Chairman Jim Deamud called the meeting to order at 7 pm in the conference room at the Denton Township Hall.  Roll Call: Present were members Deamud, Geiger, Wetherwax, Van Duser, Sandow, Cole and Pastula. Alternates present were Randall, Boik and Pacella. It was noted that alternate Don House was hospitalized and unable to attend.  The Board wished him a speedy recovery.

Jim Deamud remarked that we have two meetings scheduled for this month.  This meeting to hear from Mr. Tom Rozich, DNR Fisheries and on April 23, on our regular meeting night to hear from Dr. Kurt Getsinger of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

It was moved by Van Duser and seconded that the minutes of the previous meeting distributed by email be approved. Motion carried. 

Secretary Pastula read the report submitted by Board Treasurer, Carolyn Pietchak.

Check Book Beginning Balance as of 2/13/02 = $1,902.52.  Monthly payment to Progressive Engineering on contract agreement of $1,500; Bankov Printing   $89.90 for printing insert in Merchants Gazette and Postage costs of $79.03 for a total expense for the period of $1,668.93, leaving a balance of $ 233.59 as of 4/08/02.

Money Market Account beginning balance as of 2/13/02 was $465,804.46.  Assessment revenue received from the Townships $374,765.23, interest income $ 2,742.48, leaving an ending balance of $ 843,311.87 as of 4/08/02 .

It was noted that assessment revenue received from Denton = $337,865, Lake = $260,500, Markey = 171,200 and Roscommon = $144,400.  It was also noted that the State of Michigan , DNR had refused to contribute to the lake clean up and had rejected the assessment levied against State property. Per his request, assessment documentation is being forwarded to Representative David Mead for follow up.

The current short fall in revenue which was projected at approximately one million is due principally to the “normal” non payment of taxes and assessments or about 10% of the levied amount.  The County Treasurer will forward to the HLIB an amount equal to those unpaid assessments and then collect from those currently in arrears.  Denton Township and HLIB books are being audited by Keskine et al, CPA’s during the month of April and the Board will be assessed a portion of those annual audit costs.

It was moved by Cole and seconded that the treasurer’s report be approved as read.

Pastula reported that representatives of SePRO were here to collect additional data on the conditions of the canals.  Based on the weather reports, he assured them the ice would be out of the canals.  Unfortunately the expected weekend warm up didn’t happen as forecasted and they were unable to complete their data collection.  They will have to return.

The Board republished a report by the Michigan Environmental Science Board (MESB) in the Houghton Lake Merchants Gazette regarding milfoil.  The report can be found on the county web site at www.roscommoncounty.net/milfoil

Deamud reported that five property owners had appealed to the Michigan Tax Tribunal and those protests have been proceeding through the process and are currently scheduled for a hearing in Small Claims Division to be held at the Ogemaw Courthouse on July 22, 2002

Tony Groves reviewed the bid process and his firm’s involvement in coordination and follow up of the permit application. He indicated that assurances have be given by DEQ that we will be informed of the decision on the permit by April 23^rd, our next meeting date.  He presented to the Board the Warranty document he received from SePRO that indicates that if the die off of Eurasian Water Milfoil is less than 80%, the firm would redo the treatment.  SEPRO WILL RETREAT THE LAKE TO THE 80% WARRANTY CONTROL LEVEL AT NO ADDITIONAL COST.

Carl Geiger reported that he has had discussions with MSU and some Extension Agents regarding their possible assistance in modifying and or expanding our Mission Statement.  The focus of the HLIB has been very narrow – on remediation of the water milfoil problem. Now that the activity is now well underway, he suggested that it may be time to expand our focus.  He suggested a Strategic Planning Session coordinated by any one of the following: Howard Wandell, MSU Fisheries, or Jim Wiesing, Grand Traverse Extension Agent, or Phil Alexander, MSU Extension Grayling

These experts have all indicated a willingness to work with the Board to review our Mission Statement and help us focus on future activities.  Our current mission statement had for Long Term Goals

1.                   Create a comprehensive water management plan that will establish a continuing monitoring program of the Eurasian Water Milfoil in the lake and identify methods for its control and or removal.

II.          Monitor the activity in the watershed and in the lake as it impacts on the quality of the lake.

III.         Establish a continuing education program for all residents on the impact of household and garden chemicals on the lake.

IV.        Reintroduction of native plants into the lake…

Are these still areas we want to focus on?  Are there others that should be added and how do we go about it.  What should the Boards relationship be with the various water shed councils, lake and stream and other organizations?   Tony Groves supported the prospect of a strategic planning session and indicated that many of the Lake Boards that he works with have strong relationships with water shed councils and other related organizations.  It was suggested that the Board meet in a work session with the assistance of one of the identified facilitators, possibly two weeks after our next meeting or about May 7^th.   Pastula and Geiger will make the necessary arrangements. 

Deamud proposed as a format that we hear from Mr. Tom Rozich  and then open the meeting up to questions and comments from the floor and then to move into a discussion between Board members and Mr. Rozich.  Mr Thomas Rozich is the Central Lake Michigan Fisheries Management Unit Supervisor for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Following are Mr. Rozich’s opening remarks:

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) is responsible for managing the fisheries and wildlife resources of the state and the protection of the public trusts in these resources.  Aquatic vegetation is a critical habitat component of aquatic systems required by fish and wildlife, and the diversity and abundance of aquatic plants directly affects fisheries and wildlife values.  The Michigan Legislature determined that “it is the goal of this state to encourage the lasting conservation of biological diversity” (Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Code, P. A. 451, 1994, Part 355).  It is imperative that maximum biological diversity in plant life be conserved to provide healthy communities in our aquatic ecosystems.  Alterations and reductions in indigenous aquatic vegetation will alter communities and reduce the productivity of lakes.

Conservation of biological diversity and ecosystem health requires management and proper planning of all alterations and activities that affect an ecosystem.  This concept follows the MDNR’s goal of holistic ecosystem management and Fisheries Division’s watershed management approach to aquatic ecosystem management.  Human development along lakeshores continues to increase and alterations to lake habitat are also increasing.  Changes and reductions in aquatic, shoreline, and wetland habitats in and around lakes are affected by building construction, lawn development and maintenance, nutrient inputs, seawall construction, dredging and filling of lakes and wetlands, beach sanding, dock construction, marina construction, and removal of native shoreline and aquatic vegetation. Widespread, repeated removal of substantial amounts of aquatic vegetation in Michigan is a direct result of aquatic herbicide applications.

Fisheries Division also recognizes the needs of lakeshore property owners of reasonable use and access to the water.  We also recognize the varied recreational uses of our lakes for swimming, boating, sunbathing, relaxation, scuba diving, sightseeing, fishing, and other nature oriented activities.  Our goal is to provide optimum recreational use of public trust resources for the citizens of the state.  We recommend allowing cumulative (permanent and short-term) alteration of not more than 25% of individual habitats (shoreline, wetland, aquatic) in a lake system.  This level allows reasonable use and access by property owners, and provides balanced use by varied recreational users with natural resource needs.  We recognize that many lakes already are altered beyond this level and need restoration.  Suitable knowledge and planning of individual lake habitats and human alterations is necessary for good management programs.

Houghton Lake exhibits many of the problems associated with human development listed above.  Some of the more important ones include the establishment of unnaturally high water levels (lake-level control), associated seawall construction around most of the lake, and wetland filling.  This has resulted in almost a complete loss of the extensive wild rice beds, most shoreline emergent aquatic vegetation beds, and most natural shoreline slopes and vegetation around the largest inland lake in Michigan .  We recommend a Lake Assessment and Management Plan be developed following the guidelines outlined for MDNR River Assessments and Management Plans.  These plans generally assess all physical, biological, and social issues within the watershed.  They also require public input with full disclosure of all issues, and development of management options and recommendations.

The Michigan Environmental Science Board evaluated the potential use of Fluridone in Michigan (Evaluation of the use of Sonar in Michigan, 1999).  The board made specific recommendations for the use of Fluridone including requirements of Lake Management Plans. 

“However, prior to any action that seeks to “manage” natural lake resources, it is important that there exists a thorough understanding of the natural resources to be managed and of the goals, options, and effects of the management.  Currently, the MDEQ requires that a Lake Vegetation Plan be prepared as part of the permit application process.  However, only a minimum of information is requested.  In order to more fully understand the dynamics of the interrelated natural ecological processes that operate within a lake and, therefore, the potential impacts that may take place due to manipulation of these processes, the Panel suggests that a greater level of information is needed.

There are several ways to achieve this greater level of detail.  The most common is through the development of a lake plan.  A lake plan establishes baseline information about the lake, assesses the problems of the lake, considers management options, sets timelines, and outlines a strategy for evaluating management alternatives and monitoring selected management efforts.  In addition, it also can gain information about stakeholders (property owners, lake planners, weed harvesters, environmental engineering services, and state regulators) goals.  In the process of creating a plan, lake-property owners become more aware of the unique characteristics or their lake and how their activities can impact the lake."

MDEQ recently organized a stakeholders group to review and make recommendations for changes in Administrative Rules on Control of Nuisance Organisms in Lakes.  The stakeholders group followed the recommendations of the Michigan Environmental Science Board for the use of Fluridone and requirements of Management Plans for Michigan Lakes .  Following is a list of recommended Management Plan requirements:

a) A lake management plan shall be required if a whole lake treatment is proposed.

b) a lake management plan may be required based on the type of proposed chemical treatment (for example, evaluation treatments) or on the significance of proposed impacts on natural resources (for example, treatments where threatened or endangered species or habitats are present, treatment of a water body where removal of a large portion of native aquatic vegetation is proposed), or on the extent of bottomlands owned by public institutions.

c) A lake management plan shall include at a minimum:

1) physical characteristics of the water body: location; lake size; maximum depth; mean depth; size of littoral zone; shoreline length; retention time; location map, bathymetric map including tributaries, outlets, public/private access sites, public land, critical fish spawning areas, wetlands, special habitats, parks, and water control structures.

2) A description of the water quality, including data for water quality indicators such as, dissolved oxygen, temperature, total alkalinity, and transparency (secchi disk).

3) Biological characteristics of the water body: aquatic vegetation map(s) and data analysis; total higher aquatic plant surface coverage; and a description of the fish, wildlife, and plant communities, including identification of any special concern, threatened or endangered species.

4) Land use activities including a description of the land use, and a land use map.

5) History of water body management.

6) Documentation of opportunities for involvement in plan development by stakeholders and agencies responsible for managing public trust resources, including a description of all input obtained.

7) vegetation management plan that includes a description of the aquatic nuisance problem, management goals, management goal maps, management options, proposed actions necessary to attain the management goals, management timeline, and monitoring and evaluation processes.

Additionally, the Houghton Lake plan must specifically address reestablishment of the wild rice beds on the Middle Grounds and potential impacts to the Muskegon River and Reedsburg Impoundment.

Here is a brief summary of Michigan DEQ SONAR treatments.  This does not include the Corps of Engineers Studies that used presence-absence to determine affects of SONAR.

Stakeholders attempted to design studies to determine if Sonar should be used in Michigan and at what application rate.  The studies proposed by the MDNR were never funded.  Reduced studies were allowed by the MDEQ basically attempting treatments at various concentration rates, and using qualitative and semi-quantitative data on plants and fish to evaluate effects.  These studies were summarized in the 1997 MDEQ report titled “ Michigan ’s Experience with the Herbicide Sonar, 1987-1996”.  Overall ecosystem effects were not evaluated.  The studies did not provide quantitative data on chemical concentrations of fluridone or the amounts of aquatic vegetation remaining after treatments.  Some index values on bluegill were obtained by Fisheries Division.  Information was not gathered on reptiles, amphibians, waterfowl, or other wildlife.  There were many uncontrolled factors in these studies that made data interpretation and conclusions very difficult. A significant problem was that concentrations of the chemical were calculated rather than measured.  Also, most lakes had additional chemical treatments other than Sonar during the study; many had previous Sonar treatments; many had treatment concentrations diluted by water flow through the lake; some were harvested with mechanical equipment; some did not have fluridone-sensitive native plants; and others had inadequate pre- and post- treatment plant data.  Some environmental response patterns were obvious from treatments.

Estimated concentrations of 10 ppb:

·         Most lakes sustained losses of 30%-100% of rooted plant cover.

·          Lack of other plants allowed colonization by the aggressive non-indigenous curly-leaf pondweed and native thin leaf pondweed.

Estimated concentrations of 8 ppb:

·          Reduced or removed Eurasian milfoil and curly-leaf pondweed during the treatment year.

·          The year following treatment, Eurasian milfoil returned in minor amounts or not at all.

·          Effects on native plants were variable and unpredictable.  Most lakes had large reductions in species and cover, while others were affected less.  Lakes not previously treated with Sonar lost an average of six native plant types after treatment.

Estimated concentrations of 5 ppb:

·          Eurasian milfoil was reduced or arrested but not removed (milfoil increased in one lake).

·          Curly-leaf pondweed was controlled the year of treatment only.

·          Four plant groups were highly sensitive to Sonar and most did not return after treatment, even at the 5 ppb level (Elodea, coontail, native milfoils, and naiads).

·          Lakes lost one to two species the year of treatment, and zero to five species the following year.

Comments on all concentrations:

·          Results were highly variable.

·          Following treatments, continued control of Eurasian milfoil was neglected (using 2,4-D).  Within two to three years Eurasian milfoil was again a problem.

·          The typical response to extensive vegetation removal is colonization by aggressive species such as curly-leaf pondweed and thin leaf pondweed.

·          Native plants that sometimes increased the year of treatment included wild celery, sago pondweed, flat stem pondweed, buttercup, and water star grass.  Native plants most consistently removed included coontail, Elodea, naiads, water marigold, Robinson’s pondweed, variable pondweed, and the native milfoils.  Responses of most pondweeds were variable.

Mr. Rozich also stated his concerns regarding the public hearing aspect of the permit application.  He questioned if these requirement had been meet.

He also expressed his concern regarding wild rice and the possible impact that a fluridone treatment might have on that plant and the current lake levels.  He claimed that the lake has been held a foot or more above the legal limit.  He stated that DNR is prepared to request assistance from the Attorney General to assure that the proper level is maintained.

He stated that there are four native species of plants that are extremely sensitive to fluridone. They are coontail, native milfoil, naiad and Elodea.  He stated that elodea has declined dramatically in lakes where fluridone has been used

He asked that we delay treatment, get more data, experiment with other methods and stated that he feels it is unwise to experiment on Michigan ’s largest lake.  He also stated that the amount of Eurasian Water Milfoil declined in 2001 vs 2000.  He also stated that the weevil has been highly successful in two of the three test plots and that its takes a long time to work, anywhere from 4 to 6 years.   He suggests that we use 2-4-D and more weevils are the preferred method that should be used.

Questions and answers

IF a lake board does not exist, 100% approval is required by riparian rights owners prior to treatment of a lake.  However, if a Lake Board exists (Houghton Lake Improvement Board) then there must be a public meeting at which the treatment is discussed and approved.  (Note: approved at the Sept 2001 Public Meeting held at the High School)  Jim Deamud stated that the HLIB is organized under a specific State statute (PA 451 of 1994) and that it has met all the public hearing requirements required by the law. 

Carl Geiger stated that the statement regarding lake levels being a foot over the legal limit is incorrect and ask that Tom Rozich check his source of information.  Geiger is responsible for maintaining the lake level and claimed that he has the historical records to refute the “over a foot” claim.

Geiger also asked if DNR will clean up the area around their launch sites.  All other lake front property owners are forced to do clean up.   Rozich responded that DNR does not do any weed control in any lake and did not respond directly to the launch site clean up issue.

Geiger also stated that Minnesota and Wisconsin do take an active roll in weed control and felt that we should be getting help from the Michigan DNR.  He also stated that Wild Rice was killed by a disease.  Roy Spangler, retired MSU Extension Agent agreed with Geiger and claimed that the report used by Tom Rozich was incomplete because it was an edited version.  Spangler then asked the reporter from the Houghton Lake Resorter what happens when the owner edits his reports.  The response was “ he usually screws it up”. 

Rozich again counseled that we should go slowly because of what he viewed as a lot a risk. The question was raised as to whether signage would be helpful at the launch sites advising boaters to clean their boats and trailers, both before launch and after recovery.  He suggested that the issue should be addressed in our plan.  Additionally, he stated that the milfoil had not negatively impacted the fish population to this point in time and that other states have learned to live with milfoil.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tony Groves of Progressive AE, consultant to the HLIB, stated that much of  the data sited by DNR has been superceded by more current information.  He also stated that the Michigan Environmental Science Board (MESB) has approved the 6 bump 6 protocol because current data indicates that it does not significantly impact species other than Eurasian Water Milfoil.  Groves stated that the MESB recognized that at concentrations at or above 8 ppb, non target aquatic plants were affected and therefore settled on the 6 bump 6 protocol.   He stated that in the over 36 lakes treated in the past two years, there has been an initial   impact on the Sonar / Fluridone sensitive plants but that they have always recovered.  GROVES NOTED THAT BIOLOGIST FROM HIS OFFICE HAVE OBSERVED OVER 30 LOW DOSE  FLURIDONE TREATMENTS AND IMPACTS TO NON -TARGET PLANTS HAVE NOT BEEN A  PROBLEM.

Groves stated that the Board’s concern for caution is evident in the requirements and specifications for this project.  The Board is requiring its contractor SePRO to perform functions well beyond those required by DEQ.  These additional requirements are costing this community additional funds to assure everything works properly.

Groves stated that virtually every item that DNR suggested should be in a management plan is in the current Houghton Lake plan even though it is not required by DEQ.  He stated that he had authored over 40 lake plans, has read many others and has never seen a more extensive plan than that authored by Dr. Craig Smith and ReMetrix for the Houghton Lake Improvement Board.  The detailed vegetation survey using over 900 sites is an enormous amount of work to detail lake status.  This same survey is to be conducted after the proposed treatment of the lake.  He stated there is a plan and it has been well thought out.

Groves stated that the Board has begun to look at other issues like relationships with the watershed assembly and what other activities should be undertaken.  The milfoil is so dense that it is our judgment that weevils will not work.  By substantially reducing the amount of milfoil and then introducing weevils we may be able to sustain a long term control strategy.  Hopefully, in the future the biological control will keep the milfoil in check. 

He also stated that we have an additional opportunity with the US Army Corps involvement.  SePRO and Progressive AE will be working in the lake in 2002.  The Corps may also be working in the lake, testing and surveying and setting the stage for the introduction of a biological agent to control the milfoil.

Groves stated that with the sewers around the lake and the lack of intensive farming in the area, watershed issues are not critical.  He felt they should be reviewed and that the Board was moving in that direction.

The proposed treatment of the lake with fluridone followed by the introduction of weevils selected by the Board has been endorsed by the principal firm supplying weevils.  They recognized that the 12,000 acres of Eurasian Water Milfoil is more that they could handle in the near term.  It is believed that the introduction of weevils into a reduced milfoil infestation should be able to control its spread and keep it from over whelming native aquatic plants.

Tom Rozich, DNR Fishery stated that he was unaware of any data that indicated a reduction in fish population because of an infestation of Eurasian water milfoil. 

Jim Deamud stated that a report reviewing the conclusion of a DEQ study on the effects of Fluridone on non target plants was done by the Mich Environmental Science Board and they agreed that the product does not have any direct negative impact on fish or wildlife populations, or pose any human health concerns when used according to the product and its permitted use by MDEQ.  The two page report can be viewed on the Board’s web site at   ../../milfoil.htm

Tom Rozich stated that the type of wild rice currently in the lake is not the endangered species type.  There are some endangered species in the area but they are all non aquatic.

Jim Deamud responding to a question from the audience stated that the Army Corps report will be published and presented by a Corps representative at our next regularly scheduled meeting on April 23rd.  He stated that it was his understanding that the Corps would not be recommending a method, but rather indicating the types of treatment that could be effective.  They will say that chemical, biological and or mechanical could be used.  The Board in its review of treatment options has discarded the mechanical option because of the quantity of milfoil in the lake and the logistics of removing 12,000 of acres of the plant.  Additionally, the harvesting of the plant causes all aquatic plants to be removed, both the good and the milfoil.  The milfoil is faster growing than the native plants and is the first to return and overwhelms the native plants, much like the dandelions in your lawn after its cut. 

When the Corps does issue the report, it will be placed in the Houghton Lake Library for review by members of the community.  It is the Boards feelings that the plan committed too is consistent with Army Corps comments.

Tom Rozich noted that the DEQ has the regulatory authority to issue permits for the use of fluridone. The DNR only makes suggestions and recommendations to DEQ, which he has already done in this case.

Jim Deamud stated that the Board and the DNR are not adversaries.  We are with the DNR and the DEQ, attempting to resolve everybody’s concerns on how best to manage the lake.  He stated that there is little we can do regarding sea walls, or transient boats use of launch sites.  The Board has no authority in those areas.    We have had some preliminary discussions with the Corps regarding wild rice attempting to determine if they can assist in determining why it is no longer in the lake and how it can be returned. 

Tom Rozich indicated that he would review the lake level data and check back with Geiger.

Chairman Jim Deamud thanked our guest Tom Rozich for his presentation and the audience for their attention and participation.   With no further business to come before the Board he asked for a motion to a