Deep Creek Lake Policy and Review Board
DCL Policy and Review Board Minutes
July 2009

Regular Quarterly Meeting
Monday, July 13, 2009 at 6:00 p.m.
Deep Creek Lake Discovery Center

In Attendance: John Forman (JF), Barry Weinberg (BW), Scott Johnson (SJ), Bob Browning (BB), Jamie Coyle (JC), Delegate Wendell Beitzel (WB), Lou Battistella (LB), and Jay Kaminek (JK) representing George Edwards.

DNR Representatives: MD Park Service, Carolyn Mathews - Deep Creek Lake Manager; Chris Anderson, Western Regional State Park Manager

Absent: Steve Green, Commissioner Ernie Gregg, Senator George Edwards

15 members of the public in attendance

Chairman John Forman called the meeting to order at 6:05 pm. It was noted a quorum was present. The minutes from the April 27, 2009 meeting were approved, and will be posted on the DNR DCLSP website. www.dnr.state.md.us/publiclands/western/deepcreeklake.html

The County roads department has been doing some roadside spraying in recent weeks. It is noted by a Board member that spray had been applied sometime recently along the banks of the storm water ponds in McHenry. This activity is not condoned by DNR as we don’t want to knock the plant growth back – it plays a role in the filtration process, the purpose of the ponds. Carolyn will talk to the County roads office and ask them to stop spraying herbicide anywhere near the lake shore or storm water pond banks.

Old Business:
Mathews announced that the work to prepare the proposed changes to the DCL regulations has been completed and the package is now being circulated through DNR for a number of required signatures. These proposed regulations if adopted, would affect the number of power boats permitted to be docked overnight at permit sites. If the signatures are obtained soon, the public comment period may be during August and into September with adoption by mid November. Mathews will advise the Board members when the package is moved out of DNR into the next stage of the review process and when they reach publication in the Maryland Register. The public comment period will be publicized and the Lake Management office will create a separate mailing to all permit holders explaining the proposal and advising them of methods to use to provide comment.

Mathews led a discussion and answered questions about the 2009 budget (expenditures and revenue) report that was provided earlier to the Board members. The State is in quite a budget situation as is the national economy. There will be staff reductions across the State this year, no specific news at this time. There are not expected to be any staff reductions at Deep Creek Lake and although budget numbers are not available yet, the amount is expected to be the same as what we have worked with for the last two years. The water quality testing going on this summer will continue and is fully funded. We continue to have the stream gauges operational at Cherry Creek and Poland Run – both of these are monitored and maintained by USGS and the results are always available online at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/md/nwis/dv?cb_00060=on&format=gif_default&begin_date=2008-10-19&end_date=2009-10-19&site_no=03075800&referred_module=sw . The water quality work group will digest the data collected from the various sources and put together recommendations for management decisions towards improving the water quality issues of the lake.

New Business:
Mr. Conrad Stephanitis, Mr. Charles Hennett and Mr. Frank Neff, condo owners and residents of Glendale Shores, addressed the Board about safety issues and concerns they have at the commercial dock site (Bill’s Marine) in front of their condominiums (northwest side of the Glendale bridge). Their presentation included descriptions of boats traveling at high speeds very near the end of the docks causing large wakes and wild rocking of the docks while people are standing on them. The large wakes also cause a great deal of damage to the docks which are repaired annually at significant cost. The constant boat traffic is a threat to swimmers using the lakefront from their association. At one time there were buoys in front of this permit site. They have asked the Lake Management office to put buoys back in front of the docks in order to push the boaters further out into the lake- away from the docks. The Lake Manager told them last year that the buoys were not put in at that location because they are not specifically there by regulation – the 100 feet from the shoreline regulation is enforced by NRP officers everywhere around the lake. They are angry that the buoys are not placed in front of that commercial permit site and they feel the lack of buoys presents a very dangerous situation. They asked the Board to intervene on their behalf for some relief. Board members listened and asked some questions. Mathews explained to them again that several years ago the volume of requests for what was known as “courtesy” buoys, reached such a level that NRP and Lake Management agreed that they were “clogging” the lake with them. The NRP officers felt that stricter enforcement of the boating regulation that requires boaters to maintain 100’ from the shoreline was appropriate. The navigational buoys that are placed in the lake have regulations to support their placement or mark extreme hazards such as Stump Point and the approach to the bridges. The Board sympathized with the representatives and asked Mathews to speak again with the NRP to see if there is a way to put buoys back in front of Glendale Shores

Mr. Ken Fisher representing the Lakewood Resorts Council of Owners then echoed the concerns expressed by the Glendale Shores owners. The Lakewood Resort permit site is located on the northeast side of the Rt. 219 Bridge where boating traffic cuts the corner after passing under the bridge to head north into the McHenry Cove. Their HOA spent a considerable amount of money last year on installation of shoreline erosion control – rip rap, and are seeking a way to get relief from the churning wave action caused by heavy boating activity that occurs at that area. Mr. Fisher feels that there should be speed limits on the lake and that the number of boats out on the lake should be reduced. He recommends the Board call a special meeting to discuss the matter with facts and figures.

There was a motion to continue the meeting beyond the 8:00 hour – 2nd and unanimously approved.

DCL Manager, Carolyn Mathews then shared with the Board members comments she made and discussion topics at a recent gathering of the group Friends of Deep Creek Lake. Topics discussed were about the past and present water quality studies, the funding sources for these studies, some ideas about what is ahead and the efforts of DNR to communicate water quality issues and concerns to the populations that use public waters for recreation. Ms.Barbara Beelar, lake property owner and one of the leaders of the group explained the groups concerns about the loss of recreational use of waters due to declining water quality caused by what is perceived as excessive growths of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), discolored water, unidentified growths on sticks and docks and surface algae that appeared in the late summer of last season. They are concerned about swimming risks due to the plants and algae. They feel the SAV present a danger to water skiers and many cannot boat where they want to due to shallow water conditions. In response to the question Mathews put to the group of “what do they expect to see at this lake?” the response was the same full recreational use of the lake as others have. They pointed out that the southern end of the lake is more prone to SAV growth than other areas of the lake due to its more shallow nature. They were told that SAV’s are good for water quality and important for the existence of a healthy lake and provide habitat for aquatic forms of life – all vital for a healthy lake. The group feels that they cannot make maximum recreational use of the lake because of the shallow coves and the SAV growth in them, particularly late in the season.

Several members of the Friends of Deep Creek Lake then made comments to the Board about additional water quality matters of concern. They don’t feel there is need for any more research. Sampling has been done, data will be available and action must be taken immediately. Ms. Beelar stated that property owners who pay full taxes want a tax break because the recreational access is not what is promised and is declining rapidly. They may be willing to pay higher permit fees if the money were to be directed towards reversing the water quality decline. As a general summary expressed by the audience members, there is a problem with the lake and an increasing number of people are concerned as taxpayers about this complex problem.

Jamie Coyle commented that harvesting SAV’s is not a cheap activity. He is familiar with harvesting activity in other lakes where he often goes fishing. He has observed that SAV’s do cycle over time – some come sooner and stay longer through the season and there are sediment issues associated with SAV growth. There could be jobs here for “green” industries as a part of the solution.

The Friends of Deep Creek believe that one of the sources for the overload of nutrients in the lake comes in via the tributaries. They feel there is no enforcement of the nutrient management plans that agricultural lands must have to operate as farms. Wendell Beitzel responded that farmers and farming activities follow many requirements.

The board was asked if they see that there are issues and problems with the water quality of the lake. John Forman (JF) responded that it is good to have watch dogs on management of public areas. It is certainly a concern and the Board supports the studies that have been ongoing for several years. The problems are complex and perplexing. There are land use issues which fall to a great extent with the County responsibility. There are sediment and erosion permits and grading permits issued by the County that could be looked at closer. Someone in the audience observed that the Board has access to others in the County government and to speak strongly to the problem and to please represent property owners about these concerns.

Does the lake have a long term problem? The Friends of Deep Creek Lake do not want a short term “band aid” approach that would mask the problem. Barry Weinberg (BW) commented that the Board should go on record that the State needs to address a serious problem. Bob Browning added that half of the Board members are appointed by the Governor and the other half represent interests of the County and that a lake policy is necessary. BW said that DNR has been conducting water quality studies and the work group that DNR set up last year is gathering the information and will be making a report to the Board. DNR has been reporting to the Board the progress being made with the water quality studies. The DNR will provide recommendations for action on the findings. The best people are working on this problem. The PRB will invest time and consideration into the problem when there is a report and data to review. JF said there is not a short term solution, it will take time and money to turn the problems around and that includes changing the practices of many industries and people.

One point of clarification was made by Ms. Beelar to the Board about the Streamwaders report she provided at the April meeting. She wanted to be sure that the Board understood that the Streamwaders are volunteers who are trained by DNR staff from the Resource Assessment Service to collect insects from tributaries across the State in the spring time. This assessment program has existed for many years and is directed by biologists who then work with the data. The rating and stream assessment index (poor, good, very good) is a DNR index not an index created by the volunteers who participated in the data collection.

Mr. McCarthy of the Coast Guard auxiliary is seeking more volunteers for the unit he has been working to build at this lake. He stated there are 4 cornerstones for support in this type of auxiliary: 1) fellowship with other boaters 2) education in boating safety and public safety 3) a presence on the lake 4) sea partnership which is a bigger organization when more people are involved. To be a member of the CG auxiliary unit there are dues of $28.00 per year and members must pass a security background check. He asked the Board to help promote and support the auxiliary.

The meeting was concluded at 8:43 pm.

Supplemental: The Board wrote and published a “Statement on Water Quality” which was mailed to all permit holders on Deep Creek Lake in early October as well as published in the Republican on October 15th, 2009.

Respectfully submitted: Carolyn Mathews, Manager
Deep Creek Lake NRMA

April 2009

Monday, April 27, 2009 at 6:00 p.m.
Regular Quarterly Meeting
Deep Creek Lake Discovery Center

In Attendance: John Forman (JF), Barry Weinberg (BW), Steve Green (SG), Ed King (EK) for Scott Johnson, Bob Browning (BB), Jamie Coyle (JC), Wendell Beitzel (WB), and George Edwards (GE)

DNR Representatives: MPS Carolyn Mathews - Deep Creek Lake Manager; NRP - Lt. Brad Stafford; Boating services – Bob Lunsford, MDE - Jim Kahl; DNR Planning - John Wilson.

Absent: Ernie Gregg and Scott Johnson.

Attendance from the public – 18 citizens attended the meeting on a very warm, pleasant night.

Chairman John Forman called the meeting to order at 6:04 pm. It was noted a quorum was present. The minutes from the January 12, 2009 meeting were approved, and will be posted on the DNR DCLSP website (www.dnr.state.md.us/publiclands/western/deepcreeklake.html).

The PRB welcomed Jamie Coyle, the Governor’s appointee from the Maryland Bass Federation.

Old Business
Boat Noise – DNR Boating Services Administrator Bob Lunsford reported on the Boat Act Advisory Committee recommendation to the Office of the Secretary that the acceptable decibel level be lowered from 90 to 88. The Committee recommended using the stationary sound method to identify boats needing to be pulled over and decibels assessed. The Secretary will ascertain legislative action to change the maximum allowable decibel level. BW asked if there were any other issues that would affect DCL. BL reported there were none.

Shoreline erosion control applications and fees - Jim Kahl of MD Dept. of the Environment (MDE) explained the legislation that went into effect in July 2008 that implemented a fee schedule for applications and permits issued by MDE. The shoreline erosion control applications from property owners around this lake fall under these permit fees. The State of Maryland owns the lake, shoreline and land immediately around the lake but adjacent property owners may apply (to the Lake Management office and MDE) for permits to install shoreline erosion controls in order to stabilize the shoreline and prevent erosion. MDE regulates activity in streams, shorelines and any lands in the 100 year flood plain. Adjacent property owners feel that if they are paying for shoreline erosion control on State land, their applications and permits from MDE should be exempt from the fees. Mr. Kahl stated that the only application that would be eligible for exemption of the fee would be if the applicant requests shoreline stabilization using vegetative methods. He continued with the explanation that if any kind of equipment is used in construction and materials (stone/rock) are brought in for the project, an application fee of $750.00 is required and an approval fee $750.00 must be paid when the permit is issued. If the application is for work that will be a fieldstone restack with no equipment involved, the application is exempt from the MDE fees. The fee schedule is in line with other states which have been charging fees for SEC permits

Bob Browning stated that fees should not be charged on lakefront shoreline alterations since the State of Maryland owns the shoreline. He asked why the adjacent property owners were paying application and permit fees. CM explained that the Lake Management office is encouraging permit holders to consider vegetated shorelines and the new fee structure of MDE supports and also encourages vegetated shorelines by not charging for review of those applications and for the approved permits. CM distributed a handout showing shoreline erosion control comparisons between hard engineered bulkheads, rip rap, and vegetated alternatives. The handout was an article titled Reston, VA – Softening the Hard Line from the spring ‘09 issue of Lakeline, a magazine publication of the North American Lake Management Society. BB inquired why there is no SEC blanket permit. CM replied that the Corps and MDE evaluated that several years ago and determined that the undisturbed shoreline was a higher percentage than the Army Corps of Engineers would issue a blanket permit to MDE to manage. Such a blanket permit would be problematic for the State. JC stated the shoreline is so varied and one type of SEC would not work for all. Mr. Kahl advised those attending to go on line and check on the exemptions. The question was raised about fees for the combination of hardscape erosion control and vegetative erosion control. JK felt fees would be waived for minimal hardscape used in combination with vegetation for erosion control.

EK recalled having this same discussion some 25 years ago. He stated the erosion is at the water’s edge, and vegetation will not grow at the 2461 level and below. He stated the fees are discouraging owners from constructing rip rap. Kahl stated the fees allow for more MDE reviewers and therefore applications can move more quickly through the process. BB noted the Lake Management Office is cooperating with MDE in this effort, and asked if screws are being tightened. CM stated Buffer Strip Use Permits allow people to make use of the lakefront. We meet with permit holders to discuss their ideas for shoreline erosion control. We recommend 6 ft or more of uncut vegetation with some brush willows or shrubs for the best shoreline stabilization. If the adjacent property owner does not hear options that they prefer and hope to be approved, the property owner walks away from the project. WB asked if DNR is subject to MDE regulations. CM stated DNR is absolutely subject to MDE regulations- example storm water pipes, etc. have to be approved by MDE. The county is also subject to MDE regulations. BB questioned who approves dredging. He was advised to talk with Mr. Kahl. WB stated funds are still available from the State Waterway Improvement Fund. BL stated they provide a 50/50 deal for approved dredging projects. The question was asked if the funds were available to the individual. Kahl reported yes, they are available, if the individual can match the funds.

Mathews gave “Advice from a Lake” ball caps to all board members as thanks for their continued participation and interest in the DCL Policy and Review Board. Copies of the DCL Recreation and Land Use Plan, Policy and Review Board Procedures and Operations were provided to all board members since Mr. Coyle is a new appointee to the Board.

New Business
Lake Management
Water Quality Work Group

John Wilson, Associate Director of the Stewardship Group addressed the group regarding his responsibilities for managing DNR land. He chairs the water quality work group. Members of the work group include DNR Resource Assessment Service, US Geological Service, MD Fisheries Service, representative of MDE in the TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) program, Deep Creek Lake Management Office, Garrett County Soil Conservation Service, Garrett County Natural Resource Planner, a member of the Property Owners Association, a member of the DCL Policy and Review Board and several citizens. They have had a couple of meetings, the last being at the end of January. The group intends to develop a lake water quality monitoring plan and add that plan to the DCL Recreation and Land Use Plan. Water samples will be taken from the lake monthly over the next year for a data base. All research and data will be made available to the public through various websites. Other ongoing and continuous sampling on DCL include fisheries monitoring by DNR Fisheries Service and bacteria studies by Garrett County Health Department. DNR has also nearly completed a shoreline survey using a special camera that plots GPS coordinates with the shoreline photograph. This information will be very useful as the various studies proceed. A water quality baseline will help evaluation over time. Monthly sampling is scheduled for 7 areas in the main body of the lake, 8 cove locations and 2 streams. More streams may be added later. Storm and non-storm samples will be collected and sent to DHMH lab for analysis. The information will be shared with the members of the work group and on-line. Cherry Creek and Poland Run will continue to be monitored for flow conditions.

John Wilson then asked citizen activist Barbara Beelar to report on the Stream Wader activity that she spearheaded earlier in April as part of the state-wide DNR program. Barbara Beelar invited everyone to come out to help or observe the Stream Waders program in action. She stated 80% of the samples collected in past year sampling were poor/very poor coming into the lake. One site was good, but they anticipate it will deteriorate in quality. JC asked how often samples had been taken. It was noted this type of sampling is done every 3 to 4 years. EK stated he had researched IVI index, which measures the viability of invertebrates, and some results pre-dated the lake. The discussion led to the question –Would a numeric value mean more than the present rating of “poor/very poor”? The question will be asked to the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) staff that developed the program.

Barbara Beelar also distributed a three page handout of maps showing sampling sites around the lake. The maps were provided to her by attendance in the Stream Wader volunteer training (MBSS) and showed the data points. BW asked why look at old stats and what do they mean. Barbara stated that in one area there were 20 samples taken within 100 feet. Some of them showed no invertebrates, others were heavily populated with invertebrates. EK asked what is keeping the invertebrates out. John Wilson stated it is the water chemistry and habitat conditions. CM addressed the fact that there were inadequate financial resources available to include a nutrient study on the first go around. It is very expensive but we will build on what we have and add to the research topics as each year passes. This water quality project is long term. JC said a present day overlay of the topography of the lake would be helpful to understand the changes. BW feels too little information is given on the maps. BW asked for a timeline on information availability, and Wilson responded they anticipate making quarterly reports and getting the website available.

CM noted that future changes in management of the lake will be towards improving lake water quality. BB stated he feels the water quality in the lake is good. JW noted USGS did sediment core studies and saw the largest influx of sediment in the logging era of the 60’s and 70’s. BB asked about the sediment core reports, and CM reported it is under final review by USGS scientists. EK questioned if sediment was analyzed, and is it contaminated. CM noted we did not pay for looking at contamination this time, but next time we will. JW stated if dredging in coves is anticipated, we would do a re-coring study.

Carolyn Mathews distributed a handout promoting rainscaping. Rainscaping is landscaping designed to capture storm water runoff before it leaves the immediate vicinity of a house or hardscape. A discussion followed about tax breaks, and the legislature entertaining the idea of a tax break for establishing runoff control.

Other distributions to the board included: Handout-Reporting a Suspected Algae Bloom on Deep Creek Lake and a Handout-Reference Bibliography for the Deep Creek Lake/Watershed

Lake Regulations/Correspondence
CM noted the PWC legislation will be coming to a public comment period soon.

BB questioned the Lake Management Office policy that docks may not be placed on the water of Deep Creek Lake prior to April 1st of any given year. He stated that he thought the long standing policy for placing docks in the water in the spring was - when ice is off the lake, docks may be put in. He then clarified that at some point in time it became when the ice was off and the BSU permit fee is paid for the season. He would like the policy to remain docks may be placed on the lake in the spring as soon as the ice is gone and the annual BSU permit fee has been paid. A discussion followed among those present concerning the safety issues with the possibility of re-icing if docks are placed in the water too early. WB stated DNR can not regulate infinitely. Discretion must be used. CM expressed to the group the reasoning for the letter concerning early dock placement was to elicit the help of the PRB to remind permit holders about the April 1st date in the lake regulations. WB stated no change in the regulation is necessary. It is not necessary to micromanage. CM reiterated the fact that there were many docks in the water and the annual permits had not been paid. A discussion followed suggesting that a press release from the Lake Management Office would announce when the State Park launch ramp is open and also address the dock placement issue. CM stated the Lake Management staff now has the ability to better track details around the lake, thus identifying problems with late payments, and mailing late notices. Karen Myers asked if there was a problem with delinquency. CM stated it has improved over the last 2 to 3 years, but there is a small problem of new owners falling through the cracks.

A member of the public said they heard a report of Lake Management staff reviewing properties around the lake. JW suggested the Lake Management Office provide education to individual owners regarding management for Buffer Strip and Conservation Easement, SEC, storm water management, septics, etc., and perhaps develop incentives to encourage management of problems on private property. CM stated there will be educational information in the local newspaper, and three informative Special Permit classes held this summer with more to come next year. JW stated there is a library of studies available to the public. CM stated we will have rainscape projects at the Discovery Center, a web site, and things for homeowners to do to help with being good stewards of the lake.

General comments by the public
Concern was expressed over the requirement to remove boat houses from the Buffer Strip. CM discussed the fact that the boat house existed by a Nonconforming Permit which expired in 2001. The building was re-sided sometime in recent years without a Special Permit, and Lake Management had not had the opportunity to look at the structure prior to the residing to evaluate it. Part of the annual inspection process includes photographic documentation of all alterations and structures on the buffer strip and the conservation easement properties and follow-up with the buffer strip permit holder to obtain special permits for work that has been done, that would be approved or require removal and repairs if the work would not have been approved.

The annual inspection of up to 15 miles of shoreline is a systematic way for the Lake Management Office to document what alterations have been made to Penelec/State property, review the permit records and have conversations with the permit holders about violations and notations. The Non-Conforming Use Permits have all expired. They were issued when the regulations were going into effect in 1988 and 1989. They were valid for up to 15 years after the date when they were issued. They were issued with the understanding that the permit holder knew that whatever the use was that was permitted, they had up to 15 years to remove or alter to conformity, the non-conforming use. In the past year Lake Management staff has discovered several cases of the non-conforming use still existing. The Lake Management Office is enforcing the limits of the non-conforming use permits and has been working with those residents to reach an understanding of what their use of the permit site must be per the regulations.

The written trail of correspondence (from years gone by) with the permit holder requiring removal of whatever it is (most often roadways or fences) is provided to the permit holder and a date set by which the permit holder is required to remove the encroachment (up to 60 days).

The Lake Management Office views installation of improvements using concrete as a problem as well as lighting which has been added to pathways and at docks without permission. BB stated grandfathering is changing. CM noted that for some older properties having over-sized sheds and patios, the size was noted, DNR said OK, and documented the situation. The policy for structures or improvements that we cannot find a written record of permission, we always ask for anything that the property owner may have in writing that would confirm that permission was sought and granted, otherwise we work with the adjacent property owner to either get the item removed if it doesn’t conform to regulations, or if it is something that would be permitted, have them make an application for the improvement and issue the $70.00 special permit to grant the permission. When permit holders make an application to perform some work on the buffer strip or conservation easement, we discuss with them how to meet the regulation requirements and we now have County construction code requirements to consider with applications. Examples: old lighting along an old path or mounted in trees-with no Special Permit. We require the lighting to be removed. If the permit holder wishes to have working lighting, then they must apply for permission for lighting and install it with materials that meet code. BW stated the policy of permitting things around the lake makes sense. People need to generally understand what Lake Management is doing. CM noted we do get a lot of positive comments with the Notice of Violations we mail to property owners after an inspection has taken place. Property owners need to understand that it is important to maintain a written record of all permission that has been granted for alterations and uses of the buffer strip and conservation easement properties. We are essentially a property management company with a very special responsibility for the health and welfare of a body of water. Many people think we do good work.

Barbara Beelar stated she had submitted petitions asking DNR/Lake Management to immediately develop a plan to regulate aquatic vegetation, sediment, etc. She expressed concerns that 4 coves were becoming seriously impacted by floating pond weed, which entangles watercraft. The pond weed needs removed by mid-July or it’s there over the winter. She wants to focus on help with the floating pond weed problem. JC stated the pond weed comes from an increased nitrogen level and no phosphorous should be used in the area surrounding the lake area. CM stated there are no funds in the Lake Management budget for pond weed removal.

A property owner stated he has had to remove his boat by August 1st for the last 13 years, due to the dramatic changes in the lake. BB said no major changes have occurred. Floating pond weed no different than SAV. 23 years ago, DNR sent letters stating docks may need to be removed by mid-August because of weed growth in the coves. CM stated the Lake Management Office defines eligibility for docks for permits based on a useable water depth of four feet. JF asked if this is a dredging issue. CM stated it is not. JC asked about a study on the number of SAV species. CM said Frostburg University has done a survey in recent years. The Lake Management Office can make available the species list provided by that professor.

A discussion followed about unwanted species migrating into DCL from boats and trailers. CM informed the board that other lakes across the nation have instituted a boat and trailer washing requirement that may have to be looked at for this lake as many boaters come to here from other bodies of water that have populations of invasive species.

CM informed the Board that she has no information from the Governor’s Appointment Office concerning the open seat.

The next meeting date was set for Monday, July 13, 2009 at 6p.m. at the Discovery Center at Deep Creek Lake State Park.

Meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Carolyn Mathews, DCL Manager

Handouts:
Agenda
Policy and Review Board Procedures and Operations
Three maps of lake areas sampled
Rainscaping campaign promotes ‘beautiful solutions’ to pollution
Reporting a suspected Algae Bloom on Deep Creek Lake
Comparison Matrix for Shoreline Stabilization Methods
Deep Creek Lake Water Monitoring Program Plan

January 2009

Monday, January 12, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Policy and Review Board – Quarterly Meeting
Deep Creek Lake Discovery Center

In Attendance: Lou Battistella, Bob Browning, Barry Weinberg, Scott Johnson, Steve Green, Jim Kline
DNR representatives: MPS-Carolyn Mathews. Deep Creek Lake Manager and Major Chris Anderson, Western Regional Park Manager; NRP- Lt. Brad Stafford and Sgt. Dave Marple; Boating Services – Bob Lunsford.

Absent: John Forman, Ernie Gregg, Senator George Edwards and Delegate Wendell Beitzel (the General Assembly convenes on Wednesday, Jan. 14th)
One seat remains open awaiting an appointment by the Governor.

Attendance from the public was slim – 8 people on a cold and snowy night

Chairman John Forman was ill and absent and had asked Barry Weinberg to chair the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 6:05 PM and it was noted that a quorum was present. The minutes from the October 2008 meeting were approved and are posted on the DNR DCLSP website. www.dnr.state.md.us/publiclands/western/deepcreeklake.html

Old Business
Boat Noise - DNR Boating Services administrator Bob Lunsford reported on the recent meeting of the Boat Act Advisory Committee (BAAC) that was held at Deep Creek Lake State Park on Thursday, December 4, 2008. That committee has been touring the state to personally glean comments from boaters and residents about boat noise. They will meet next on Thursday, January 22, 2009 in Annapolis to draft a recommendation for a State-wide regulation change addressing boat noise. This will be a public meeting, anyone is welcome to attend. If the PRB would like to make a written comment to their recommendation, it would carry a lot of weight. Mr. Lunsford continued with his comments that he expects Natural Resource Reserve officers will be detailed when possible this summer on waterways of the eastern shore to collect data on noise from shoreline properties.

The BAAC will post for comment two alternatives for the Secretary to consider – one to address concerns at Deep Creek Lake and one for the concerns of boat noise on the Elk River and other places of the State. [Elk River SAJ1970 and DCL SAJ2005 (90db)]

The need for increased enforcement and increased education will be components of any recommendation. Presently there are too few specifications in boat noise testing methodology and too many variances for the officers to write citations that will stand up in court. The BAAC has invited an acoustical engineer from Mercury to participate in their meeting on January 22nd to discuss the technological advancements of exhaust systems.

Parker Jacobs asked for clarification of the Maryland decibel level. Mr. Lunsford responded that 90 decibels is the maximum allowable limit in this state. He then asked Mr. Lunsford if production boats can make that level and the response was – “yes”.

New Business
Property Inspections/Special Permits - Carolyn Mathews spoke to the Board about the ongoing and annual inspection of the State owned buffer strip and the conservation easement properties on up to 15 miles of shoreline. It takes staff 5 years to go a lap around the lake if they get 15 miles done each year. This annual inspection of a portion of the buffer strip often times uncovers improvements that have not been permitted or things that are specifically prohibited by regulation – including ropes tied to trees, or lighting and hardware mounted in trees. Many times property owners claim that something is “grandfathered” but after a review of the files, evidence to the contrary is found. They are required to remove the violation. The Lake Management staff is being firm with inspection standards. We require that special permits be applied for and issued to permit things that have “popped up” and we are enforcing the limits of permits that were issued in the 1980’s that had expiration dates i.e Non-conforming use permits that expired 15 years after issuance (all expired by the end of 2003). It has come to the attention of the Lake Management office that someone in the community has circulated a statement that the policy guiding the issuance of special permits has changed, it has not changed but the limits of permits are being enforced. In 2008 staff inspected/visited close to 1200 permit sites for a variety of reasons. Over 78% of those sites were noted to have regulation violations. The notices of violation seem trivial to many people, but the primary purpose of the regulations was to protect this natural resource from degradation and we work hard to do just that with education and enforcement.

Shoreline erosion permits have always required review and approval by permit from two agencies – MD Dept of the Environment (MDE) and DNR as the land owner. In July 2008 the MDE began charging fees of $750.00 per application review and $750.00 for the approved permit. The Lake Management office is not involved in this fee structure but does make every attempt to inform property owners about these fees when applications for shoreline erosion controls are being sought. Carolyn Mathews explained that vegetated shorelines are highly desirable from a water quality and visual standpoint and those applications do not incur the fees. One permit site at Holy Cross installed a “biolog” last summer for erosion control. It is expected that the shoreline plant seeds will catch and root into the biolog and establish a vegetated shoreline naturally over the coming seasons. Mowing to the edge of the lake is prohibited at this site – grass mowing must stop at least 6 feet back from the shoreline. The property owner encourages others to come view this healthy approach to shoreline erosion control. The property is on the south side of the point of Holy Cross, not too far back into the cove. Applications and approvals for erosion control structures that create structural walls do require the associated fees. The Policy and Review Board members asked that someone from MDE be invited to come to the next board meeting to discuss why DCL property owners should be expected to pay these fees if this is a State owned body of water. Carolyn Mathew will make those arrangements.

The Water Quality Work Group, a diverse and large group of professionals and designees invited and assembled by DNR has met on several occasions to work on a very necessary chapter addition to the Deep Creek Lake Recreation and Land Use Plan. The plan needs to be updated to include a chapter about water quality, water quality monitoring, and stakeholder involvement. Carolyn Mathews will send the minutes of the work group to the Board members.

Development Permit Appealed - The Board was advised by Carolyn Mathews of the recent appeal of the Lake Manager’s decision which granted a development permit to Thousand Acres, Inc. to proceed with the concept of creating a park picnic area, roped swimming area and the placement of a specific number of dock slips along Green Glade for the Thousand Acres, Inc. development. The Office of Administrative Hearing will hear the case sometime this spring. No hearing date has yet been set.

Representative change - Jim Kline, MD Bass Federation representative on the Board advised the members that he is stepping down and will be replaced by Jamie Coyle, a lake property owner, active angler and long time MD Bass Federation member. Mr. Kline reflected for a few minutes on the early days of the Board and stated that he has enjoyed his many years representing the Federation and feels it was time well spent for a good cause. Barry Weinberg spoke on behalf of the Board that they appreciated his contributions and years of service and concluded the comments with a round of applause.

Comments and questions from the audience

1) Lake property owner Barbara Beelar addressed the Board by giving a progress report on the work she has done in creating a “Friends of Deep Creek Lake” which is working for the improvement of water quality in Deep Creek Lake. She had several occasions of algae blooms in the cove near her home which caused her great concern late last summer. She brought those concerns in the way of bottled samples and photographs to the attention of the Board in October. She has applied for a grant of $35,000.00 from the Center for Watershed Protection. If granted, the monies would be directed on assessments of the tributaries of the lake, mapping of the watersheds and the boundaries of those watersheds. There is a need for baseline data to be gathered into one location so management decisions can be made to improve water quality. She will hear by the end of January if she is successful in being awarded the grant.

She expressed concern that the Board had not responded to her petition in October which demanded an action plan for 2009 if an algae bloom occurs again in any part of the lake. Bob Browning responded that the Board is satisfied with the efforts to date of the Lake Management office and he expects the Work Group to produce some action plan by the spring.

2) Lake property owner Gary Love addressed the Board and shared his concerns about a decision by the Lake Manager concerning his use of the buffer strip and dock placement. He asked the board to review the information he provided to them and intervene with the Lake Manager to allow him to retain what he has used and enjoyed for years. He believes that his property value and that of the other affected parties that share the right of way to the State property will depreciate if the Lake Manager’s decision is upheld. Since one of the other parties involved has already appealed the Lake Manager’s decision to the Secretary of DNR, Barry Weinberg stated that the Board does not make it a practice to get involved in individual situations. Mr. Weinberg stated that the appeal process is the appropriate forum for deciding the issue, not the Policy and Review Board. He recommended that ultimately Mr. Love could make his appeal to the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources. The Board members will be interested in the decision made by the Office of Administrative Hearings since there may be similar future problems for others on right-of-ways around the lake.

The next meeting date was set for Monday, April 27th, 2009 at 6 P.M. in the Discovery Center at Deep Creek Lake State Park.

Meeting adjourned at 7:55 PM

Minutes taken by Carolyn Mathews

October 2008

Date: October 13, 2008 at 1800 hrs (6:00 pm)
Place: Deep Creek Lake State Park Discovery Center

Board Members Present: Chairman: John Forman (JF), Jay Kaminek (JK), Steve Green (SG), Barry Weinberg (BW), Bob Browning (BB), Scott Johnson (SJ), George Edwards (GE), Wendell Beitzel (WB)

Quorum Present

Maryland Park Service: Lake Manager Carolyn Mathews (CM), Major Chris Anderson (CA)
Natural Resources Police: Lieutenant Brad Stafford, Sergeant David Marple
Audience: 7 people including Bob and Pam Lunsford (DNR Boating Services)

1) Call to order (John Forman-PRB Chairman)
a) Approval of minutes from July 28, 2008 meeting
i) BW: Motion to approve
ii) BB: 2nd Motion to approve
iii) July 28, 2008 meeting minutes approved unanimously

2) Old Business
a) Update on Appointments to the Board
i) CM reported she asked the Secretary’s office for any updates on the appointment. She was advised that The Appointments Office has DNR’s recommendations and an appointment will be made at some point in time.

3) New Business
a) Noise levels on the lake-Maryland Boating Act
i) Bob Lunsford reported the proposed Noise Regulations have been posted for public comment. He has received 22 comments- 14 of those by email, 8 by phone. Two were not in favor of the proposal. It has been suggested a noise test be added to regulations. No request has been received to decrease decibel level. December 4, 2008 is the public comment meeting for our area.
ii) Discussion:
1) BW stated problem is the capability to measure decibels.
2) Bob verified it can be done but there are so many variables. It’s difficult to provide accurate information that will hold up in court. For instance, there is no standard distance from the vessel to take the reading, and no standard speed at which the reading is recorded. Bob reported 17 or 18 states have either no sound level guidelines, or it is at the officer’s discretion. Our regulations state above 90 decibels at idle is a violation.
3) Bob stated a majority of the public commented they expected noise, and only a small number of boats had the horsepower/engine types that create an irritating, loud noise.
b) Proposed lake regulations change
i) CM reported the proposed regulation containing changes regarding Personal Water Craft/number and type of vessels allowed at dockage will be opening up for a public comment period in the near future. This regulation will be specific to Deep Creek Lake. We hope to have it enacted by the 2009 boating season.
ii) Bob Lunsford reported it is not unusual to get 15-20 complaint calls about PWC’s on any given weekend.
c) Lake water quality, SAV, sediment
i) CM reported for John Wilson. The working group has had two meetings. They are incorporating USGS field tests as well as other information gleaned from the internet, and will decide where to go with recommendations. CM will send information to PRB members about what we have and what is available. Public information will also be made available. A USGS report, including a map showing sampling locations, was briefly reviewed. Once the USGS analysis is completed, a representative from USGS will visit to discuss their findings. Areas needing attention will be pinpointed and a plan developed.
ii) Barbara Beelar presented a packet of information regarding tributary, cove SAV and algae problems. Included is a resource assessment which could offer manpower and information to form a plan to resolve the issues. Many individuals are working on the problem and possible solutions. It is proposed for tributary strategy teams to monitor water quality, sample pH and water clarity.
iii) BB: Clarity varies day by day. Two pages of a formal report were recently received. Question is do we dredge or leave sediment?
iv) SJ: We have more sediment. Do we want to go out farther to sample?
v) CM: Bathymetry mapping will see where the original lake bottom is and the depths of sediment layers. Studies focused on water quality. Nutrients are coming in from tributaries and causing SAV growth. Nutrients have not been included in the sampling. MDE through the TMDL will study the nutrients. The DNR boat sampled for two days in August. They monitored pH, chlorophyll, and suspended solids. No nutrient tests were done. They are very expensive. $50,000 was set aside for water quality testing in 2009. This doesn’t come close to touching nutrient testing. May use volunteer groups to gather data. Then send for evaluation.
vi) WB: Garrett College did some summer studies. Can we restudy and build from there? GC Health Dept did no sampling for the vegetation problem.
vii) JF: Is there a correlation between the sediment and vegetation problem and the sewage problem?
viii) WB: Barbara’s letter indicates the lake is impaired by erosion and sediment. A prior study indicated Deep Creek Lake was in good shape. Some storm water discharge is allowed. Barb Glover thinks pH is improving.
ix) WB: Most people believe the best storm water management is to get the run-off there (to the lake) as soon as possible.
x) BB: Sediment collection/containment systems are rarely to never cleaned.
xi) SG:MDE is cracking down on storm water ponds.
xii) CM: MDE is now requiring a fee for permit authorizations. A $750 application fee is required. Once approved a minimum permit fee of $750 is required.

4) Correspondence Received
i) A letter from Dr. Joe Smith, re: Thousand Acres, will be held for discussion so board members have time to read it.

5) Public Comments
i) Barbara Beelar submitted correspondence in the form of petitions with 59 names urging DNR to take action as soon as possible to “study and remediate the problems we are encountering in the Upper Deep Creek section of the Lake.” A major concern being the blue-green algae that recently bloomed in the south end of the lake. Barbara suggested forming an emergency group to determine a course of action to deal with the increased combination of water quality troubles including SAV’s, erosion and sediments. Funding is needed for testing and movement towards resolution.
ii) BB: The other side of the lake has three large plowed fields. Are they contributing nutrients?
iii) Barbara suggested the State of MD should have purchased a Buffer Strip well into the tributaries in order to more effectively control the sediment and nutrient contributions coming from them. She believes that beavers contribute to the problem, also.
iv) WB: How does the animal contributions to the problem compare to the human contributions?
v) Member of public made a statement. He believes the lake is drained earlier, and he can’t use his boat after July 4th.
vi) BW: DNR’s water scientist, Walter Butler, has looked at the samples and photos, and thinks this is not good.** Do we believe it’s toxic? We don’t know. We need to positively identify it in order to form a plan.
vii) GE: Where do we go? We must set priorities and plan a solution. We must collect, identify, and shuffle funding to target areas . There is a Water Way Improvement Fund which is a dredge funding source for the state. DNR will have to set its priorities and request monies if needed to dredge areas. Funds may be shifted to cover priorities. Problem is getting people to do the testing. Wendell and I can apply pressure to make funding happen.
viii) Chuck Hoffeditz: We can coordinate with the extension service and other agencies to help with collecting.
ix) CM: DNR scientists are working on identifying so a plan can be formed.
x) BW: Can part of this already existing group of 12 focus on the immediate problem on an emergency basis?
xi) Barbara: Are any homeowners involved in the working group?
xii) CM: There is one homeowner in the group; as well as soil conservation, MDE, agriculture representatives, and DNR.
xiii) BB: From a budget point of view, why does it take $96,000 to run the water treatment plant? Let’s discuss that next time.

6) Next Meeting Date – January 12, 2009, 6:00 PM, Deep Creek Lake State Park, Discovery Center.

7) Meeting Adjourned at 1930 hours - Board member moved to adjourn; Board member 2nd motion. Motion carried – unanimous.

** Special note: The sample sent to the DNR biologist for identification was found to be euglena- a harmless algae not the more serious microcystis.

July 2008

Date: July 28, 2008 at 1800 hrs (6:00 pm)
Place: Deep Creek Lake State Park, Discovery Center

Board Members Present: Chairman: John Forman (JF), Bob Browning (BB), Scott Johnson (SJ), Steve Green (SG), James Kline (JK), Jay Kaminek (JayK), Wendell Beitzel (WB), George Edwards (GE)
Maryland Park Service: Lake Manager: Carolyn Mathews (CM), Major Chris Anderson (CA)
Natural Resources Police: Lieutenant Brad Stafford
Audience: 8 people
Guests: Bob Lunsford – DNR Boating Services

1) Call to Order (John Forman – PRB Chairman)
a) Approval of minutes:
i) Corrections:
(1) add BB request for copy of budget for PRB members to review
(2) typo on page 2 change by to be
ii) Unanimous approval of minutes with above changes

2) Old Business
a) Update on Appointments to the Board
i) No news. DNR still has not submitted recommendations to the Governor
ii) WB: spoke with Appointments Secretary who was not aware that there was a vacancy
iii) CM: a new governor appointments form came out of her office and that is one reason the process bogged down
iv) WB: Appointment board needs to know there is an opening
v) JF: Eric Schwab is aware there is an opening
vi) WB: DNR needs to inform the Governor

3) New Business
a) Boating Services review of statewide vessel noise concerns – Bob Lunsford
i) Citizen of Elk River approached DNR that vessels were exceedingly loud
(1) Petitioned DNR to adopt noise testing standard SAE J 1970
(2) Ad hoc Noise Task Force determined this to be an ineffective tool due to lack of speed and distance standards therefore recommends to the Boat Act Advisory Committee to not adopt SAE J 1970
(3) Noise is under the Department of Environment article not DNR
ii) SJ: we are trying to fight the problem with the wrong equipment, law is not addressing noise issues – decibels is not the right way, PA, WV & OH do not allow above water exhaust
iii) Lunsford: Strong suspicion all inboard motors will have catalytic converters in the next 5 years.
iv) Lunsford: submits a summary of marine noise laws for all states to CM
v) Public: Scott’s comments are interesting, noise is the problem
vi) BB: inboards may have mufflers, quickest solution is to outlaw cutouts
vii) Public: Jennings Randolph COMAR says no cutouts, why not here?
viii) Public: Noise is going to affect property values, problem needs to be solved
ix) Public: The PRB has the authority to do what needs to be done; you have to take a step to make it happen.
x) JF: There have not been many complaints to NRP
xi) Public: that’s because they can’t beat the decibels
xii) CM: Do we need a petition to go to Boating Services to change regulations?
xiii) BB: people have given up complaining because nothing can be done
xiv) Public: we don’t want to overload NRP about noise when they have other things to do
xv) CM: Bob Lunsford if PRB requests a regulations change will they need a petition to begin the process?
xvi) SG: What is the definition of cut out?
xvii) BB: exhaust out to sides or into props
xviii) SG: Is that enforceable?
xix) BB: Disable the switch
xx) SG: Would no cut outs be enforceable?
xxi) Lt. Stafford: Depends on how it was written
xxii) JF: Scott will chair a committee on cut out regulations. Meet and report back at the next meeting
xxiii) SG: Do we need a committee?
xxiv) BB: Can we table this so I can report back to the Chamber?
xxv) Lunsford: The BAAC hearing for the Ad Hoc Noise Task Force is in November, that might be a good time to put this forth
xxvi) SJ: Can we run this by you before going forward?
xxvii) Lunsford: That’s what I’m here for
b) Natural Resources Police 2008 Law Enforcement activity on the lake – Lt. Stafford
i) 8 boating accident in 2008 compared to 19 in 2007
ii) Reasons: gas prices, poor weather conditions (rainy), and more officers on the lake in 2008
iii) A boating accident is an injury that needs more that 1st Aid
(1) 5 wakeboard/tube/ski accidents
(2) 2 collisions
(3) 1 PWC incident
iv) Alcohol: 12 in 2008, 16 in 2007 – 5 arrests in June and 7 arrests July 1-7th
v) Discussion about NRP helicopter
(1) BB: is the helicopter part of a grant?
(2) Lt. Stafford: yes
(3) WB: Who decides when to fly?
(4) Lt. Stafford: District Supervisor
(5) WB: What’s the cost to run the helicopter?
(6) Lt. Stafford: Superintendent okays this use
(7) BB: there’s no way to justify the use of the helicopter
(8) WB: there are complaints about the use of the helicopter
(9) Public: What are they looking for?
(10) Lt. Stafford: Safe operations of vessels
vi) Discussion of Collision details
vii) Public: tickets are being given out to PWC’s going under 219 bridge
viii) Lunsford: 100 foot distance is spelled out in their rental agreement
ix) BB: Renters are made to watch a movie
x) SG: Cold water may have affected boating accidents, there is no problem with a helicopter over the lake but ask for state police in front of store and I can’t get it
xi) Public: Barbara Beelar: calling NRP is terrible. It’s a long distance call, when you get through you get someone who doesn’t know Deep Creek Lake, insists on buoy numbers and is confounded by unnamed buoys. 3 hours later you get a call back from NRP. If it needs to be centralized then train the staff to know the water body.
George Edwards joined the meeting at 7:10PM
c) Lake Management
i) Progress report on the regulation changes
(1) They have been submitted to Annapolis
(2) No idea of when Comment Period will begin and end
ii) Conservation Easement requests
(1) Conservation Easement is something to hold with minimal change
(2) Stormwater Management, fill, stone, parking lots etc. are not allowed
(3) BB: basically is the same as the Buffer Strip
(4) CM: Relaxed variances from the County are allowing building up to the State line without regard to stormwater
(5) JayK: Does County talk with Lake Management? County road and private road run-off in many areas comes directly into Buffer Strip and into lake
(6) CM: We have conversations with them and most recently talked about DCL State Park looking into installing porous pavers and rain gardens in the day use area to absorb the run-off flowing from road culvert pipes
(7) CM: We are finding in some property transfers the deeds are not reflecting Conservation Easement language and this is causing problems with property owners who don’t know they have a Conservation Easement.
(8) SG: What is a rain garden?
(9) CM: Works with vegetation to hold water and allow it to filter into the ground
(10) SG: Rocks underneath?
(11) CM: Highly structured underground
(12) WB: I highly suggest and encourage Lake Management to hold the line on the Conservation Easement areas.

4) Correspondence Received
a) None

5) Public Comment
a) Barbara Beelar: Regarding sedimentation and vegetation over taking the Deep Creek Cove area of lake.
i) There are thick, emergent weed beds and heavy sedimentation in Deep Creek Cove
ii) Can’t find the point source of sedimentation but feels the cove is at it’s tipping point
iii) Water used to be 7 feet deep now is only 2 feet deep.
iv) Pleased that water quality studies have begun
v) Concerned that taxpayers no longer have recreational use of the lake, they have given up swimming and boating
vi) Asks that in addition to the ongoing study, an immediate Ad Hoc Committee be formed to get specifics of problem
vii) Ski course has been closed because boats can’t drive in the cove
viii) Wants a water quality tests done on gray and green scum
ix) SG: Is it different because no one is skiing?
x) Beelar: We need DNR to look at it from a public perspective, accumulation of sediment is allowing vegetation to pop up
xi) CM: MDE is still due to come out this summer, will make sure they take samples, the Resource Assessment Group will also take water samples
xii) Beelar: The bigger management issue is that a body of water with insufficient flow will clog and turn into land or a glade
xiii) BB: Drawdowns kill the vegetation if frozen
xiv) CM: Sediment loads add to the problem
xv) Beelar: The Lake is being held at higher levels.
xvi) JKline: How’s the fishing?
xvii) Beelar: You stay outside the weed line. I haven’t seen my walleye this summer.
xviii) JF: Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
xix) JKline: The matted vegetation is very good for fish.

6) Next meeting date – October 13, 2008, 6 PM, Deep Creek Lake State Park Discovery Center

7) Meeting Adjourned at 1955 hours – JKline motion to adjourn; BB 2nd. Unanimous

April 2008

Date: April 28, 2008 at 1800 hrs (6:00 pm)
Place: Deep Creek Lake State Park, Discovery Center

Board Members Present: Chairman: John Forman (JF), Ernie Gregg (EG), Barry Weinberg (BW), Bob Browning (BB), Scott Johnson (SJ), Steve Green (SG), James Kline (JK), Jay Kaminek (JayK), Wendell Beitzel (WB)
Maryland Park Service: Lake Manager: Carolyn Mathews (CM), Major Chris Anderson (CA)
Natural Resources Police: Lieutenant Brad Stafford
Audience: 12 people
Guests: John Wilson - DNR Land Acquisition and Planning

1) Call to Order (John Forman – PRB Chairman)
a) Approval of minutes
i) EG: Motion to approve
ii) BB: 2nd Motion to approve
iii) October 29, 2007 meeting minutes approved unanimously

2) Old Business
a) Update on Appointments to the Board
i) All Board Member paperwork has been submitted to DNR for routing to the Governor’s office.
b) Update on the ongoing water quality study being conducted by USGS
i) Carolyn Mathews read highlights from the USGS report called Assessment of Hydrologic and Water Quality Conditions at Deep Creek Lake Summary of Progress through April 25, 2008 – Report is attached.
ii) Discussion:
(1) BB: What is the criteria for coring?
(2) CM: USGS is still looking at the data collected to make that determination
(3) BB: What about Gravely Run?
(4) JayK: There is old roadbed in that area that would be a good place to core
(5) CM: Will advise USGS of this at next meeting.
(6) Ed King: Is there chemical analysis of the cores?
(7) CM: Yes, especially heavy metals.
c) Progress to date on the regulation change for number of power vessels at the docks (i.e. PWC’s)
i) The proposed regulations were submitted to DNR last fall.
ii) Carolyn Mathews had to attend class to learn how to enter the proposed regulations changes into the electronic system used by the Maryland Register
iii) The goal is to have the proposed changes posted in July for the 30 day comment period
iv) After the close of the comment period, if there is no other action needed, it takes two to three weeks to become regulation.
v) There are no regulation changes for this season and Lake Management is not approving any new PWC ramp requests.

3) New Business
a) New Superintendent and new Deputy Superintendent for the Maryland Park Service
i) CA: Nita Settina is the new Superintendent and Chris Bushman is the new Deputy Superintendent
ii) CM: Nita is very interested in making sure that there is public access to Deep Creek Lake
iii) CA: With the retirement of Dave Baker from DCL State Park, the DCL projects will once again be combined under one manager, Carolyn Mathews
iv) BB: How does that affect budget? Shouldn’t the PRB look at the budget?
v) Discussion regarding funding of Carolyn’s position.
b) Resource Management Plan - John Wilson – DNR
i) In 2001 the DNR in cooperation with the PRB developed the Deep Creek Lake Recreation and Land Use Plan – Letter and Proposed Member list attached.
(1) The plan is now 7 years old and its major focus is on Recreation
(2) New plan (or chapters) will focus on water quality issues and living resources management
(3) Will be capturing information from various studies and agencies to coordinate efforts
(4) Proposed work group members represent a cross section of scientific disciplines and many are already participating in on-going research projects on the lake.
(5) Requests that PRB partner in this endeavor.
ii) Discussion:
(1) BB: There is no one from Chamber of Commerce on the work group list. How does PRB partner?
(2) Wilson: By providing input to drafts of chapters as they are produced
(3) SJ: There needs to be a more “lay person” perspective added
(4) BW: This will work the same way as the original plan worked. We (PRB) look at drafts and discuss and contribute ideas. The PRB will supply the overarching non-scientific perspective to the project.
(5) Wilson: Yes, it’ll be a cooperative dialogue
(6) BW: The statute that created the PRB mandates it be involvedM
(7) SJ: When do you start?
(8) Wilson: As soon as we finalize the letter and group members list.

4) Correspondence Received
a) None

5) PRB Comments:
a) BB: The buoys at the bridges are targets. We need to paint arrows on the bridges.
i) Bob Lunsford: DNR Boating Services Program Manager – Must keep all waterway markings consistent across the State. As for painting the bridges, SHA and County approvals would be needed.
ii) CM: Staff will go out and reset the buoys prior to Memorial Day.
b) WB: Appreciates DNR taking a “No Position” stance on HB605 which would have eliminated revenue sharing between the State and Counties. The revenue sharing equates to 25% of monies collected from State lands. In Garrett County it is about $1,000,000, 00. The bill was not passed.
c) WB: Thanks to DNR for getting additional funds for Gypsy Moth spraying in Garrett County.

6) Next meeting date - July 28, 2008, 6 PM, Deep Creek Lake State Park Discovery Center

7) Meeting Adjourned at 1905 hours – BB motion to adjourn; SJ 2nd. Unanimous

October 2007

Date: October 29, 2007
Time: 1800 hrs (6:00 pm)
Place: Deep Creek Lake State Park, Discovery Center

Board Members Present: Chairman: John Forman (JF), Ernie Gregg (EG), Barry Weinberg (BW), Bob Browning (BB), Scott Johnson (SJ), Steve Green (SG), James Kline (JK), Lou Battistella (LB), Jay Kaminek (JayK)
Maryland Park Service: Lake Manager: Carolyn Mathews (CM), Major Chris Anderson(CA)
Natural Resources Police: Captain Adrian Baker, Lieutenant Brad Stafford, Sgt. Dave Marple and Sgt. Rick Walbeck
Audience: Approximately 12 people
Guests: Bob Gaudette –Director of DNR Boating Services Bob Lunsford – DNR Liaison to Boat Act Advisory Committee Pam Lunsford – Boating Program Implementation

1) Call to Order (John Forman – PRB Chairman)
a) Approval of minutes
i) LB: Motion to approve
ii) BW: made correction to adjournment time
iii) BB: 2nd Motion to approve
iv) July 23, 2007 meeting minutes approved unanimously

2) Old Business
a) Update on Appointments to the Board
i) Bob Gaudette: Bob Lunsford’s name has been submitted for vacant seat
ii) BB: Request for Bob Lunsford’s resume to be distributed to PRB members
iii) CM: Four names of local people have been sent to the Office of the Secretary (DNR) for consideration. One of those four, Dave Demaree, was noted as the recommendation of the PRB.
b) Update on the submitted regulation change request to remove PWC’s from the buffer strip (Carolyn Mathews)
i) E-mail went out to PRB and DNR with details of latest draft for regulation changes
ii) There were several meetings in Annapolis to clarify the changes
iii) CM goes over each point
(1) .03 Uses permitted with a Buffer Strip Use Permit
(a) 08.08.05.03B(2) – change number of power vessels from three to four and shift to positive language
(b) 08.08.05.03B(3) – remove from COMAR entirely
(c) 08.08.05.03B(4) – change to 08.08.05.03B(3) and the work three to the word four
(2) .06 Development Permits
(a) .08.08.05.06D(1)(e) . . . up to 33% of the total slips allocated – this would apply only to permit sites established with a development permit and not for the common dock sites that do not meet the criteria for a Development Permit
iv) Discussion ensued regarding number of sites that are not established under Development Permit regulations, how many sites affected by PWC exclusion, how many sites are not 50 feet and what are the density issues.
v) Regulation changes are still on track for July 1, 2008
vi) SG: Does the public know this is coming?
vii) CM: Only through word of mouth
viii) BB: Discussion regarding 500 pound enforcement
ix) CM: Object is to get PWC’s off the buffer strip
x) CA: May need to include language to exclude inboard motors on buffer strip
xi) BW: Do we need different language to address the enforcement issue? We need to come up with language that would get PWC’s off the buffer strip and wrap this up
xii) Paul Durham comments on behalf of the Realtors Association
(1) Would the restricted type A docks be able to tie up PWC’s?
(2) Common dock and 1/3 rule
(3) Set a reasonable time limit to remove PWC stands
(4) Weight limit may be a question of footprint and not weight
(5) May need to define the term “slip”
xiii) JF: Any other comments?
(1) CM to get back to PRB with information about type A dock, common dock and Development Permit exceptions.
(2) PWC sub-committee to meet again before Thanksgiving

3) New Business
a) New DNR Boating Services Unit - Director Bob Gaudette
i) Gave brief overview of Boating Administration/Boating Services
ii) Discussed what the Boating Services Unit has to offer for PRB and Lake Management
(1) Tremendous expertise in planning, technical information and resources, regulatory issues
(2) Provide input regarding vessel operation regulations
iii) Addressed DNR Secretary Griffin’s letter to PRB and BAAC about their roles
(1) PRB makes recommendations to DNR Secretary
(2) DNR Sec forwards to BAAC for comments
(3) DNR Sec consults with Boating Services
(4) Ultimate goal is for consistent application of boating laws and regulations across the State
(5) Short discussion with PRB members regarding letter
iv) Public boating access is a primary mandate for Boating Services Unit
(1) Currently exploring opportunities around DCL
v) Introduced Bob Lunsford – DNR staff liaison to BAAC
(1) Great resource for DCL NRMA
(2) Well versed in unique boating situations and crafting regulations to address them
b) Lake Water Quality Study (Carolyn Mathews)
i) Many things came together at the same time to make this happen
(1) Lake Management had already identified the need for baseline scientific data to access a variety of aspects of water quality in DCL
(a) DCL NRMA did not have relevant scientific data to provide to Garrett County Comprehensive Plan
(b) Increase in requests from permit holders for dredging and other significant alterations to lake bottom
(c) Other DNR staff aware of water quality issues and have also recommended data collection
(2) USGS who has the expertise to be able to perform both baseline and long term data collection of this type could do it this fall
ii) Scope of Work
(1) Bathymetric study of lake – used sonar and seismic instruments
(2) Sediments - 26 core samples in various coves
(a) identify sediment layers
(b) rate of fill
(c) chemical profile
(3) Stream Monitoring
(a) Currently 2 streams (Cherry Creek and Poland Run) and with more money add 4 more for a total of 6 streams around lake
(b) Year round on-going data collection
(c) Sampling for Ph, conductivity, sediments, dissolved O2
(4) Well Sensors
(a) Does lake level affect the immediate water table around lake?
iii) Reports and information will be distributed when it is received starting next spring.
iv) Discussion and questions regarding specifics of data collection techniques

4) Correspondence Received
a) None

5) PRB Comments
a) BB: Deep Creek Marina special permit application took entirely too long. One and a half years to tell someone “no” is not the way to do business
i) CM: The Bulkhead request was unusual and due to the complex nature of the project there were many more environmental concerns and precedent considerations than the “usual” Special Permit applications handled by Lake Management. The application provoked many discussions and ultimately DNR decided not to allow a project of this scale (involved construction of a bulkhead and digging a hole in the lake bottom) to occur on DCL.

6) Public Comments
a) Ed King: How’s the work on the dam coming?
i) CM: Fine as far as we know.
b) SJ: How is the State Park beach project going?
i) CM: Everything is going according to plan and the public will be able to enjoy a much improved beach next summer.

7) Next meeting date - January 28, 2008, 6 PM, Deep Creek Lake State Park Discovery Center

8) Meeting Adjourned at 1920 hours – BB motion to adjourn; BW 2nd. Unanimous