Board Meeting – April 3, 2008

Board Meeting  – April 3, 2008

 

Agenda:          Native Re-Vegetation,  Cynobacteria Monitoring Program

                       

Visitors:          Ursula Sperry from DSL, Raylene Erickson-PADL Recording Secretary,  Kerry Richards, Property Owner

 

Minutes:         Discussion about the Devils Lake Plan suggest that it needs to cover more than just SolarBees. A board members suggests that they would need to determine after the SolarBee installation if they had any impact on controlling vegetation.

 

Links:             Complete Agenda, Complete Minutes

 

For excerpts from the Minutes select

 

The Devils Lake Plan

Nothing has been completed on this project. Green said a strategy needs to be created. The plan cannot feature SolarBees and revegetating of the Lake exclusively. Green said the most obvious plan would be a sequence of starting with SolarBees and then determining if they help vegetation. It might be that if invasive species reproduction can be stopped by Solar Bees, the natural vegetation might regenerate. Strayer said that invasive species will no doubt return faster then the native species. Juenke asked about selective control of the weeds. Strayer replied the Corps of engineers in Florida said they didn’t see how water movement could inhibit the growth of anything. Green said oxygen in the water was supposed to inhibit growth of invasive species. Oxygenation of ammonia is less favorable to the weeds. Green suggested trying to encourage the natural growth prior to introducing any so-called native vegetation. Strayer said the carp will not be able to eat whatever is starting in the growth pattern, and any vegetation that grows the fastest will take over. Green said they need to get moving on the Solar Bees.

 

Steilacoomb, which is urbanized similar to Lake Oswego, tried copper sulfate to get rid of algae and have a sediment layer different from Devils Lake. They had nine Solar Bees on 420 acres—narrow with coves and pretty shallow—20 feet deep. Cyanobacteria are the primary problem, similar to the weeds in the ‘80’s. Joe Eisler thought it would be good to experiment with the SolarBees. It was suggested there might be a  marketing element to their reasoning—they don’t want to partially treat the lake due to potential failure. Discussion was had about the best place to install the Solar Bees. Regatta Grounds would be a key place to begin. It would take two units to attack that cove, close in. The footprint would have to be one per 30 acres. Also attacking up in a cove, such as the Marina area, might be a good spot for maybe, three. Robertson reminded the group that they are not trying to experiment, they are trying to correct the problem. In 2005, Robertson said, core drilling was performed. Green suggested they are hesitating to cover the entire lake because of the cost. Regarding a grant or a matching grant, Green said Devils Lake should be an ideal candidate. Grant opportunities might be with OWEB and U.S. Geological Survey.

 

Juenke said Strayer’s previous draft of a plan would help to prioritize the goals. The No. 1 priority, although there are multiple goals, is improving water quality, addressing cyanobacteria and reestablishing native wildlife in the lake, while maintaining recreational aspects of the lake. Juenke went on to say that if a test can be completed, they should get with it and address the most urgent issues. The Lake Management Plan should be the beginning. It shouldn’t be a long tedious project. Green suggested investigating what potential grants would require in the form of a plan. Ron Ploger was suggested as a good person to assist in applying for the grant. Green said he feels they ought to try Solar Bees first, and then lead into whether a three or five Solar Bee study would provide enough information. Strayer said he feels the Solar Bees and the revegetation can be tried at the same time. Discussion continued on which entities might provide grants. Robertson said obtaining six or seven grant applications might be possible prior to the next meeting. Juenke suggested that the Solar Bee people might have some ideas about funds available for grants.

 

There was further discussion about the number of carp remaining in the lake. It is estimated that there are probably 1,000 or so. Juenke would like to establish controlling cyanobacteria as the No.1 priority and making a decision on whether SolarBees are the best method of accomplishing this. He said it is clear that that this would be the most attractive avenue of pursuit. The question still remains—would it be best to attempt to do this on a trial basis in a controlled area. He suggested Robertson present 25 or  so vegetation management/cyanobacteria management ideas from the larger list and they could evaluate the best.

 

Bacteria Monitoring

The weekly monitoring program of seven sites around the lake will begin about the first week of May. Robertson is rewriting the bacteria monitoring manual to bring it into alignment with the sites’ renaming. Results will be posted the second day on the parks’ blue metal signs. The monitoring would be included as part of the Lake Management Plan. Robertson will check with the News Guard people to see if they will again post results.

 

Cyanobacteria Monitoring

This is the second year. Robertson is working on the methodology for toxicity monitoring. Phase I is visual monitoring along with the physical parameter monitoring performed weekly in the bacterial monitoring program. Phase II utilizes the existing contact for cyanophyte  identification. A 48hour turn around time is required after placing the plankton on the truck. (72 hours total). For warnings on getting people off the lake, caution signs could be placed on the lake. Other ideas might be a yellow sign on a stake, web access of information for those who live on the lake, or email notification. There might also be a specific location for people to check for warnings for cyanobacteria, a reverse 911 or jet skis of the fire department. Phase III, if necessary, would be cyanotoxicity  onitoring that would run approximately $2,000 a month.

 

Toxicity Monitoring Equipment

This item was placed in the budget at an amount of $5,000. Robertson said he attempted to get a grant, but was rejected. In October, it was decided to purchase the equipment if a grant was rejected. This would be a great way to notify the public on Phase I and II. One sample for Regatta would cost $750. If this were completed three or four times, the budget would be spent. Therefore, Robertson said, the monitoring equipment should be  purchased. Strayer asked what time commitment would be required of Robertson. He replied that it would be a great learning experience for an intern. Sampling, then getting it back to the lab would be a five hour plus

project, 2.5 hours when the blooms are visible. There is also an estimate for the equipment and training of three people in the budget. Winchester suggested buying all the supplies in this budget and utilizing next year’s budget for the monitoring amount. Green asked if training would be required every year, then suggested trying to get an intern to assist.

Green moved and Juenke seconded allocating the $6,700 to buy the equipment prior to summertime.

Vote: Unanimous. Motion passed.

Leave a comment

Filed under DLWID, Meeting Reports

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s