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
July 2007
Date: July 23, 2007
Time: 1800 hrs (6:00 p.m.)
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), Senator George Edwards (GE), Lou Battistella (LB)
Natural Resources Police (NRP): Captain Adrian Baker
Maryland Park Service: Lake Manager, Carolyn Mathews (CM); Assistant Lake Manager, Julie Allbrooks recorded the minutes
Audience: 15 people including Lt. Brad Stafford and Sgt. Dave Marple of NRP
1) Call to Order by John Forman
2) Approval of minutes
a) April 30, 2007 meeting minutes approved
3) Correspondence Received
a) The Boat Act Advisory Committee (BAAC) letter of June 1, 2007 to PRB
i) BW gave report by summarizing the points made by BAAC and outlined PRB position regarding them
ii) JF – Are we recommending writing a letter to BAAC about the PRB standing on PWC’s moving at speed under the bridges?
iii) BW – given that DNR and NRP oppose the PRB position on the issue, we need to deal with PWC issue here first. PRB letter would address the BAAC letter directly.
b) Motion by SJ for BW to draft a letter of to BAAC, LB seconded the motion and it passed unanimously
4) Old Business
a) BB – What happened with the Tour Boat issue?
i) Brief recap of issue history ending with Assistant Secretary Mike Slattery’s offer at January PRB meeting to review the request and the AG’s denial for tour boat(s) with the incoming DNR Secretary Griffin
ii) Round table discussion of what to do now that Slattery is gone from DNR
iii) JF will call Sec. Griffin to check the status and will follow up with a letter from PRB
iv) Senator Edwards will try to bring this up with Sec. Griffin at an unrelated meeting in the near future
b) BW – What happened to allowing dive platforms molded onto a powerboat that then make the vessel longer than the 26 foot length to be permitted by regulation on Deep Creek Lake? PRB had voted unanimously to send a letter to the Secretary asking for a regulation change to accommodate power vessels with molded platforms to be longer than 26 feet but shorter than 27 feet.
i) Read the minute notes from January 2006 -
ii) CM – No one wrote the letter. PRB needs to write the letter not the Lake Management staff to make this recommendation to the DNR Office of Sec.
c) Lengthy discussion ensued regarding who is responsible for writing letters on behalf of the PRB, the need for procedures to make sure that PRB issues are not ignored, what are administrative functions of the Lake Management Office in reference to PRB business. Lake Management office will send and receive correspondence on behalf of the PRB, will generate and distribute minutes and will be liaison with the Department on matters relating to management of Deep Creek Lake. PRB members need to volunteer for letter writing or corroborate together to draft the letters going to the Secretary of DNR.
5) New Business
a) PWC Subcommittee Report
i) BW – Gave overview of issue
(1) The problems that exist
(1) where to put PWC’s that weigh more than 500 pounds because they cannot be “beached”
(2) how to determine if PWC is permitted or not
(2) Preliminary recommendations of PWC subcommittee
(1) Type A Docks - Allow 3rd power vessel at dock if at least one is a PWC
(2) Common Dock – the number of additional PWC’s allowed would equal 1/3 the number of slips allocated to that site
(3) Changes are needed in COMAR
(3) SG – Would current stands be phased out?
(1) CM & BW – yes, over time
(4) SJ – Where will people put their PWC’s ?
(1) CM – back side of docks, floats or slings attached to dock
(5) Audience question – 1/3 the number of slips will be added to common dock permits?
(1) CM – not slips, but will allow for up to1/3 the number of slips to be PWC’s tied around the dock
(6) General discussion regarding
(1) POA survey conducted earlier this year
(2) procedures for making changes to COMAR – public comments, timeline
(3) current and future enforcement of buffer strip regulations
(7) Strategy established for moving this issue forward – hold another subcommittee meeting with NRP present as soon as possible
(8) JF – after that the PRB members can vote via e-mail
(1) Carolyn will draft letter on PRB letterhead and use a PRB envelope
(9) CM – will confirm PWC meeting for Monday or Tuesday next week
b) General discussion
(1) Procedures for regulation changes
(2) Renters versus owners and the number of boats on the lake and at dock
6) Next meeting date - October 29, 2007, 6 PM, Deep Creek Lake State Park Discovery Center
7) Motion to adjourn – unanimously approved
The meeting was briefly reconvened
JF - Brief announcement that there are five Governor appointed seats on the PRB, four of those terms expired in November 2006. Governor O’Malley wishes to review each of those appointments.
The appointments office has requested resumés from those presently serving in those seats. The review will be done in concert with the submission of resumés from interested candidates for the open seat – Maryland resident at large.
CM – The resumés submitted in May for the open seat were forwarded to the appointment’s office. The return response asked to review the other four before an appointment is made to the open seat.
8) Attendees were again adjourned 1935 hrs (7:35 p.m.)
April 2007
Date: April 30, 2007
Time: 1800 hrs (6:00 pm)
Place: Deep Creek Lake State Park, Discovery Center
Board Members Present: Chairman: John Forman (JF); Barry Weinberg (BW), Bob Browning (BB), Scott Johnson (SJ), Delegate Wendell Beitzel (WB), Steve Green (SG), Jay Kaminek (JK), Jim Kline (JKline)
Natural Resources Police: Captain Adrian Baker, Sergeant Richard Walbeck, Sergeant Bradley Stafford, Officer Brian Albert
Maryland Park Service: Major Chris Anderson, Carolyn Mathews (CM), Lake Manager, Julie Allbrooks, Assistant Lake Manager (took the minutes)
Audience: 25 people
1) Call to Order and approval of minutes
a) Revised October 30, 2006 meeting - minutes approved
b) January 29, 2007 meeting - minutes approved
2) Old Business - None
3) New Business
a) Boat Act Advisory Committee(BAAC)– additional contacts report from BW and BB
i) BW provided a recap of initial meeting with BAAC
(1) BAAC told PRB to do the preliminary procedures to recommend a change in the Boating Regulations of COMAR that would allow PWC’s to proceed at speed under the two traffic bridges on Deep Creek Lake. (Presently PWC operators must slow to 6 k under the bridges because most generally pass within 100’ of the bridge abutments)
(2) Commented that PRB is a DNR statutory committee and felt the cavalier treatment by BAAC was not warranted
(3) BAAC set up a sub-committee to assist in communications between PRB and BAAC
(4) Steve Kling is BAAC subcommittee contact for PRB
(a) No resolution of issue however agreed to keep talking about issues of mutual interest
(b) Have spoken twice on the phone with Steve Kling
(i) 3/28/07 – S. Kling was going to talk with BAAC regarding PRB concerns
(ii) 4/20/07 – S. Kling “did not get far” with BAAC
(5) PRB does not agree with BAAC’s notion of being able to alter or veto PRB recommendations to DNR Secretary
(6) Feels BAAC has no interest in DCL
(7) Senses BAAC may have “issues” with DNR that have nothing to do with the Deep Creek Lake Policy and Review Board (PRB)
(8) Invited members of BAAC to attend a PRB meeting
(9) Next BAAC meeting is May 17, 2007
(10) Conclusion:
(a) At this time, PRB is not going to pursue an amendment to the Boating Regulations of COMAR
ii) The PRB conducted a general discussion of B. Weinberg’s oral report
(1) JF – feels the BAAC may be inclined to have everyone (all powerboat operators on Deep Creek) slow down at bridges instead of moving forward with an exception to boating regs. that only benefit PWC operators on Deep Creek to maintain speed as the power boaters do now
(2) BB – PRB representatives got the brunt of BAAC “attitude”
(a) Thinks it is unlikely that PRB will be able to get any rule changes because he does not see DNR, PRB and BAAC coming to agreement
(3) JF – Are you planning on attending the next BAAC meeting?
(4) BB/BW - Until BAAC sorts out their issues they will rely on Steve Kling (BAAC) to communicate to them the BAAC position on boating concerns
(5) Audience - Carol Doctor - Are you allowed to recommend changes to Deep Creek Lake permit regulations?
(a) BB – Yes
(b) Water Appropriation Request (Emergency Use) - Thousand Acres Golf Course
(i) Paul Durham (PD), consultant introduced Joe Franklin, Bill Franklin and Drew Fessler of Thousand Acre Development; Steve Cahoon – Western Golf Properties (Course Manager); Craig Schreiner – Schreiner Golf (Course Architect)
(ii) PD – July 2005 circulated water withdrawal request to DNR
(1) Land use options for applicant – unknown at this time what final option will be approved
(a) Discussed lease, easement, license options of DNR land
(2) Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) – Conditions of withdrawal
iii) Craig Schreiner -
(1) Short overview of qualifications specific to parks, lake side courses and integrating with nature
(2) A sensitive approach to design a course that fits the environment with as little impact as possible
(3) Challenges: Poland Run and elements of conservation
(4) 3 acre irrigation pond on course will fit into topography
(5) Facilitating erosion reduction with diversion swales
(a) Water will go underneath and around not through the golf course
(b) “Gave up” water that will run across course
(c) Grass catchments throughout course allow for course drainage
(6) Course needs water “back” to grow turf 1”/per week
(a) Focusing on greens and tees for emergency water use – the rest of the course designed for low water needs
(7) Will be reusing all of the top soil
(8) Course is 18 holes with small practice range
iv) Steve Cahoon– managing irrigation
(1) This company manages other projects with similar adjacent lake issues
(2) Potential site superintendent is familiar with managing this type of course
(3) Main focus is “Drainage, Drainage, Drainage”
(a) Remove rainfall from course
(b) Apply water to specific areas with rain bird system
(c) Very efficient with on-site water
(d) Focus irrigation on main play areas
(e) Individual head control to meet custom needs
(f) Uses computerized system to water most effectively
(i) Regularly monitored
(ii) Goal is to keep grass alive – nothing extraordinary
v) Bill Franklin– managing storm water
(1) Design precludes need for storm water ponds
(2) “New Thinking”
(a) Low impact development
(b) Use small facilities/grass hollows dotted throughout instead of traditional large ponds
(c) Water will slowly discharge from grass hollows
(d) This approach reduces the potential for flooding
(e) Already seeing a reduction of the slit plume at the mouth of Poland Run
(3) Time will fine tune the watering needs of golf course
(4) Pond drains about 40 acres
vi) PD – Circulated and discussed fact sheet handout
vii) Steve Cahoon – managing fertilizer
(1) Only apply how much and where needed to get the job done
(a) Applied with irrigation water just enough to sustain grass not enough to saturate and cause run off
(b) 6” of rain in one hour would be needed to cause fertilizer to run off property
(c) Even if run off does occur 10 parts/billion is within safe drinking water levels
(2) No wetlands have been impacted on project
(3) 50’ buffer area was left around entire course
(4) Applying for Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System for Golf Courses certification
(a) For more information on this program visit: http://www.audubonintl.org/programs/acss/golf.htm
viii) Joe Franklin – closing
(1) Craig is the 4th architect that has worked on the project
(2) He has taken the time to “get it right”
(3) Would appreciate PRB giving a positive recommendation to DNR regarding the project
ix) Questions:
(1) BW – Do I understand correctly that you want to take water out of the lake during a drought?
(a) PD – The rule band at the power house will prevail. Will use the operational zone pond water first, and then rely on lake water. In the case of extreme drought, the 8 foot of emergency reserve water in the pond will be used to preserve grasses
(2) BW – If MDE declared a drought . . .?
(a) PD – Only the greens and the tees will be irrigated – an area totaling 3 acres
(3) BW – Where is the pump and how loud is it?
(a) PD – It’s submersible and is located 18 feet underground. No noise and not visible except structure facility on lakefront, the intake valve is at 2451’ above sea level
(4) BW – Screen over intake?
(a) PD- Yes
(5) JKline – Will this pump affect fish spawning in the area?
(a) PD – The intake pipe is located on useable frontage, there are spawning areas on either side. Intake velocity takes spawning into consideration. The recharge can be brought in at a slow rate
(6) SJ – How frequently will drought occur?
(a) PD – 1992 was the last one on record
(7) SJ – What is the drought cycle?
(a) PD – It is an art to predict, there is no crystal ball hence the reliance on MDE
(8) BW – Have you talked with Brookfield?
(a) PD – MDE puts it on Brookfield Power to keep the lake level within the rule band. There will be a miniscule amount of water removed by course drawdown
(9) BW – Concerned with lake level, the prospect of pumping water from the lake when the lake level is low can make a big difference
(a) PD – One thousandth of an inch or 3/10ths of an inch is the amount of water that would be taken, minor in overall affect on lake
(10) SG – How many water withdrawals are out there?
(a) Carolyn Mathews – 2 for Wisp Resort - winter has been in existence for snow making and now summer to fill the artificial whitewater course
(11) JK – Estimated uses?
(a) PD – MDE uses formulas to calculate for permits
(12) Craig Schreiner – The course will not look like Augusta. Watering will not occur everywhere. Course plan calls for a variety of grass species with different water needs
(13) BB- Compare this pipe to the pipe at the dam
(a) PD – 6” withdrawal pipe with variable speed pump system
(14) JKline – What about fertilizers? Is there a chance that fertilizers will make it into the lake?
(a) Very minimal chance
(15) JKline – Has seen the destruction fertilizer run off can produce and is concerned for wetland wildlife
(a) Not sure there will be an issue,
(b) Only putting minor amounts of fertilizers down
(c) Heavily relying on the course superintendent to manage fertilizer to the nth degree – keep fertilizer where it is needed
(d) Drainage systems at each hole
(e) Buffer area for every wetland
(f) 50 foot buffer area which is twice the standard
(16) WB – What are you asking the PRB to do? Give blessing to withdrawal request?
(a) JFranklin – First this presentation was to inform the PRB about the project and would like to see at a minimum the PRB to have no reason to oppose and optimally for PRB to support the project
(17) BB – Sounds like a good project, it creates a new recreational opportunity for the lake, let the other agencies deal with the details, personally supports the golf course
(18) JF: Is that a motion?
(19) BW: We don’t have a copy of withdrawal request
(20) BB – As long as terms and conditions of all other agencies are met
(21) SJ – Rather be “not opposed” than “for” – this was a phenomenal proposal
(22) BW – Concerned with taking water from the lake when there is a drought, Putting Brookfield Power in a predicament of maintaining the lake level, as long as Brookfield is on board with project – okay
(23) CM – Brookfield acknowledges that the more “straws in the bowl” the more cause for concern
(24) Audience – Ed King – What bookkeeping does MDE require and what about metering?
(a) PD –The user (permit holder) would be required to maintain a daily record and submit an annual report
(25) JF – Thank you for the nice presentation and good luck
(4) Public Comments
a) Carol Doctor – There is public concern about PWC’s and the 500 pound rule. Wants a vote at the next meeting
i) BB – revive PWC committee and come to some conclusions
ii) BW – Where are we on the sticker program?
iii) CM – still have subcommittee to pursue the proposal, needs subcommittee to develop concept
iv) Audience: What about stands?
(1) CM – Permits will be issued as long as PWC weighs under 500 pounds
v) Audience: Something needs to be done. Decisions and business growth are being affected
(1) CM – Many permits allow for 2 power boats slips
vi) Audience: There is no one governing the stands
(1) CM – People choose to ignore the 500 pound rule
vii) BB – Subcommittee needs to get a consensus together
viii) BW – this is hinged on what is enforceable
ix) BB – Let’s set a date for the subcommittee meeting
x) CM – 3 members of the community want to be on the subcommittee
xi) BW – BB is subcommittee chair
xii) CM – Meeting is set for Tuesday, May 22nd at 1 p.m. the place is to be determined
b) Conrad Stephanitis – Glendale Shore President
i) Called to be put on the agenda and was not permitted – wants a special meeting called to discuss the Glendale Shores issue
ii) WB – The issue with Glendale Shores is longstanding
(1) They met with Senator Edwards, DNR Secretary and DNR Deputy Secretary Schwaab
(2) Eric Schwabb indicated that the PRB should come up with a recommendation
(3) WB briefly discussed history of issue
iii) Glendale Shores – We would like to be put on a special meeting agenda to show background and paperwork of issue
iv) JF – Carolyn anything to add?
(1) CM – No
v) BB – Bill’s Marine has permit for the location
vi) Glendale Shores – We want to present our arguments
vii) JF – Get something to the PRB prior to next meeting
viii) SJ – provide the entire history of the issue
c) Bill McCracken – Coast Guard Auxiliary
i) Sees a need for a flotilla on DCL
ii) Wants to recruit interested parties
iii) Can provide valuable services – safety patrols of lake with no enforcement – eyes and ears to increase the quality of boating on DCL
(5) Next meeting date - July 23, 2007, 6 p.m., Deep Creek Lake State Park Discovery Center
(6) Motion to adjourn (JKline) - Unanimously seconded
Footnote from BB and BW – “A good time was had by all.”
Attachment 1: TALGC Golf Course Irrigation and Lake Water Withdrawal Fact Sheet
January 2007
Date: January 29, 2007 Time: 1800 hrs (6:00 p.m.)
Place: Deep Creek Lake State Park Discovery Center
Board Members Present: Chairman-John Forman, James Kline, Ernie Gregg, Barry Weinberg, Bob Browning, Lou Battistella, Jay Kaminek, Scott Johnson, Steve Green
NRP Officers: Lt. Brad Stafford, Sgt. Dave Marple, Capt. Adrian Baker, Sgt. Wayne Jones, Ofc. Brian Albert, Sgt. Richard Walbeck
MD Park Service: Major Chris Anderson and Carolyn Mathews, Lake Manager
Guests to address the Board: DNR Assistant Secretary Mike Slattery, Herb Sachs and John Grace, MDE
Old Business
Commercial Boat Tours on Deep Creek Lake
Assistant Secretary of the Department – Mr. Mike Slattery (MS)
• Apology for initial confusion regarding larger vessels on Deep Creek Lake.
• NRP & DNR officials feedback was negative to larger vessels on DCL
• The issue as he understood is
o There are no existing Coast Guard inland waterway standards for larger vessels
o DNR has authority to develop standards however does not have expertise or regulatory authority to enforce
o DNR has two main concerns: liability and public safety
o Referred to accidents involving tour boats in upstate New York and Baltimore in the recent past
o Feels DNR cannot responsibly manage tour boat enterprise as desired
o Willing to continue conversation regarding tour boat issue as it relates to economic development of lake and surrounding area
o Once again emphasizes DNR concerns:
* Liability of boat tour business
* Public safety of tourists on tour boats and other boaters recreating on DCL
• Bob Browning (BB) – Very disappointed with the DNR response. Why was so much time wasted working on regulations and issue?
• MS - Unfortunately, when this issue was brought to DNR, there were new people working on this issue and they did not follow proper procedures
• BB - He worked with DNR personnel Dan Stansil and Lake Manager, Paul Durham who were in constant consultation with superiors on the initial proposal and regulations and feels that public is being denied access to lake
• MS - Preliminary decision letter from DNR went out with tacit approval without being vetted with appropriate authority of state officials
o Final Decision letter brought in staff at appropriate level of expertise and authority who said “no” to proposal
o He takes responsibility for the “botched communication”
o Is willing to take the issue back to the new DNR Secretary John Griffin but does not feel outcome will change
• BB - When he ran a boat tour operation at DCL for 18 years, 25,000 people used it and 20,000 would have never seen DCL had it not been available to the public
o US Coast Guard does have standards and they require all vessels to meet the recreational standards and requirements
o The proposed DCL regulations drafted specifically for the tour boat(s) also require an inspection by an accredited Marine surveyor so DNR is not required to have the “expertise” to do these inspections
. MS - The size of the boat proposed is the issue and sticking point for DNR
• BB - A 30’ long boat carries 50 people, What is the difference between a 30’ and a 45’ boat as far as liability is concerned?
• JF – When the PRB was created in 2000, one of the priorities voiced by the members of the Delegation was to work towards putting Tour Boats on DCL. The primary concern at the time was the size of the boat(s).
• MS - Staff recommendations lead DNR Secretary Ron Franks and Assistant Secretary MS to make the decision against the boat tour operations on DCL
o Reiterates that if PRB requests he will take this issue back to the new DNR Secretary John Griffin
• Barry Weinberg (BW) - Do you (MS) have any suggestions for “making it work”?
o The footage of the boat proposed matches the capacity of tour busses in the area
o Initial focus for PRB was 3 issues
* Lake Management Plan
* Conservation Easements
* Tour Boat Operations
• 75’ long – did not go forward
• looked at shorter length that would accommodate tour busses and 45’ was answer
o Feels it is a summarily dismissive decision by DNR
o “How can DNR assist PRB in being able to do what we want to do?”
• MS – That’s a fair question – need to work hard on recommendation that would satisfy issue
• BW - “How do we mutually come up with something that will work?”
• MS - A change in leadership may lead to a change in policy
o Doesn’t want to minimize the concerns of DNR staff
o Sees that PRB shares these same concerns
o Agreed a more relaxed approach to communications between PRB and Office of Secretary needs to be implemented
o Recap of what he needs to do
* Raise issue with new DNR Secretary
* Make Secretary aware of conviction of PRB regarding the economic impacts of decision
* Move forward to collectively address liability and management issues concerning all parties
o Does not know when to expect the next step and acknowledged long standing relationship between John Griffin and PRB members
Approval of October 2006 Minutes
. JF - To get back on agenda, minutes need to be approved
• BW - Minutes are becoming too summarized
o Identify who makes motions and yea or nay votes
o Minutes serve as a record and fuller description of what went on at meeting
. Chris Anderson (CA) Verbatim minutes are not goal
• JF - Defer to next meeting to approve minutes of October 2006 meeting
New Business
Boat Act Advisory Committee meeting report (BAAC)
Barry Weinberg and Bob Browning
• BW - PRB was primary agenda item
o BAAC was established to give advice to DNR Secretary regarding boats and boating issues
* 14 committee members in attendance
o Presented proposal to allow PWC’s on DCL to proceed at speed through all bridges on DCL
* State regulations require PWC’s to stay 100’ from bridge piers
* PWC’s must slow to 6 knots while other vessels do not slow
* Concerns:
• Bridge supports on DCL are not very wide and the 100’ rule crowds vessels passing under the bridge
• PWC’s are less maneuverable at slower speeds
• The sudden variance in speed of boat traffic around bridges – powerboats maintaining speed and PWC’s slowing down to 6 knots
* Presented letters to BAAC
• Letter to DNR Secretary dated April 2006 that outlined issue
• Letter from DNR Secretary to PRB dated July 2006 that agreed that this was a good idea
• Discussion ensued if this is such a problem, why isn’t everyone required to slow down
* BAAC informed PRB that PRB did not follow proper procedures and the issue was going to be tabled until all protocols are followed
• PRB reps felt the BAAC was being cavalier towards another statutory committee
• Believed PRB had supplied plenty of information
• Appears there are other issues involved with BAAC position that had nothing to do with PRB
• Ultimately, BAAC appointed a sub-committee of Steve Klink and John Marple to explore a way that BAAC and PRB can work together in the future
• Stated that PRB does not want to fight with BAAC just wants to get serious work done with BAAC cooperation
• Discussion among PRB members
o Is BAAC “above” PRB in the DNR hierarchy?
o Did PRB do a procedural “end run”?
* No, statute says to write to DNR Secretary
o If BAAC wants to slow all boats, then maybe we’d be better off leaving things the way they are
o How do we work with BAAC and not make same mistakes in the future?
o BB – Maybe we should make a motion to remove this issue from the table
o BW – mystified as to BAAC response to the proposal – this whole thing was bungled along the whole way. BB idea to table the issue until we can figure out how to work with BAAC is good
o BB – let’s withdraw it so we don’t get something we don’t want
• MS explaining role of Boards in DNR
o Both PRB and BAAC approve and disapprove DNR Secretary decisions – as do the Fisheries Boards
o One board can’t tell another yea or nay – the DNR Secretary does this
o They are parallel organizations – both “advise” DNR Secretary
o DNR staff should act as PRB “staff” to facilitate relationship with BAAC
o It is always appropriate to work with DNR staff to come up with consensus between Boards
o Sometimes Boards issue conflicting recommendations to DNR Secretary
• BB – PRB can approve or disapprove regulations unlike BAAC
• MS – We anticipate some turnover in BAAC as some members have expressed interest in leaving
• BW – BB & I thought that if BAAC does set up this sub-committee, someone from PRB should meet with BAAC and have a general discussion about DNR and other issues
• MS – PRB should include BAAC in discussion but PRB does not have to go through them
• BW- Move that PRB establish a committee to talk with BAAC about future relationship
• Motion unanimously approved
Introduction of audience members
• Sergeant Wayne Jones – new supervisor of Western Region NRP staff
• Sergeant Walbeck – NRP Boating Safety
Update on Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) review of Brookfield Power request for valve repairs – fall 2007
John Grace (JG) and Herb Sachs (HS)
* JG gives background of issue
o July 2006 Brookfield Power requested MDE allow Brookfield Power lower lake water levels 2 feet beyond the established rule band in the fall of 2006 to do repairs to the valve system of the Dam.
o MDE told Brookfield Power that this request would be considered for fall 2007
o January 2007 Brookfield Power resubmitted request for October 2007
* Expressed need to replace valves in the turbines and need to lower lake levels beyond rule band to be able to safely do work
o Condition 14 of contract does not allow for outages from mid-May to mid-October
o Proposed timeline:
* October 8th – lake levels already at the October lower rule band level of 2456.75’ – hold there until after Autumn Glory
* 12 to 14 days to complete the drawdown to 2454’
* Close gates and do work within 30 days
* As soon as gates close lake begins to refill
* Should have lake level high enough by Thanksgiving for Wisp to use lake water to make snow.
o MDE wants everyone to have plenty of opportunity to remove docks from lake and fisheries to know that access to the Youghiogheny will be limited
* Carolyn Mathews (CM) – Dock removal companies need enough time to schedule dock removals
* Scott Johnson (SJ) – Did Brookfield Power change the lower rule band date?
* JG – Labor Day will be normal lake level
o October 8th lake at lower rule band for October – 2456.75’
o October 22nd lake at 2454’
o Believes lake will be back to normal numbers by end of November
* SJ – two opposite concerns here – who needs lake levels at which end of drawdown
o Wisp – Thanksgiving
o Boaters, dock companies, tourists and property owners– Autum Glory
* JG - MDE & Brookfield Power primary concern is the water does not go over spillway during this period
o Lake level decided on will accommodate a 500 year flood event
* Steve Green (SG) – What is effect of water going over spillway?
* JG – Spillway is overgrown with herbaceous material so a flow over it will cause sediment erosion, uprooted trees, general mess
* SJ – Brookfield Power agreed in a phone conversation to October 14th as start date
* General discussion about effect of 6 day difference between 8th and 14th.
* CM – Information about lake drawdown is going out in the February Buffer Strip Use Permit mailing
* SG – Skipco Waterfront Properties is sending out information letters now to slip lease holders
* CM- we’re all trying to get the information distributed
* Parker Jacobs – will this affect the December 1st regulation for dock removal
* CM – No this only concerns this year and boats and docks being left high and dry
* SG – Stakeholders need to know so they can plan construction projects on lakeshore
* CM – expects a flood of applications for October shoreline improvements
* BW – Motion to deputize Scott Johnson as PRB spokesperson regarding the October 8th versus October 14th issue. Scott accepts.
* JG – Impressed with Brookfield Power’s outreach efforts to all involved and encourages comments
* BB – recommends Brookfield Power schedule all maintenance projects for this time period
* Bob Nichols – If there is opposition to the change where should it be directed?
* JG – MDE
New Administration /New Appointments
* JF – There is a open seat on the Board
* CM – Collecting resumes from interested parties and will submit to the appropriate people at the appropriate time
Public Comment
* JF – Is there any other public comment? None
Next meeting date and agenda
April 30, 2007 at 6 p.m. at Discovery Center
Motion to adjourn.
Motion passed unanimously.
Minutes taken and compiled by Julie Allbrooks, Assistant Lake Manager
