Folder Houghton Lake

pdf HL1: Management of Eurasian watermilfoil in Houghton Lake, Michigan: Workshop Summary

Management of Eurasian watermilfoil in Houghton Lake, Michigan: Workshop Summary


Authors: Kurt D. Getsinger, Angela G. Poovey, William F. James, R. Michael Stewart, Michael J. Grodowitz, Michael J. Maceina, and Raymond M. Newman

Author Affiliation: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center

Journal: Aquatic Plant Control Research Program, ERDC/EL TR-02-24, September 2002

Abstract: Conventional mechanical control techniques could theoretically be used to control all actively growing milfoil beds in Houghton Lake. However, due to the acreage involved, the low areal production rates of these systems, and the regrowth of harvested milfoil plants in 4 to 6 weeks, treatment by this technique will probably be limited to small high-use areas (e.g., boat lanes, marinas, boat launches, etc.) and control of free-floating plant fragments in open water. Biological control techniques focused on the milfoil weevil, which is highly specific to watermilfoils. Chemical control techniques focused on both contact and systemic aquatic herbicides that were registered in the state of Michigan. With aquatic herbicides, species-selective control is important; the population of the invasive Eurasian watermilfoil can be significantly reduced while limiting negative impacts on the desirable native plant community. It is clear that actions can be undertaken to greatly reduce the amount of milfoil in the system, and keep milfoil populations at a reasonably low level, while restoring and conserving the recognized benefits of a diverse native aquatic plant community. In order to achieve such a goal, it is imperative that a lake management plan be developed to address the short-term problems associated with the infestation for the next 1 to 3 years, followed by addressing the long-term reduction and continued control of milfoil in Houghton Lake over the next several decades. This plan should prioritize the most valuable resources and lake uses in order to design and implement activities for restoring and maintaining Houghton Lake in a healthy condition now and in the future. Watershed management practices, including maintenance of shoreline property and lake level issues, should be reviewed and assessed to determine impacts of those processes on the implementation and success of milfoil control techniques applied to the lake.

pdf HL2: Houghton Lake, MI – Restoring the aquatic Vegetation

Houghton Lake, MI – Restoring the Aquatic Vegetation


Authors: Craig S. Smith1, Mark Mongin2, & Mark A. Heilman2

Affiliation: 1 Everglades National Park, 2 SePRO Corporation

Journal: Lakeline, North American Lakre Mgt. Society, Fall 2003

Abstract: Problems resulting from the proliferation of Eurasian watermilfoil in Houghton Lake led to the development of a plan for managing Eurasian watermilfoil and restoring the native vegetation of the lake. In 2001, conditions in the lake were evaluated and integrated pest management strategy for controlling Eurasian watermilfoil was devised. The strategy uses a whole-lake herbicide application to get Eurasian watermi1foil under control and then 'the milfoil weevil, Euhrychiopsis lecontei, to keep Eurasian watermilfoil under control. The first phase of the restoration was conducted in 2002, when the entire lake was treated with Sonar® aquatic herbicide (active ingredient: fluridone). By August, Eurasian watermilfoil abundance had decreased by 91 percent.

pdf HL3: Houg Eco Impact 2004

Economic Impact Survey of Eurasian Watermilfoil Removal from Houghton Lake


Authors & Author Affiliation:
Jim Deamud, Houghton Lake Improvement Board
Jim E. Henderson, US Army Corps of Engineers
Mike C. Lennon, Aquatic Control Technology, Inc.
Mark S. Mangin, SePRO Corporation
Dick Pastula, Houghton Lake Improvement Board

Journal: Houghton Lake Improvement Board, July 2004

Abstract: To address the EWM problem, corrective action was taken in the spring/summer 2002 by the Houghton Lake Improvement Board to successfully remove EWM from the lake. Their selected strategy used the Integrated Method for Controlling Aquatic Plants (IMCAP*), which included a whole-lake, low dose, precision application of the aquatic herbicide Sonar*. An economic impact and property owner survey followed in October 2003. The results from this survey reported that a large majority (96 percent) of those responding were satisfied with the treatment of the lake, and that a majority, facing a similar situation in the future, would take similar corrective action.

pdf HL4: 2004 DNR Fish Study

The Fish Community and Fishery of Houghton Lake, Roscommon County, Michigan with Emphasis on Walleyes and Northern Pike


Authors: Richard D. Clark, Jr., Patrick A. Hanchin, and Roger N. Lockwood


Journal: FISHERIES DIVISION SPECIAL REPORT, Number 30, August 2004

Abstract: Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Fisheries Division surveyed fish populations and angler catch and effort at Houghton Lake, Roscommon County, Michigan from January 2001 through March 2002. This work was part of a new, statewide program designed to improve assessment and monitoring of fish communities and fisheries in Michigan’s largest inland lakes. Known as the Large Lakes Program, it is currently scheduled to survey about four lakes per year over the next ten years. This report on Houghton Lake is the first in a series that will document the work of the program.

pdf HL5: Fish Report 2007

Houghton Lake Fish Report 2007


Authors: not named

Author Affiliation: MDNR

Journal: Fish Collection System, 2007

Abstract: The purpose of this survey was to evaluate the fish community using trap nets at index sites sampled during June since 1972, and electrofishing specifically for walleye. Information from this survey was compared to other surveys conducted since 1922. Information on fish growth, catch rates, and age composition were compiled from Fisheries Division surveys and reports.

pdf HL6: Fish Report 2008

Houghton Lake Fish Report 2008


Authors: not named

Author Affiliation: MDNR

Journal: Fish Collection System, 2008

Abstract: This survey was conducted to continue evaluations of juvenile walleye recruitment in Houghton Lake. These evaluations were recommended in the 1993 management plan. Also provided is a summary of walleye stocking since 1908, catch rates of juveniles since 1990 and growth indices of juveniles and adults from electrofishing and netting surveys since 1922.

pdf HL7: Plant Control Update 2011

Houghton Lake 2011 Plant Control Program


Authors: not named

Author Affiliation: Houghton Lake Improvement Board

Journal: Houghton Lake Improvement Board, 2011

Abstract: Prior to the onset of the plant control program in 2002, Eurasian milfoil infested nearly 11,000 acres of Houghton Lake. Plant control activities in Houghton Lake are coordinated under the direction of biologists from Progressive AE, the lake board’s environmental consultant. In early June, a whole-lake vegetation survey will be conducted to identify Eurasian milfoil locations. With the herbicides used in Houghton Lake, there are no fishing restrictions, a 24-hour swimming restriction, and some irrigation restrictions. These restrictions only apply to the portions of the lake that are treated, which equates to about 10% of the lake.

pdf HL8: Houghton 2011 Annual Report rd3

Houghton Lake 2011 Annual Report


Authors: not named

Author Affiliation: Progressive AE, Grand Rapids, MI 49525-2442

Journal: Project No: 55520101, for the Houghton Lake Improvement Board, September 2011

Abstract: The lake board commissioned a management feasibility study of Houghton Lake that was completed in January of 2002 (Smith et al. 2002). To address the widespread milfoil problem, a whole-lake treatment with the aquatic herbicide fluridone (trade name Sonar®) was conducted in the spring of 2002 as part of a five-year management plan. In 2006, public hearings were conducted pursuant to statute and the management plan was continued for an additional five years (2007 to 2011). Key components of the management plan include aquatic plant control, water quality and vegetation monitoring, information and education, watershed management, and fisheries management. This report contains a status of the project through 2011. (Appendices not included due to file size limitations)