Introductions/Attendance
The meeting attendees introduced themselves and identified their affiliations with the project. Those in attendance included: Janna Sebald, MDEQ; Julie Griess, Pittsfield Twp Representative;  Kathy Giszczak, Augusta Twp Representative and Master Gardener; Aretta Schils, London Township resident; Henry Altenbert, Augusta Twp resident;  Cheryl Baltrip, Exeter Township Representative; Roger Bezek, Exeter Township Representative; Kris Neuvirth, London Twp.; Jim Spas, Frenchtown; Marty Boote, Tilton  & Associates; Dr. Kevin Gustavson, WRC/EMU; and Megan Lindsey, ICARD/EMU.

Coldwater Fishery – Paint Creek
Dr. Gustavson addressed an email that was sent to the stakeholders list from Jeff Braunscheidel, fisheries biologist with the DNR.  A subsequent email exchange Kevin Gustavson and Jeff Bruanscheidel ended up clarifying the concerns raised.  However, by reminding us that Paint Creek is a designated trout stream, we have had to reevaluate the inclusion of “coldwater fishery” as a designated use rather than a desired use as the Steering Committee agreed earlier.  Janna Sebald said she would look into the implications of the coldwater designation of Paint Creek.  Kevin Gustavson announced that after comparing the 10 temperature measurements taken in 2003 as a part of the stream monitoring, the temperature was higher than allowable for coldwater streams in Michigan at 3 of the 4 monitoring stations on 30-40 % of the sampling dates.  This suggests that temperature is more of a problem than reported at the public forums that were based on the designated use of warmwater fishery.

Note: on April 28, Janna Sebald informed Kevin Gustavson that the trout stream designation of Paint Creek means that we should consider “coldwater fishery” a designated use of Paint Creek for the purpose of this planning grant.  Therefore, the Steering Committee no longer has a list of additional desired uses for the watershed, but the list of designated uses is longer.  The good news is that the data collected on Paint Creek will allow us to demonstrate a need for grant money to restore Paint Creek as a coldwater fishery.

Forum Reactions
Dr. Gustavson continued with a brief discussion of the recent public forums in Ypsilanti and Frenchtown. Both were perceived as successful and helped us collect some public opinions concerning the watershed as a whole as well as a specific set of opinions concerning the prioritization of pollutants in the two areas of the watershed. This information was kept in two separate groups to represent the differing aspects of the upper and lower parts of the creek.

 On the whole the group felt the forums had been a successful way to collect information; several suggestions concerning logistical details such as sound and map set-up were offered for the future. It was noted that the top five of the public’s prioritized pollutants were the same (although in different order) in both regions. Additionally, Dr. Gustavson felt that, with the exception of temperature which deserved more attention (in Paint Creek, a designated trout stream, in light of new information that suggests temperatures are too high for the coldwater designation), the public has similar concerns as the technical committee has expressed and will address.

It was suggested that more educational materials be provided for the next forum.  Dr. Gustavson indicated that this was an excellent idea where funding allowed it.  The planning grant did not provide a great deal of funding for public education, but in a way that was one of the main purposes of the public forum along with gathering opinions.  The video, the presentation, the project website, and the visitor from the Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program were efforts to educate the public despite the lack of funding for public education.  He noted that the group will continue to work on attaining resources for the public to take an educated role in maintaining watershed health in their daily activities.

Decision Process
In order to create the final plan proposal to be submitted to DEQ there must be sources, causes, and solutions listed. The final decisions lie with the Steering Committee, but Dr. Gustavson indicated that the Technical Committee was set up to use experts to help us make those decisions.  With that in mind, he asked the group how they would like to go about using that Committee.  What exactly does the Steering Committee see as the Technical Committee’s role?  Members indicated that they feel the Committee should be directed to use the public’s comments and prioritization of pollutants to help determine the best specific solutions to put into the plan for eventual action.  The Steering Committee will be updated with information from the Technical Committee as it becomes available and will review and discuss the progress at the next Steering Committee meeting in May.

Watershed Events
On June 19th Dr. Gustavson will be holding a study for the public to help collect macroinvertebrates to be studied for evaluation of watershed health. Everyone is invited to join in that event and the public has been invited to join in.  He also mentioned that he was beginning to plan a tour of the watershed for the Technical Committee.  If anyone from the Steering Committee were interested in attending this event or they feel that there would be a large public demand for it, they were asked to notify Dr. Gustavson and he would plan to make it a larger group or set up a separate time, whichever seems most appropriate.