mr. Kieffer stated in addition he believed the designation of endangered species to an animal or bird or setting aside essential habitat should be absolutely the course of last resort. He was not sure from the information he received that there had been enough effort on both parties to get together and work to see if this could be resolved. Were we creating a situation that put neighbor against neighbor?
Mr. Stadler stated the Department realized that designation was a last resort. We did not invoke it lightly. There were only 4 or 5 species in all of Maine’s wildlife where we had invoked essential habitat. In the absence of maintaining this habitat the species was at risk of becoming extinct. Cooperation was a great thing and the Department went a long way in doing that. The thing we needed to be aware of if we did this with the folks in Hills Beach then every time, everywhere we tried to designate essential habitat that would have to be the first recourse. Cooperative agreements meant a written agreement of understanding so that all the parties to the cooperative agreement understood what their roles and responsibilities were. To do that at Hills Beach would be very difficult because the Department would have to enter into multiple cooperative agreements with all the various landowners. It would be a complication that would almost render it useless.
Mr. Kieffer asked what we do about individual property owners if we couldn’t work on their land without their permission. Would we have the beach divided up between landowners that wanted essential habitat and those that didn’t? Apparently the state did not have the authority to enter the land and do what needed to be done if we did call it essential habitat.
Mr. Stadler explained again what essential habitat did. It only affected landowners if they were doing a project that required a permit from the state or the town.
Mr. Savage stated that he worked at Maine Audubon but was speaking as a private citizen. He knew how much effort had gone into the project and wanted to point out that there was already essential habitat designated for piping plovers. Had that made it difficult or had anyone been denied a permit since piping plover habitat had been established? This was an addition to a set of already existing plover habitats. It was important to realize this was a mandate by the Legislature to carry out a portion of the endangered species act by designating habitat. When he looked at the way bald eagle essential habitat had worked and the way piping plover essential habitat had already worked, he thought there were a few people who weren’t wanting to have something additional attached onto a permit, but he thought it was critical that the Council vote in favor of it.
Mr. Witte asked how effective the project had been up to this point.
Mr. Stadler stated the population back in 1983 was 7 pairs. In 2002 we were up to 66, in 2005 it dropped to 49 and in 2006 had dropped to 40 and we were now down in the 20’s. There were a number of confounding factors that compromised our ability to recover the species. Bad coastal storms had really set them back; increased urbanization of Maine’s coastal sand beaches; increase of skunks, raccoons and crows, etc.
Mr. Witte asked if we kept spending money and time on the piping plover would we ever get to a point like we have with the bald eagle and declassify them or would this be a life long project?
Mr. Stadler stated he anticipated that if the Department and the people of Maine wanted piping plovers to remain here and did not want the species to become extinct in Maine, then we would probably have to expend some effort every year to maintain them.
Mr. Usher stated he concurred with former member Bos Savage. He felt one of the biggest predators for the piping plover was dogs.
Mr. Stadler stated that the essential habitat designation did not address dogs on the beach.
Mr. Goodwin asked where the birds were coming from when they arrived here in April.
Mr. Stadler stated they came from further down the Atlantic coast. They over wintered towards the south.
Commissioner Martin stated this issue would be back before the Council for a vote at the December meeting.
2. 2009 Moose Season
Mr. Stadler stated the moose harvest data for the 2008 season was not available. Registration books were still being collected. There was still another month of moose hunting for the southern districts. The 2009 moose season was a mirror image of 2008.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Kieffer stated he was disappointed in the management of moose in terms of helping out the farmers in his area. He had explained the health issues to the Council last year. There had been a meeting held in August 2008 with interested parties and he thought they would have something going for the 2009 moose season.
Commissioner Martin stated they had discussed the topic in Ashland after the Council meeting and briefed him that the Department was putting something together. It would be a separate item from the 2009 moose season, a special provision.
Mr. Kieffer stated he had expected a report on that at the current meeting.
Mr. Stadler stated there would be an item at Step 1 in December.
Mr. Goodwin stated at the December meeting he would like the hunt kill numbers for 2008, then they could make some adjustments to the WMDs. They needed the WMD kill and total kill and the warden farm approved kill per WMD (broccoli, potatoes). They also needed to know where the road kill was by WMD. All the information they had to have in December so that they could work with the Commissioner to fill the slots for 2009. He couldn’t vote on any hunt in 2009 until they had all the data.
Commissioner Martin stated that was a good point and the data could be provided. However, they were not being asked to vote on the issue at that time.
3. Clearwater Lake Petition - Smelts
Mrs. Erskine stated she had received a valid petition from Earl Hardy asking that we open Clearwater Lake to spring dipping of smelts. There were 160+ signatures on the petition. He had been working for quite awhile to gather the signatures. A public hearing had been scheduled for November 13th in Farmington.
- Step 1
1. Whitewater Rafting Rules
Warden Allarie discussed the handouts in the packet. The proposal was to address the Penobscot River, the 7 allocated days through the course of the summer, July and August. The reason was the decline in commercial activity on the rivers in past years. They were not meeting their objectives which were 560 commercial passengers. With that would be the recommendation that we deallocate the 7 Penobscot Sundays.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Clark stated this was a major change since the law was allocated back in 1983.
Warden Allarie stated that was correct, when they were doing well. Due to the recent decline the outfitters were not coming close to reaching their 560.
Mr. Clark asked if weather had anything to do with the calculations.
Warden Allarie stated weather had nothing to do with the calculations, neither did economic times. Fuel was an issue. The West Branch had always been an issue due to travel time. We only record typically about 14,600 passengers a year on the West Branch compared to 47,000 on the Kennebec.
Mr. Clark asked Mr. Allarie to include him on any correspondence with the outfitters.
V. Other Business
1. Controlled Deer Hunt in Marsh Island in the City of Old Town
Commissioner Martin stated about a year ago, there was a proposal before the Council that would have created a limited bowhunting season on a significant portion of Marsh Island that included the City of Old Town, the Town of Orono and some UMO land. We couldn’t get any formal letters of support from one of the municipalities; a public hearing was held and several informational meetings and there was significant opposition from UMO and the students. We decided not to move forward with the proposal. He instructed wildlife staff to continue meeting with Orono, UMO and the City of Old Town with the intent of creating an opportunity there where we considered it a safety issue, especially in the City of Old Town. Staff came to Commissioner Martin indicating that the City of Old Town was prepared and ready to move forward with a limited hunt.
Commissioner Martin stated that he then read in the paper that there had been a Town Council vote where they had approved two locations where Old Town was in favor. We didn’t pursue Orono because we weren’t concerned about that location at the time. The newspaper article was not complete because they indicated that because of the Council vote that there would be a season in 2008. What they did not include was that it had to be approved by the Department and would have to be approved by emergency rulemaking. Letters of support had been gathered from the City of Old Town and from UMO. Commissioner Martin conducted a teleconference with the Council Chair and Vice-Chair and discussed the possibilities. If they did not go the emergency rulemaking route, the hunt would not take place in 2008. Commissioner Martin had asked Mrs. Erskine to confer with Mark Randlett, Assistant Attorney General and his response was positive.
Mrs Erskine stated in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) there was a provision in an emergency situation so that we could enact a rule. The proposal would go past Steps 1 and 2 with the Council and go right to adoption. It could only remain in effect for 90 days and then if we intended to keep it on the books, it would have to go back through the regular rulemaking process. The criterion was that it was necessary to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of the state. In the basis statement there was concern about the airport. There was a high incidence of deer there so that along with the car/deer collisions and lyme disease in that area convinced Mr. Randlett that it was ok to move forward if the Council agreed.
Commissioner Martin stated that if the Council wanted a limited deer hunt, bow and arrow only on Marsh Island, specifically in the City of Old Town they would have to agree that day to wave the Step 1 and 2 provisions. Mrs. Erskine stated the rule would sunset after 90 days which fit in with the season being open the first two weeks in December. This would be a one year pilot period and if successful would come back to the Council.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Philbrick asked if when it came back to the Council, would it go through Steps 1, 2 and 3.
Commissioner Martin answered yes.
Mr. Philbrick asked if there would be public hearings included if there were issues.
Commissioner Martin stated that because of the uniqueness of this another public hearing would probably be held in Old Town. It would be Old Town’s call. If they determined that there had been issues after the one year pilot period it would be their call as to whether or not it was before the Council again.
Mrs. Erskine stated she wanted to clarify that when the proposal was before the Council previously, we were proposing to include Marsh Island in our expanded archery season. This proposal was very different and was modeled after Drakes Island and Wells Sanctuary where we had done something very similar. The Commissioner had the authority to regulate on state owned WMA’s and sanctuaries. This proposal was not part of the expanded archery it would be a permit only hunt where the regional biologists would probably issue the permits to qualified people.
Commissioner Martin stated it was his understanding that those bowhunters would have to have consent and had to confer with the city officials in Old Town.
Mac Dudley discussed the Bowhunter Landowner Information Program (BLIP). Those people were a highly ethical advanced group of bowhunters. They had training above and beyond other programs. There was certain criteria those hunters had to meet and be approved and then they were also monitored by the Bowhunters Association Board members and IF&W.
Mr. Clark went over the items in the packet regarding the controlled deer hunt. There had been an effort to pass some sort of special hunt in the area for over 14 years.
Mr. Stadler stated there would be designated stands and hunters would be assigned to a stand so they would not be roaming over the parcel of land.
A motion was made by Mr. Kieffer and seconded by Mr. Witte to move forward with the emergency rule.
Vote: Unanimous - emergency rule to move forward.
2. ADC presentation
This item was tabled.
Motion made by Mr. Witte and seconded by Mr. Thurston to table the agenda item.
Vote: Unanimous - item tabled.
VI. Councilor Reports
Councilors gave reports.
VII. Public Comments & Questions
There were no public comments or questions.
VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting
The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, December 4, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. at the IF&W Headquarters at 284 State Street, Augusta.
Mr. Kieffer motioned to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Goodwin seconded that. The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m.