[0:00] If you call the order the December 2012 meeting, the devil's like water improvement district, first order of business is the consent agenda.

[0:14] Do you have a motion for her?

[0:16] I'm moving adopted, Senate agenda.

[0:18] Second. Second. Okay. All those in favor?

[0:22] Aye. Aye. Post. Okay. Motion carries unanimously.

[0:27] Have any public comment this evening?

[0:31] Sir, I'm on a,

[0:47] I'm mild, slasinger, 1192 North East Lake Drive, Lincoln City, Oregon.

[0:57] And for about five months now, I've had the idea of having another event to attract people to Lincoln City during a typically slow weekend.

[1:13] And I've gotten the Northwest Jet Sports Association, which has, as part of the Jet-Ski National Organization to run a race here.

[1:34] And last Thursday, I got news that the Chinook Wins casino in Resort will sponsor the insurance

[1:45] for which is about an $1800 bill, but they want to have their two conditions to that.

[1:56] One is that we get a letter from Paul Robertson or Mr. Schurven that you concur with the idea of a jet ski races. Hopefully it'll be an annual event.

[2:15] And it will start off the season for Jetsky racing in the Northwest, which is finished in the

[2:25] blotian tournament in Pacific City.

[2:31] And the other condition besides a lot of from Delhi's Lake Water Improvement District

[2:39] is they want the application to go to the city for the other half of the matching funds,

[2:47] which will be delivered probably tomorrow, a Monday, and the project manager for the

[2:57] Getski Association is a publisher of a weekly newspaper like the newsguard here, but

[3:05] It's in Omak Washington, and he's got that and is selling it in now.

[3:12] We should have the Chamber of Commerce on board, but I haven't talked to them yet, and

[3:19] when I get the application turned in, then I'm going to go to them because we want to involve

[3:28] as many local businesses in the affair that, because we want to use the city park, the

[3:39] Regatta Park, and it's a two-day event with lots of excitement.

[3:47] So, it's good.

[3:48] What do they want to hold it?

[3:49] It'll be held the weekend before Memorial Day, which is a shoulder weekend to the

[3:57] But it's nice weather normally in Lincoln City.

[4:04] So sometime around the 15th.

[4:06] 15th and 17th this week, the 17th and 18th and 19th and 19th and 19th and 19th and 19th.

[4:14] But Miles, I didn't understand what the city is being asked to match.

[4:19] The visitors and convention bureau has matching funds, and it costs about $4,500 to put on this with ambulance services and, or stand by ambulance when the racers are out, and with the prizes, trophies and such as that for the participants.

[4:49] The participants will also have to pay for insurance for the jet ski association nationally,

[5:02] because they're racing and so there are expenses and the city has matching funds for non-profit organizations,

[5:11] that attract local business to local community and it was my idea to have this

[5:20] because I'd like to have some excitement at the Grigata grounds because I

[5:26] live there and I'm a full-time resident now and I think it would be a fun

[5:33] event that could drop people to the late and that will give us an opportunity

[5:41] to maybe showcase the lake and talk about the environmental a little bit, which I think

[5:51] Paul and Seth did a good job last August when they held in the way up there and have

[6:00] some fun so that we have the jet boat time trials held in October this would be the

[6:10] of the season. A little more action than the old guys who put in the jet boats and

[6:19] race them and then put them back on and go home. What's the time for the letter of the letter

[6:29] support? The next day or two.

[6:34] We'd like to get this wrapped up so I can start getting

[6:40] So sweatshirt vendors and those things to do, I'm doing this as a volunteer because I

[6:48] need some things to be able to do to entertain myself.

[6:56] Am I allowed to have a question for you?

[6:58] Do you foresee having to close off part of the Laker?

[7:02] It'll be closed off in front of the robotic rounds during the time that the races are going

[7:11] on Saturday and Sunday and probably Friday to set up the bullies but that's a limited amount

[7:19] of time.

[7:20] So just go out the front half way out, maybe, but not all the way over here, okay.

[7:29] Thank you.

[7:31] So anything that I can do, if I facilitate this, I'm going to lean on Seth and Paul to

[7:43] direct me to the proper authority and new port that really manages or controls the

[7:51] for this day. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[8:00] Next door to businesses. Those like plans,

[8:03] stuff to be revitalization programs. So I had a meeting that we've been planning with David

[8:09] Hawker saying he's the county planner, Wayne Balmont is county attorney and Tony Shear,

[8:15] who's the health specialist. And really just to kind of get this program rolling,

[8:20] figuring out the roles of each of the agencies of the city and the county who

[8:27] So I think we have some consensus there of kind of what the inspector role is going to be,

[8:32] what the city role is going to be, what the county role is going to be.

[8:35] And I laid that out a little bit in the staff report, just saying that the city will contract

[8:39] with someone to do the inspection.

[8:42] The inspector will do the inspection, and in that inspection they'll be like these triggers,

[8:48] which value DQ rules about what a failing system is.

[8:53] If an inspector doesn't inspection, finds a system that's failing,

[8:56] that report will go to the county,

[8:58] and then the county will follow up on that report.

[9:02] And that took months to give to that point,

[9:04] but it's pretty simple, and we're now on the same page,

[9:07] and Tony and I will be sure that we have those triggers clear,

[9:11] and they work for the city and the county.

[9:14] The second discussion is about where to start this program, so we've been talking about doing

[9:19] like a phased in approach, looked at doing the phased in a lot of, it's in the past, you

[9:25] know, proximity to the lake, or water use plus proximity to the lake, plus age of tank, and

[9:32] we looked at like a lot of different criteria, and right now, it looks like the city managers,

[9:37] the way he would like to begin is looking at properties that are within the city first.

[9:42] They said, more jurisdiction over those, I think they feel responsibility because it's within the city.

[9:48] Not getting rid of this phasing idea, but just suggesting we start with city properties first.

[9:53] And then the third topic that came up was the use of die testing.

[9:58] Talked about a whole lot.

[10:02] And there's kind of two lines of thought.

[10:04] It's going this die testing idea and really this is early on.

[10:08] But there's first saying is there a possibility that instead of doing a full inspection and a property we could just use a digest and that would be the entire inspection and then the second conversation was

[10:20] Just using die testing as a supplement not a supplement, but having that be a tool as part of a regular inspection

[10:28] So where that's going I think it's don't important that we do full inspections

[10:33] But we'll kind of see how that's forward and see what the science has to say about it

[10:39] If we don't have uh, wasn't Tony Scher at the meeting here a few years back when we were talking to the

[10:47] Um, thank you guys, or the county guys, and I thought that discussion came up then and they didn't have much

[10:53] positive to say about died testing at the time.

[10:56] And that was my understanding of it too because we had this meeting and then sending a people who are saying like,

[11:01] no, die testing is extremely effective and then it's like, ah,

[11:04] I'm sure, like, a present sure, and then I came back.

[11:08] It's like, you remember the same thing that you had to remember.

[11:10] So I've done some research on it.

[11:12] I got a whole of, like, Randy Trock's ATQ,

[11:15] and it seems like everyone says it can be very effective.

[11:20] But there are certain situations where it can be a little bit.

[11:23] I think the problem is that if you do a diet,

[11:29] say that a system is failed.

[11:31] It can be very clear that if you do diet tests and you see diet,

[11:35] you know the system is failed.

[11:38] And I think that the concern that we're going to have, things we look more into this, we're

[11:41] going to see, is that based on like Hydro, table issues that we have, based on the way

[11:47] that the system's fail here, or I think that they fail directly in, it's just isn't

[11:52] very effective at finding those types of failure.

[11:55] So I think that's what that work, doing move forward, but we just aren't that forward yet.

[12:02] So when do we have, when do we expect you're going to have finalized roles and trigger procedures

[12:07] The triggers should move pretty quickly, but as far as this program in general, we're still a farways from it, be honest.

[12:20] But the height test I would imagine would cost a lot less, but not necessarily be conclusive.

[12:27] It would cost a lot less, correct?

[12:29] Yeah, it would be less, and it is easier.

[12:33] Please, easier.

[12:35] By the way, if it did show that there was a problem I suppose then you'd have to go through the full inspection.

[12:41] Yeah, you don't have to find out what is the problem then.

[12:44] It could cause even more after that.

[12:48] It might have really quickly that with the die test,

[12:52] you're going to have to go back there multiple times too.

[12:55] And so it might not be deeper,

[12:57] because if you have to pay somebody to just keep showing up and feeling well

[13:01] that there is, because it can take weeks, you know,

[13:04] we've heard so for that to show up.

[13:06] And I think what Seth was alluding to,

[13:08] It could just disappear into the soil because it's a failed system, it's going straight

[13:12] to groundwater.

[13:13] And you're not going to see it.

[13:15] It's just going to be in the groundwater.

[13:17] And those nutrients are still going to be migrating and things like that.

[13:21] So I'm pretty cautious on the idea of exclusively using die testing.

[13:25] I think it's a good tool.

[13:26] And I think for what we calculated about $16 a tank, being it, it has it, I think it makes

[13:33] sense.

[13:34] But there's another issue with die testing is if you die test six properties, all

[13:38] on the same block, and you don't use different color dies,

[13:42] which they do have different color dies.

[13:44] But at some point you start running at the issue

[13:47] of where's the coming from, if you did a show.

[13:49] So I don't think it's an exclusive tool to use.

[13:54] But I do see where the interest is,

[13:58] as people were not wanting to dig a backyards

[14:00] to go find the cover of these electric tanks,

[14:05] which now you have to have a cover of less than 84,

[14:07] or something, you have to have a exposed cover.

[14:11] But those ones that we're really concerned about,

[14:13] those Phantom ones that we don't know anything about.

[14:17] You know, people don't know where they are.

[14:19] Maybe in law like this, it'd be good that they did.

[14:23] But, you know, they might be under a deck or something,

[14:26] and people might be under a situation too in that,

[14:28] so I guess that's part of it.

[14:29] I had a question too.

[14:31] You said that the city right now is looking at starting,

[14:34] if they did this, to start in the city.

[14:36] Right.

[14:36] They wouldn't have to be in the drainage, right?

[14:40] Yeah.

[14:40] I don't know why sweet would be.

[14:42] Okay, yeah.

[14:42] So we started with, within the city, within the water.

[14:48] And I guess it's their choice.

[14:49] I mean, if they want to do city-wide, they could do that too, which wouldn't be a bad.

[14:56] Sir, the view?

[15:00] What people mean, we talk about it relatively thorough inspection, what constitutes a reasonably thorough inspection, septic system.

[15:12] Well, it's really like the three main parts that's checking out the integrity of the septic tank.

[15:17] Like the distribution box and then the drain field.

[15:21] How do they do that?

[15:23] Well, the septic tank, there's different ways to look at it.

[15:26] something, you can just look inside of it and get to stand and get like, it's working.

[15:32] It's easy to think you need to pump it first.

[15:35] Drain field,

[15:38] that should be based on like the soil qualities around the drain field.

[15:42] It should be pretty clear what's going on there.

[15:46] Oh, everything except this is a little murky, but clear enough.

[15:49] the feeling I have, but I mean, it'd just be nice to know it.

[15:56] Some agreement and what constitutes a reasonably thorough inspection, but I suppose that would come with some people talking mainly just a subject tank though,

[16:04] subject tank tank, a box and a drain field, I mean a whole system.

[16:09] The D&D, well, because those aren't special and we talked about, to meetings, hopefully aren't special.

[16:21] he was requiring.

[16:24] Okay,

[16:32] DQ rules.

[16:34] Yeah, so this is a day video of the letter

[16:36] and sent you guys a letter a couple days ago, I think.

[16:40] There's a group in the behind who submitted a petition

[16:41] to change a segment of DQ rules.

[16:45] And that's going to go from the Environmental Quality Commission.

[16:48] I think they had a public hearing on it last night.

[16:51] And public comment is open to tomorrow.

[16:55] And really what they were saying and the petition was saying

[16:58] that if even if it's showing that using a standard system

[17:03] it's efficient to prevent the pollution of groundwater.

[17:06] It should still be allowed to use a standard system

[17:08] if the cost of it moving to an advanced treatment system

[17:11] is 10% more than standard system.

[17:15] That's pretty much a guarantee.

[17:18] Pretty much a guarantee it will be more than 10%.

[17:21] Yeah, probably.

[17:22] Yeah, I would think in most cases.

[17:24] So really, I think what's happened to problems with nitrogen in their groundwater, and I think what they're trying to do is really just draw attention to this local problem that they have.

[17:35] I really go and see this moving forward.

[17:40] There's no way I can move forward, I don't think, but I think it's just important to show the symbolic commission for paying attention to these issues.

[17:47] So we just have like a really brief letter that's in front of you that just says

[17:52] Moving ahead with this petition would really go it's the entire point of the DQ type program

[17:58] So let's see if questions on that

[18:01] signing that David we can send it out tomorrow

[18:05] Is everybody read this? I guess all I'll make a motion that we go ahead and then do a letter support

[18:13] It's second. Okay any discussion all those of you?

[18:24] just a clarification letter in opposition maybe a letter in opposition yeah right

[18:32] okay vegetation management okay thank you so we've gotten basically I think the third

[18:43] draft now of this document this wildlife integrity review board submittal and

[18:50] I submitted that to you all gentlemen, but a week ago,

[18:53] I got a comment back, I know at least for Brian now.

[18:56] And I have a couple of comments, and I wanted basically

[18:58] round this up and get this, get a final,

[19:03] and get this submitted to him.

[19:06] I think I think we're pretty well-prime to get this on the table,

[19:12] get it starting the formal initiation of this process

[19:16] with ODF and W.

[19:17] And so, it could get like basically comments back the rest of the week, submit those to Joe,

[19:26] get his final draft, and then have a January copy free to look at for adoption is what

[19:31] I was proposing.

[19:32] When you say comments, do you want, like, yeah, that's to write up the set of arguments

[19:37] for doing this, what would serve any additions to the document itself?

[19:44] So, like, if they're shortcomings of the document or if it goes, you know, if it seems to be long-winded here and you don't think it's important or something, whatever comments improvements really.

[19:54] Because, I mean, we really want to have this as fine-tune, as possible, and have you all, you know, comfortable with this submittal of it, because it's effectively done in your name.

[20:03] So, and I said this about the third, I think is a third iteration, and so we're pretty

[20:09] close.

[20:10] I, you know, one common I had is I just wanted to make sure that there was a little bit

[20:13] more inclusion of the PSU study that we had done referencing that, you know, through their

[20:21] search, they didn't find any of the millfoil or the idea, you know, in the lake.

[20:25] So I wanted that in there, but that was about the only comment that I had.

[20:30] Well, I was thinking in terms of if I've had these pictures, I took when I first bought my place which was about a year before they put in the carp and just showing the docks, the old docks that were there and all the growth, you know, and you couldn't see more than a couple of inches through the water put into the plants.

[20:50] I just wondered if that sort of thing, if I submitted something like that along with, you know, this was what it used to be like, we don't want to see that again.

[21:01] Well, actually, for this part, not the right thing.

[21:03] Right, yeah, I would think it would be that would be, you know, when, if we get past this review board, then, you know, then basically it's like, okay, now we have the W looks at it formally and then we bring our petition to their commission.

[21:19] And at that point, when we're in front of the commission, we get to make a presentation.

[21:25] And people can have public comments.

[21:26] So we can have somebody from the district, Joe Isle, who's making our pitch.

[21:30] And then there can be public comment, which could include an individual, even though you're on the board.

[21:35] That would have you.

[21:36] Yeah. And so you can submit stuff as well.

[21:39] You wouldn't, because they're not going to let other individuals do presentations.

[21:44] It's just the applicant that makes a presentation.

[21:46] And people can provide written or oral comment at those meanings.

[21:53] So I think that would be the time.

[21:55] And that is the time for the commission to be allowed for the commission to look at

[22:02] this from more of a social and economic component as well.

[22:07] And so that's when those voices, we want to have those voices out there.

[22:11] What would you like our final comments to you?

[22:14] before the end of the mind-counter

[22:20] twenty-first

[22:21] twenty-second

[22:23] yeah

[22:30] that's what i was going to open something i don't know what our January date is but it's probably like the

[22:36] night at least or something so i think that's plenty of time

[22:39] you know if i get everything back to him

[22:42] right before the holidays, then he's got two three weeks to make a final and get it back to us

[22:48] and then I would have that in front of you for January's meeting.

[22:52] So Paul, just so I understand the process, this is the first submission of this goes to this

[22:58] wildlife integrity review board. Correct. And then, but the application itself,

[23:05] and there's a series of questions that apparently are pounded by the wildlife integrity review board

[23:11] have to be answered for their satisfaction, but then the application for the commission goes

[23:17] with that?

[23:18] Yeah, the application would then actually be secondary to that.

[23:25] So then Joe would prepare that application to the commission, which would reflect this document

[23:31] by large.

[23:33] But it could include.

[23:33] What's right on the stand is the final draft of the application, go with the submission

[23:39] to the wildlife and take a review board, or is he, yes, the document that we're generating

[23:46] would be the submittal to them.

[23:55] Any additional questions?

[23:58] Brian, sure.

[24:01] We know back, but submission that the question was whether Joe is suggesting, I think, that he

[24:09] not attached the devil's leg plan to the application.

[24:13] I don't think much of that.

[24:15] I really would like it to be clear that the grass carp is not the only thing that we're trying to do,

[24:28] or not even the focal point of our efforts to restore it in hands and rehabilitate doubles like.

[24:38] But maybe a happy meeting would be to attach the executive summary.

[24:42] absolutely and and and there were the reference to the website or the full plan can be

[24:47] Yeah, I mean I think whatever you're most comfortable with you know

[24:50] I thought I got that those comments for you and I he does I was you know

[24:56] Thinking at least like you're saying the exact summary if not I mean, you know the whole document to any of this 72 pages

[25:02] Which frankly they're probably not gonna weed through too much

[25:06] But if they actually had one top you have it if it's you know

[25:09] it's it's really goes down to that the forms that they're we're filling out this you

[25:13] know that whole litany of questions that they had asked that's what they're going to be looking

[25:17] at the supplemental stuff in in this case in here regard being what I think no was getting at

[25:26] more that you know photographic kind of evidence but that that plan I think does speak well to

[25:32] are are are are objectives you know and that they're not just essentially focused on grass

[25:37] that they're looking at septics and sewers and shoreline vegetation and that sort of thing.

[25:44] And I just read the executive summary and it makes a nice presentation about grass carp.

[25:51] It's even handed note. It tells about some of the problems that grass carp in cause,

[25:57] which, of course, he's trying to address in this new application.

[26:00] And so, but also talks about the benefits and basically that it's really the only way we can

[26:07] seriously address macrophytes on a whole-wake level is on.

[26:15] Yeah, I would want to be clear with him.

[26:17] And the exact number is three pages long.

[26:19] Yeah, that's a simple.

[26:22] So, with the reference to the website where the plan can be viewed in full.

[26:27] Okay, let's do that.

[26:29] Okay, and then any other additional comments will hold held at 22nd, is that with the date?

[26:38] Okay.

[26:43] The developments since our last meeting, first was 26 city council meeting,

[26:55] the presented

[26:56] city engineer,

[27:06] until they had had a chance.

[27:09] before that meeting, and it was proved as

[27:19] the council at that meeting, but

[27:22] Quorum and April,

[27:27] it's passed a month.

[27:28] If in the processes for the council to declare it's intent to

[27:36] kind of quote the statute, declares intent to make the improvement and the

[27:41] method and manner of doing so by resolution.

[27:44] Now, resolution drafted and presented to the Council, and it was signed and approved at the Monday meeting.

[27:57] The resolution contains the date for the public hearing on the creation of the LED.

[28:06] And that's been set for January 28th at the January 28th City Council meeting.

[28:14] So urge, please follow all of you who are maybe in favor of the LID to appear and comment

[28:28] at that being, I assure you that although the opponents are very few, I expect 100% of them

[28:35] to be there.

[28:39] So, you know, we need at least some representative showing from the positive

[28:46] side and not to be complacent about this just rolling through because that not is not necessarily

[28:54] going to be the case.

[28:58] So, that's where we're at if it is approved by the City Council after

[29:06] that public hearing, the rest of it really involves the city putting out the bids for contractors,

[29:15] hiring the contractors, and then making the assessments to the property on is once the job is complete.

[29:28] So, probably the most important step in this process is the public hearing on January 28th.

[29:41] a couple of questions for it. I am in favor of this project and I'll say it up front first.

[29:47] I noticed the letter that you originally sent out.

[29:53] Reference it was up for you to do it all

[29:55] for a month, charge for the imprisonment. For 10 years, that came to basically before.

[30:00] This is $300 per house when there's. Now I notice now that it's $6,400 per house, and there's $57 lots. Over 15 years, my question was, it is a question that somebody had, like one may have asked was, when we gained those other, are we some, that worked to work, cost per house when it.

[30:31] Well, I don't know, 25% anyone from 42 to 49

[30:36] And 40.300 was original, but took the

[30:41] Infrastructure and a pavement if I had these two 331, 164

[30:49] Well, I don't I don't go nuts that that much. I don't know where but anyway, anyway, I just

[31:03] It may have, because it may have added a somewhat disproportionate amount of length to the line,

[31:15] because some of those lots are larger than the larger than that, than that would

[31:22] size a lot, quite a bit larger.

[31:26] You know, I don't know that we can, it would be fair to say we're subsidizing the larger

[31:34] lots.

[31:36] When they want to hook up, I mean, if they're eligible to be subdivided and they do subdivided,

[31:42] they're going to have to go ahead and put it next for laterals, because the laterals are included in

[31:47] Right.

[31:48] So, guys, there's still going to be one hook up for a lot.

[31:53] Right.

[31:54] In fact, the line is longer.

[31:55] I mean, there's really no additional benefit to them.

[31:58] I was just looking for a clarification one.

[32:02] But on the other, the flip side of it, I noticed that the homeowner costs looks like

[32:08] it's dropped.

[32:09] because it's approximately $10,000 in the report today.

[32:14] The original one, $1,900,

[32:21] we're acquiring a D-1C.

[32:26] That version.

[32:28] Cheers.

[32:31] I'm, well, I don't recall what, I mean, with a different,

[32:38] without having an in front of me, I mean, there's a hole.

[32:41] Yeah, I think it costs factors in there, right?

[32:43] charge stayed the same as 5,076 and the grinder pump was 4900 and the installation

[32:50] estimated to on your original. So maybe we just ran it.

[32:58] If you would be able to.

[33:01] I'll look into that and I'll explain that. I'll just explain the costs and where they came

[33:06] from at the next meeting. I just wasn't prepared to get into that kind of detail. I think

[33:14] The bottom line though is between the, I get, I guess what you're saying is the cost, the total

[33:22] dollar cost may have increased, I don't think it's been 25 percent, and I think you're

[33:30] saying it's not overall, it's at 25 percent, but a part of it increased 25, but then

[33:35] I'm not a part of our decrease, and so it's sort of offset, but anyway, the cost we're pretty

[33:42] close to what we originally estimated,

[33:46] and the monthly, I'm sort of seeing most people

[33:49] are going to add at 4% interest, they're going to want to pay it over time instead of

[33:55] doing it all at once, and I could say the monthly amount of things gone from 43 to 49.

[34:06] So I think we actually did pretty well in terms of estimating original estimate.

[34:14] matching fairly closely the final.

[34:18] And by the way, it's not the final yet, because they don't make the specific assessment

[34:23] isn't done until all the work is done.

[34:27] And actually, I should say the engineer holds out substantial hope that the

[34:33] beards will come in for actually less than what he has asked to me.

[34:38] So, there's that.

[34:39] like I say, I'm still in favor of it. Thanks. Yeah, you bet. Any other questions for Brad?

[34:49] Communication support, Paul. Okay, I'm gonna actually move the other desk here.

[34:55] All

[35:18] right, moving over here because on the third part of this I want to reference the internet here

[35:24] and see if this actually works. But the first part is just announced on the KVCH that we have our

[35:32] Monthly meeting there held the last one with my father. He retired as I think most of you know

[35:38] But they do have a new person on staff and so we anticipate

[35:42] filling that the same hour on the third Tuesday the month on KVC HM-1400

[35:50] Since our last meeting we had that erosion prevention and sediment control summit, which was on October 25th

[35:57] Was well attended about 35 individuals

[35:59] three

[36:01] three vendors. And then this is, I think, the most important thing, and this is the newest and greatest thing for Devil's Lake, Water and Fruit and District, as far as our outreach, and it's that the city has now a streaming live, hopefully.

[36:17] And we're going to test this out here live. And to get to this, this internet feed, you go to wigginscity.org,

[36:28] URL out there like a city.org and you scroll down to Agenda, Packets, and video click on that and then you see

[36:42] it says live 6pm, deal WID board meeting so it's saying what's, you know, the most current thing and what you would see here as you go down through December is

[36:53] meeting and then the upcoming planning commission meeting. So we're just right in that same

[36:58] calendar queue. And then what they've added to is a link to the agenda and the meetings packet

[37:04] that we have online as well. And then if you click the video, it should bring you up to the actual

[37:13] event, which we'll do breath at works because this is the first time that we obviously were doing this.

[37:20] And so there you go, you're actually seeing the screen that Charlie's got on the video

[37:28] because if he pans to something else, I think it'll work slowly indicate that we're alive.

[37:38] It's okay.

[37:39] Just go ahead and call that.

[37:41] He depends.

[37:44] So yeah, that's pretty exciting.

[37:47] You know, it scrolls down.

[37:48] know.

[37:54] Well, there we are now. He's changed the camera position. So, thank you, Trevor.

[38:01] And so, so Paul, I've noticed tonight that the voices have synced up with the picture.

[38:08] Yeah, there's a little delay on watching the Japanese.

[38:13] Yeah, there's a little delay between. Actually, we're watching one of the city council meetings

[38:18] the other night and we have the Internet feed live and the Channel 4 feed and the Channel 4 feeds coming directly or more less as we could assume when there was about a 10-15 second lag between what was going out on the web.

[38:32] But yeah, he's scrolling around. So the Internet now you're seeing the actually the audience there to even and that's sort of thing. So thanks for sitting for setting this up and look forward to people being able to

[38:48] And the other thing is it will be data archive to you, it will be for at least some period

[38:53] of time it will be, you can go back and review or catch back up on the meeting.

[38:59] So we will go over from our site directly into that page.

[39:03] Yes, we can, we can actually set up a link back on our web page to do that, you bet.

[39:12] And it might not have to be able to click that video tab and watch it anytime.

[39:20] Correct.

[39:21] Yep.

[39:25] So I'm going to close it out so we're not wasting all the CPU resources of this,

[39:30] other when we do our presentation.

[39:32] Like a little bit.

[39:34] That's, that's a,

[39:35] a newest and greatest thing.

[39:37] You know, since since coming here,

[39:39] and getting on channel 4 and now onto the internet,

[39:42] I think it's a lot of improvements for outreach and communication, so pretty exciting stuff.

[39:50] So, sit you report?

[39:52] Just a comment there, actually, we've participated a little bit on a salmon rescue on yourselves

[39:59] like road and I got some safety vests and cotton gloves, cotton gloves, they're important

[40:04] for the fish handling, so just that's a quick update to that.

[40:19] Moving on to mid coast, TMDL, I've had a meeting yesterday down a new port for

[40:24] the full group, full stakeholder group, plus a little subgroup within the bacterial technical

[40:32] working groups that I'm on.

[40:35] And nothing really strong update with you all right now on that.

[40:40] The bacteria element we were working on, some outreach components, is to how to communicate

[40:46] this whole process and what it means to the general public.

[40:50] And in fact, one of the ideas that I had that we, I might bounce it off you now is to have DQ come to one of our meetings and just give like a 20 minute presentation on the process, it would be then now that it's aired live on an internet and archive, it would be viewables to people across the mid coast, watershed count, you know, the watershed role of the state for that matter, whatever.

[41:16] So, if that seems like a reasonable use of time, I would like to try to book that.

[41:23] Maybe 20 minutes, half an hour of your meeting.

[41:27] January or February, potentially, could be a little bit later, but probably no later than February.

[41:35] And it would just be talking mostly about the bacteria side of this TMDL because that's what affects our watershed.

[41:44] But, you know, they'd have a couple of their staff members come down and at least one and present how this is working and, you know, we've been trying to introduce it, you know, to the folks here and we have a present on the web that kind of lays it out, but it's pretty complex and I don't anticipate that in 20 minutes a half an hour that it's going to be crystal clear for everyone either, considering, you know, it's an 18 month process and that's sort of thing.

[42:11] But I thought with the new internet feed,

[42:14] it would be a good way to do some outreach.

[42:17] So they did have kind of a stakeholder meeting

[42:19] with some folks up in the Harlan area around the bacteria

[42:23] side of things, because there's a lot of interest in that.

[42:25] Relative to some of agricultural lands up there.

[42:30] And that was pre-successful.

[42:31] So they're just trying to find other ways to communicate to folks.

[42:37] Is that a consensus nod there, can I?

[42:40] Yes.

[42:40] OK.

[42:41] I think January is fine.

[42:42] I think it's better for, and I'm fine.

[42:44] Thank you.

[42:45] Was there anything specific from, I guess it's today?

[42:48] Was it your T.D. ML meeting?

[42:50] It was yesterday.

[42:52] And so really, it was on the bacteria side.

[42:57] It was like, and it was just a short two hour and a half to our meeting

[43:01] between a few of us on that bacteria twig that we're trying to look at.

[43:06] These other outreach components, and also how to best represent

[43:11] and beach water quality data in particular.

[43:15] And part of the TMD, most of TMD goes up in the hills.

[43:19] It's like water quality, way up in the hills

[43:21] and that's where most of the focus is.

[43:23] But with a bacteria, there's impacts to the beaches.

[43:25] And so they actually have listed beaches now

[43:29] throughout the mid coast.

[43:30] And so how do you communicate the impairment

[43:34] of the beach?

[43:35] It was kind of what we're trying to get at.

[43:37] And it's a little complicated

[43:39] because in order to get the way, the way you technically have to prepare it for the TMBL,

[43:49] isn't really clear to leave myself in a number of different people, just the way it's stated.

[43:56] You know, if you have a really high level, you have bacteria that's 10,000, and you need to get

[44:00] to say a hundred, well, you need a hundred percent reduction. But if you're at two hundred,

[44:08] you need to get to a hundred, you also need a hundred percent reduction. And so just the way

[44:13] the math is actually written in the way the after-recorded. So we're just creating like a, well,

[44:17] let's just call it a ten-fold reduction or something. Anyhow, those are just kind of the nuances

[44:21] that we're working with yesterday. Okay.

[44:28] Any questions for Paul? He's in the bull's like road.

[44:31] Okay, so, the most important part of this is that the county actually has finished their report.

[44:43] And that's actually live on our website.

[44:46] Now I was going to just pull that up to

[44:55] deal with the idea that work.

[44:56] And if you go to our projects page, scroll down.

[45:00] Down a bit, there it is. And then he still was like, road, you see the fish there. And here it is, the feasibility

[45:12] study that was the initial one done on this Texas new. And then what this most recent report is,

[45:21] is this alternative summary analysis, this two megabyte document, that details a four million

[45:28] dollar fix to that road versus some of the up to 30 million dollar fixes that were proposed

[45:33] in the feasibility study. So this fix, which I've only looked at it once, but I think

[45:41] it's like two bridges, 60 foot span bridges, and then raising the road three feet and

[45:47] widening it to hold the load. So significant fix relative to doing a span, they have, you

[45:55] 600 feet or something across the whole wetland or going around the wetland, you know, all

[46:01] these other options are about four options in that feasibility study that range from, well,

[46:07] doing nothing, zero dollars to 30 million. And then the county really couldn't come up with

[46:14] that money. They have tried to grant it didn't even come close to getting funded. And so now

[46:18] have this other approach, which is certainly much more reasonable economically and they feel

[46:24] it's going to be a fix that will last a long time.

[46:28] There are 30 million dollar fixes that we're going to last a really, really long time.

[46:34] So I mean obviously there's potential of, you know, something not lasting forever, for sure.

[46:41] But this still is a monumental fix relative to where we are right now, which is basically

[46:47] road this underwater.

[46:50] So that is moving forward and I just wanted to give people the heads

[46:55] up as to where to find that information.

[46:58] 30 million so a lot more than 4 million the 4 million is a lot more than I am. So how

[47:02] they going to get that?

[47:04] Well the goal is and it's the work that we're helping fund with the San Pedro Frequ話

[47:10] council and their coordinator is to go after grant money. And so, if you get a big federal

[47:19] grant though, often you need some local money and that can be state or other local dollars

[47:24] or more local. So yeah, that's going to be the way forward. And we invested about $5,000 of

[47:34] funds and with the anticipation of also participating in that stakeholder process that would

[47:41] look to find other pots of money. So you're right, $4 million is not pocket change either.

[47:49] And the county doesn't have that either. So that's why they've come up with this more reasonable

[47:57] approach from an economic standpoint, and they've helped fund Catherine Prue, its position there

[48:03] at the San Francisco Guadalupe Council too,

[48:06] because they just didn't have the time

[48:07] to run those grand applications, which are pretty painful.

[48:12] It's a right of grant for $4 million.

[48:15] They're gonna make it hurt a little bit.

[48:17] Just say that, it's not a one-page document

[48:20] and et cetera, et cetera.

[48:22] As we know, we've had grand applications

[48:24] for $15,000 that were 120 pages long, so it's a process.

[48:31] So that's the approach right now.

[48:35] And I think the idea is to look at this as a multi-faceted fix.

[48:44] It's going to fix road access.

[48:45] It's going to fix salmon access.

[48:48] And it's not just one pot of money that you

[48:51] could effectively look for.

[49:06] So do you want to plug for the salmon?

[49:10] Oh, yeah.

[49:10] And so, because, you know, obviously this road isn't fixed in December and it's, you know, even if we, even if the money started piling in, it wouldn't be fixed next to December.

[49:22] So there's going to be some issues with salmon getting across that road for a while yet. And what the Samajra for Guadalucia Council is organized is volunteers.

[49:31] And they've basically been doing that internally and then we've been filling in a little bit here, you know, they, they're, you know, if, if they can get a pool of people that they feel comfortable putting out there, you know, they're not, I don't want to thinking they want like an open request per stay because I think that just makes them uncomfortable.

[49:53] You're like, oh anybody wants to show up, you show up, but if you're interested, you know, contact, you know, the district or contact them, and then we can find a, you know, find a way if it, if you've got the suitable training, you know, which isn't much, but we need just meet people to be safe, where the vast, you know, use the gloves, do it only during the daytime, follow the protocols that we've kind of set for, sign a waiver, you know, that's where the thing, please contact me and I'll just get that running, that would probably be the district.

[50:23] Thanks, okay, so we have a little bit of a monitoring.

[50:27] Yeah, I think so.

[50:30] Now, I've got a slide show here, and it's quite long, and so it's probably an hour, frankly,

[50:37] just to let you know.

[50:39] Got a lot of information here, and it's put together by myself, Seth, and our former intern,

[50:45] list of Clayton and it looks at the 2012 empowerment regime and first off the changes to this and in some points

[50:56] you're going to want to follow along in your packets because there's some images that are charts that are

[51:02] going to show up as well on screen. But changes in 2012 is we went for our earliest empowerment date to

[51:08] not know earlier than June 1st, with the target date of June 15th, which is what we did

[51:13] let this year.

[51:15] To a maximum height of 9.0, and with a promise of doing a lot of occasions to the

[51:20] we are for land pray for 2013.

[51:22] Previously, we impounded as early as April 15th, pulse the damage between May 15th and the

[51:29] 31st, every other night, to try to facilitate some salmon passage, and then impounded

[51:35] to a maximum of 9.53 feet.

[51:39] So the considerations of this review are five

[51:41] fold, the recreational access, fish and wildlife

[51:43] septic systems, water quality, and shoreline vegetation.

[51:48] So just to jump right in, recreational access,

[51:51] we did a boat dock survey.

[51:53] We surveyed public and private, jurisdictional,

[51:56] non- jurisdictional docks, and also did a kind of aerial

[52:01] search to determine which docks would have certainly been pre-1992.

[52:06] Paul, would you explain what jurisdiction on non-geurstictional?

[52:08] Sure, yeah, jurisdictional docks are docks built basically on double's lake, and the non-geurstictional

[52:15] docks are built on canals of double's lake or other water bodies, but for our purposes

[52:21] on canals that are connected to double's lake.

[52:24] And the reason there that line is defined is because when the lake was meandered, when they

[52:32] actually went around the lake and determined what the lake looked like, any lake that was

[52:37] done had that happen, freeingabius to 1859 when the state was formed, all of that property

[52:45] was given to the state. So if there was a lake that was meandered, such as double's lake, before

[52:52] state would, then that water body became ownership of a state.

[52:57] So what we've had since then, say within the insurers, or say Sam Poiner, that canal on

[53:03] Thompson Creek, though in like the ones by, down by the D River, Crystal Lagoon, those

[53:10] have been carved out of what was then private property in order to provide water access to

[53:19] those private properties.

[53:20] So those areas are non-juristic to the state.

[53:27] Okay, so just as a kind of a, you know, of a preview, that was like Shao, you know,

[53:34] that was like his on average 8 feet deep. So, you know, it's certainly along the shorelines,

[53:43] you're going to have some Shao deps. That being said, people have been recreating on

[53:46] that was like since the 20s, early on, those photos are coming out of the 20s and 30s.

[53:52] So, we know that there's a lot of water out of there, but this boat doctor of a tries to

[53:56] look at the water depths right at. There's existing dogs. The methods that we used, we did

[54:01] depth soundings using, and this doesn't show up too well because it's a dark screen there,

[54:07] but there's this staff here that Seth is showing against the boat. So there's this staff that's running

[54:12] right here and basically extending it safe from the edge of a boat dock which would have been like

[54:20] right here and then where basically the motor would sit and so that would be the depth of water

[54:26] than we would record on the staff.

[54:28] We did all the docks that were listed by DSL, which included a lot of non-jure-stictional docks

[54:34] because of their survey.

[54:36] They did not do the canal system at Crystal Lagoon either did we because those are 10 to

[54:45] be first off the waters all very shallow in there, through infilling over the years.

[54:51] But most importantly, there aren't really a lot of docks.

[54:53] we did the inner kind of the dead end canal, but we didn't do the horses you canal.

[55:00] So then we recorded one measurement basically where we expected to see about or where we did see the

[55:06] boat and we recorded it at the spot where the motor would be setting. The deepest navigational need there.

[55:14] And then in a lot of cases we tried to collect a second optional mortgage spot. So we have a preference

[55:20] more edge and an optional more edge. And then we got the lengths of these structures through

[55:26] satellite imagery as shown here. So, for instance, 71 feet is the length of the stock here,

[55:34] based on this satellite image. And then this shows the preference spot that we would have measured

[55:39] right at the end of, we're actually, we can look closely, there's actually a boat lift in that

[55:45] So we, so this would be our preference spot and then we also recorded one out here if, if this was say shallower, for instance.

[56:00] Calculations for these data went through first normalization.

[56:07] So if we recorded the data and the lake level is 8.8 feet or something, then we took that depth.

[56:14] and then normalize it to 9.53 feet,

[56:19] 3.9.0 and 8.6 feet.

[56:23] We added this 8.6 foot option because last meeting we had heard of off camera after a public comment

[56:32] that heard some comments about.

[56:33] We should really look at this because at 9-0, if you said it at 9-0, then you have the

[56:37] evaporation and then you actually get down to 8-6.

[56:40] So we normalize it for that other component as well.

[56:43] And then we have the optional mortgage site.

[56:47] Took those data.

[56:48] We got the mean, which is your average, your arithmetic average,

[56:52] the mean.

[56:53] We have the median, which is that middle point.

[56:56] So if you had 100 data points, it would be that 50th doc.

[57:00] And so it's often close to me.

[57:01] It's not directly the mean, though.

[57:04] The mode, which is the most common height that you would have got

[57:08] or depth, not very informative, but it's recorded there.

[57:11] And then the standard deviation, and standard deviations, basically, this graph here is, this is the, what is called the normal distribution or a Gaussian curve.

[57:23] And so this zero point in the middle is the mean that's your average depth or average data point within a data set.

[57:32] One standard deviation away from the mean, plus or minus, and then you basically have 68% of the data are in that zone.

[57:44] If you go out two standard deviations away from the mean, you're capturing 95% of the sample.

[57:52] Now, this is most important for when you do a survey and actually doing a sample of a full population.

[57:59] So if you want to do a sample of this dox survey, you may have just done half of them or 10 or 20% of them randomly.

[58:10] What the standard deviations are used for is to determine how closely you're actually going to mimic the population, the full survey, if you hadn't done the full survey.

[58:20] We actually did the full survey. So by this, they're still pretty informative.

[58:25] So, results, and then this is just showing the standard deviation again, or this Gaussian curve.

[58:31] So, if you can imagine you're going to have a few percentage points that are in the shallow spot, just tipping this on its end.

[58:37] And then your average dev, say if it's, say it's three feet right there in the middle, and then you're going to have another few percent that are going to be much deeper than that.

[58:45] And so that's what it's showing is this deep red would be 68% of the populations of the sample and then between the orange and the orange and the other orange that's 95.5% of the all of the docs out there.

[59:04] So, 393 structures were surveyed, 175 were boat motorboat docks, 114 were small craft docks,

[59:12] and 91 were jurisdictional small craft docks, which we talked about, the jurisdictional element,

[59:16] and 14 were piers, and I broke this out, this 175, and the small docks, based on the length of the dock.

[59:27] And it is arbitrary, but what the goal was was to, because the state doesn't have a designation for smaller,

[59:32] or peers or what have you.

[59:35] Well, my goal was to clearly show,

[59:38] okay, these are structures that are meant

[59:41] to hold a motorboat dock.

[59:42] It's pretty apparent, especially when you see

[59:44] those horseshoe-shaped docks, and you've got that boat well,

[59:48] that's, somebody's trying to put a boat there.

[59:50] So let's make sure that that's no one

[59:52] is a motorboat dock.

[59:54] Versus if you just have a little fishing pier,

[59:56] which we talked about before, you know,

[59:59] we don't know what to do.

[1:00:00] Uses are for though, but we know that that one is shorter, you know, it's 20 feet or less, and it's just trying to provide you more information.

[1:00:09] Public accesses, we have three fully accessible accesses around that was Lake. We're got a grounds home's road and he still was Lake State Park.

[1:00:16] All of which had greater than three feet of water depth than all the counter depth. Good, good recreational access through the public fully improved accesses.

[1:00:25] The other lesser developed access, say, first street and standpoint, those are typically kayak launchables.

[1:00:32] You see a few fishing boats going out of those, either way accessible through our determination.

[1:00:41] So this is where it gets messy, for visually messy.

[1:00:45] Table one, which is in your packet, says it's a doc structures, doc structures, statistics, by classification,

[1:00:50] at primary, which is this first column, and optional

[1:00:55] more insights. This is this full second column.

[1:00:59] And there's a note in here that these data are

[1:01:02] conservatively measured, which so if we had a

[1:01:06] depth sounding and it was like, you know, three feet and

[1:01:10] might have been three and a third, you know, we said it was

[1:01:13] three feet. We rounded down in all cases.

[1:01:16] And we are increments are by three inch increments.

[1:01:19] So three feet, three inches.

[1:01:22] Well, we would have rounded that one down to three feet.

[1:01:25] So there's a little bit of bias towards the homeowner.

[1:01:29] And that respect, if that was, we look at it as the preference there.

[1:01:34] And then also, these data are skewed for the mean and the median,

[1:01:39] because when we were recording and we were out at a doctor,

[1:01:43] it was greater than five feet.

[1:01:45] Well, you saw that device in the first light.

[1:01:47] It would sink and would be underwater.

[1:01:48] we didn't actually get anything. We didn't have a way of accurately determining

[1:01:52] depth greater than 5 feet. So we called all of those 5 feet, 3 inches and so

[1:01:59] that is what's figured in the mean and the median. So it basically skews the

[1:02:03] data a little bit to the left as well. Okay, so from these findings, so

[1:02:12] Okay, the first column is the preference, the second column is the optional, and then within those, we have depth

[1:02:20] normalize to this 9.53, normalize to the 9.0, normalize to the 8.6, and similarly at the optional docking areas.

[1:02:29] So for all structures, the mean for the maximum component at 9.53 is 3.63 feet.

[1:02:36] Okay, now bear in mind that this is same 6-3 even though our, like I said, our measurements are at 3-inch increments.

[1:02:46] So there's a bit of significant figures, we actually look at the way you actually do statistics.

[1:02:51] That is a little bit not represented well.

[1:02:56] I believe the 100's placed on here because it's just the way we should show them up.

[1:03:01] You'll see that more readily in the second slide.

[1:03:04] So, the mean for all structures 365, the 3.63 feet at 9 feet, it's 3.10 feet and then 2.7 feet is the mean at 8.6.

[1:03:18] So that means that and I'm going to use the second one because it's very simple.

[1:03:26] The second row here is the motorboats structure.

[1:03:28] So there's 175 of those, as we mentioned, the mean depth for all those motorboats structures

[1:03:34] was 4.08 feet at that depth.

[1:03:39] At the 9.0 depth, 3.55 makes sense, you subtract a half of foot, and then you subtract

[1:03:45] another four tenths, and it's 3.15.

[1:03:48] Now to figure in that standard deviation, so from this figure down here, so that mean,

[1:03:54] And let's just pick on the 8.6, the mean, at 8.6 is 3.15.

[1:04:02] So plus or minus 1 foot, because that's what the standard deviation actually is.

[1:04:08] It's 1.00 in that data set.

[1:04:10] Plus or minus 1 foot.

[1:04:13] So between 4.15 and 2.15 feet, 68% of the docs, the motorboat docs are in that population.

[1:04:24] That's how you read the standard deviation.

[1:04:27] The small crafts, slightly less water, typically under those, you have a mean depth of 3.08,

[1:04:35] 2.55 at the 9-0 and then 2.15 at 8.6.

[1:04:40] The small crafts are additional, though, bumps that up a little bit, because a lot of those

[1:04:53] And then for pears, which, you know, I thought I tried to section off the pears because I thought you might have just a shallow thing.

[1:05:00] Well, pears actually tend to be deeper than the smaller craft boats.

[1:05:04] So there's not a real clear line, but they're actually only out to 20 feet, the pears.

[1:05:10] So some of these pears are in deeper water than the ones that go out 20-30 feet.

[1:05:16] And potentially, a single peer might be deeper than one that went out 35 feet.

[1:05:22] It's just a, you know, just depending on the sediment underneath the lake.

[1:05:27] So yeah, there's a lot of data there, and you've had it in your packet there too, so we'll

[1:05:34] move on.

[1:05:34] And we can come back to the next thing, too, if we want.

[1:05:38] So table two in your packet shows doc structures by number and by percent total that have

[1:05:44] depths to the sediment of less than three feet based on those three different scenarios.

[1:05:50] And then they're also categorized by motorboat docs or small craft and peers as we mentioned before.

[1:05:59] This is showing half of that cable.

[1:06:03] But what's key about this is that 3.00 feet that I mentioned before.

[1:06:07] So we subtracted 3.00 feet from a value.

[1:06:13] And the reason that's important is if you had a doc that was when it was measured,

[1:06:19] say the height of the lake was 9.12 or let's just let's do it 9.03. The lake level is 9.03

[1:06:27] was to say that and you measured that at 3 feet because you rounded down to you rounded a

[1:06:34] little bit down. So it's 3 feet deep though with your chance 3 feet deep at 9.03 feet. Now if

[1:06:40] you normalize that to 9 feet you have to subtract that 0.03. So now that depth at your normalized

[1:06:49] value, the 9 foot height is 2.97. It's really not much different than 3 feet, but it gets

[1:06:55] put in the, it gets in the count. And so, when I was going through these data, I saw a lot

[1:07:02] of this 2.97 and I thought, well, that's not representing what's out there very well. And I

[1:07:08] thought, well, maybe I should, you know, do some rounding so that things are either, you

[1:07:13] know, coming in where you might expect them. That got to be more complicated than it was

[1:07:18] and so I just went with the raw data minus this 3.00.

[1:07:24] And then also as I mentioned before, the significant figures,

[1:07:28] we started with three inches, which is actually 0.25 feet, right?

[1:07:34] Well, because you're only using one significant figure,

[1:07:37] your accuracy is only 0.3 feet.

[1:07:39] So when you start looking at that, that one figure that was 2.97,

[1:07:44] that actually, statistically, that value should be three feet regardless, but yet it would still

[1:07:51] get counted as one. So I just want you to be aware of that because it tends to show up

[1:07:58] that there's some, because you're subtracting these hundreds of place and then you're actually

[1:08:02] only measuring two, you know, three inches. Okay. All right. But given that, 28% of the sample was

[1:08:10] less than, in less than three feet of water at nine at the maximum

[1:08:14] in parliament.

[1:08:17] So, and then 44% were in that same capacity at the 9.0, and then at less than 8.6, there's

[1:08:25] 58%.

[1:08:26] Now, those numbers seem high, but if you go back to this normalized curve, it really makes sense,

[1:08:34] Because when you see the average, and let's use one that's right around three feet,

[1:08:45] here's 3.12.

[1:08:47] So for all structures, that means that 50% of those are less than 3.12.

[1:08:53] Generally,

[1:08:57] the median is actually the median is actually the one, they're close.

[1:09:03] So, more or less though, you still have 50% that are going to be less than that, and 50% are going to be more than that.

[1:09:11] So, when you see numbers like 28, 44 and 58, well that makes sense because the mean was basically 3.2 or something, whatever it was.

[1:09:22] So, then what I did is I also looked at all structures at the optional side, and you see that because these include the marinas and the Botox

[1:09:33] or the boat houses, which gets subtracted out of this, boat houses were very complicated to get

[1:09:39] data on.

[1:09:40] So, the all structures data is less informative, at least to me, as to what's out there,

[1:09:49] because we're measuring at the edge of the ramp, or where do you actually get that motor,

[1:09:54] that boat dock ramp, or boat house combo data, and what's underneath it, we don't

[1:10:01] the structure. So that's why it was the original push to find out dig deeper to look at these

[1:10:08] from motorboats and other docks. So for motorboats only at the full empowerment, 14 percent, 24

[1:10:17] out of 324 out of 175 are in less than 3.000 feet of water. 50 out of this 175 at the 9 out

[1:10:27] and 78 or about 45% in when you move down to 8.6, which is more or less the natural

[1:10:34] height of the lake from what our knowledge is as well.

[1:10:38] And then there's the optional one too, so in the option you get a lot better, there's

[1:10:43] more water out there on the other side of the dock often, so that 14% turns to 11% the 29% to 25%

[1:10:50] and the 45% to 41%.

[1:10:53] for the jurisdictional, it doesn't change it because they're all jurisdictional in that respect.

[1:11:00] And this is actually the slide to kind of reiterate that jurisdictional point. So from 1962,

[1:11:06] this area here in your standpoint was land or a wet land of some sort, and then in 1977,

[1:11:12] some developer came along and carved that out. And that's why that water is non- jurisdictional.

[1:11:21] Table 2 continued. So small crafts, 57 out of the total 114, right at 50% are in less than

[1:11:32] water at full empowerment. That number goes to 67% and 76% relative to 9.0 and 8.0 and

[1:11:40] 8.0 and 8.0 and 8.0 respectively. At the option spot, it's more favorable to the small

[1:11:45] box because, you know, what we see is, okay, it looks like they would prefer to park it here,

[1:11:51] but if they park it at the end of that period or a small dock, you know, you're going to be

[1:11:56] a lot of deeper water. So typically a lot more favorable if there's a more

[1:12:02] edge change. Basically down from the 76% that was as high as 76% for the 8.6

[1:12:11] feet at the option it's down to 32%. So that's that's significant.

[1:12:18] Then we had the

[1:12:19] small docks with jurisdictional and optional, and that shows a little bit different data

[1:12:28] to you there.

[1:12:30] The next section, though, is the pears, which there are only 14, what I was calling pears,

[1:12:35] 20 feet or less, of structure out over the water, not structure from the land, but out

[1:12:41] from the water's edge.

[1:12:43] 14 of those structures, 36 percent, 5 out of 14 are in less than 3 feet of water at the

[1:12:51] full empowerment, and then it goes up to 10 at either 90 or 8.6.

[1:12:56] Not really any change then to either with the option, because that was just where there

[1:13:01] was measured.

[1:13:03] So the other thing we try to do is look at these structures pre and post-impellment, and the

[1:13:12] The best photo we had was from 1992, I showed this in May, and I used this slide in May

[1:13:18] because it was the one that had the best of those 92 pictures, the 92 pictures are like a collage.

[1:13:24] Some of the areas don't show up very well, so this one was a very clear one.

[1:13:29] And so in that comparison, there are 39 structures that were built pre-1992.

[1:13:35] And by and large, the structures are almost replicated by this area in 2007.

[1:13:42] So there's two additional docs built in that time.

[1:13:46] And we said back in May that this is probably a little bit overreference of being the whole lake,

[1:13:51] because this is a shot of Neotsu, which was certainly built out.

[1:13:55] You have parts of the east side of Lake where more built out say in the 90s.

[1:14:00] but Nioce who was certainly covered as with Muscle Lake

[1:14:03] and you'll see the totals here.

[1:14:06] In fact, 60 to 90, depending on the aerial clarity.

[1:14:13] So at the low-end 60 up to 90 structures were built after 1992,

[1:14:20] so basically 1 and 4 or 1 and 6, depending on which one

[1:14:25] used for the table I used the 90.

[1:14:28] So, the table favors those that were not, not conclusive.

[1:14:34] So, they're showing, you know, there's 78 of the 90 here in one example.

[1:14:38] And this, first example, that are less than 3 feet of water in at 9.53,

[1:14:46] which is 20% of the original sample.

[1:14:52] So, when you look at this sheet, you can see structures that are built after 1992,

[1:14:58] and how they represent.

[1:15:00] To the whole, the full count. So 78 in 393 is 20%. 16 in, I think there was 175 motorboats, so 9% and the like. And then small craftboats, I think we had 114 or something. So 38 in 114 or 133% and so forth.

[1:15:28] And then the other thing that we kind of wanted to double check on is this idea of safe

[1:15:34] mortgage.

[1:15:35] And so it was my interpretation that there was this magic number of three feet.

[1:15:41] As it turns out, there's nowhere in state statute, anywhere that says that.

[1:15:45] What the county has, what the state has is they say you can go out to, I think, 25% of

[1:15:53] the width of the stream.

[1:15:54] And for double slag, that means you can go out quite a ways and I think the cap is at 500 feet.

[1:16:01] So, the state would allow you, I think, is that, you know, provided the county doesn't supersede that,

[1:16:06] which the county does in our case, to go out up to like 500 feet.

[1:16:10] Well, nobody's going out 500 feet.

[1:16:11] We do as people go out to 100 feet though.

[1:16:14] We had a couple out of 190s, 80s.

[1:16:17] I know there's a new dog, 78 full at long dog, I think it was.

[1:16:22] So, but what the county allows is 50 feet. Provided, you don't need any more depth. If you need more

[1:16:30] depth, then you go through a conditional use process. And you can get more depth provided

[1:16:34] you're not blocking navigation or your neighbors don't object too much basically. It comes

[1:16:39] out of those two components. So, this idea of safe mortgage really goes back to what was

[1:16:47] Built by the owner and their needs of that for that for their vessel at the time. They were building it

[1:16:54] So Sony built a boat in 1952 and they had a small fishing boat

[1:16:57] They might have built a boat that was or a dock that went out 20 feet because that was plenty of water for them

[1:17:03] But in 1992 that might have traded in hands and someone's got a little different vessel and they're parking it at that same boat structure and

[1:17:11] They might feel like they're not having as much access well

[1:17:14] It just goes back to the economics or the desires of the original owner, and so I mean those are just the facts out there.

[1:17:25] So the other thing that we did is we collected information on boat lifts, and this was actually pre-surprising to me, because we had 67 boat lifts on those legs.

[1:17:35] Now these are lifts that are these more fancy newer ones that you're familiar with, aqua lift, I think is one brand I know,

[1:17:42] or as old as the 50s, 60s, 80s kind of technology with a little big wheel, anywhere we saw left, we recorded it.

[1:17:51] And so, 67 on the lake, quite a few.

[1:17:56] 9 are in less than 3 feet of water at 9.53 or 13%.

[1:18:01] That number goes up to 27% and 55% at 8.6.

[1:18:04] Now, we did get one complaint and another anecdotal complaint that was registered to you.

[1:18:12] And so I spoke to the person at AquaLifter because that was the complaint it had, one of those machines.

[1:18:19] And he said that, you know, these machines are quite variable or flexible.

[1:18:24] You can adjust them by, they're like a bed frame, it's how we described it.

[1:18:27] And that, you know, people might scoop out the sentiment for more depth.

[1:18:30] Okay, so these are, you know, these are good selling points for his equipment and, you know, good, good to know, but they are free standing and movable, so for that structure, at least for that structure, we know that there's some capacity for change if need be, but what struck me is that, you know, if, if we have 55% of these structures at eight, six that are, which is about what we're like went to naturally this year, right?

[1:18:59] got down to eight seven. 55% are less than three feet of water. Well, we would have thought

[1:19:06] we would have gotten maybe 37 phone calls. Well, maybe they didn't have our phone number,

[1:19:12] but I think they probably could have found it. But we didn't. And so what I was curious about

[1:19:16] is why, and I happened to look back through some stuff that Alyssa was scanning just by

[1:19:22] chance, and I came up with this manager report, this copy of this manager report from 2003,

[1:19:27] which showed that on the first of July, the lake level was 9.24 feet using the old stage.

[1:19:40] So that actually, when you recalculated, it would be 9.44 feet.

[1:19:45] That lake level dropped down to 8.66 feet or basically 8.86 feet by August.

[1:19:52] And I was in the manager there, Laurie Campbell was the manager.

[1:19:55] I don't know, her phone was ringing off the hook or not, but this was the same late bubble

[1:20:00] that was in 2003 that we had this summer.

[1:20:03] So I just wanted to point that out because I think it's a interest.

[1:20:08] And then I think we're going to close to the last of the boat stuff and we're on about 20 minutes

[1:20:13] of an hour.

[1:20:14] So we're going to keep firing away.

[1:20:18] What's important for you to realize is this is a mucky substrate.

[1:20:22] Devils Lake is mostly unconsolidated muck.

[1:20:27] That muck moves around.

[1:20:29] And what we may actually see by virtue of wave action that is going to come in.

[1:20:36] As you remember from the Tetrotech report, you get a wave that say,

[1:20:40] So let's just keep it the mass simple, that is three feet tall, big wave, winter-sized

[1:20:49] wave, okay, three foot wave.

[1:20:52] The deepest that that's going to scratch the bottom is, I think keep the mass that's

[1:20:57] simple today, is it like almost four feet, because it's 1.25 times three feet.

[1:21:05] That's as far as it's going to reach down and can hit, that's where it's coming ashore.

[1:21:09] So, when you're moving water, when the energy is moving, it's not going to touch the bottom until it's 1.25 times the way flight.

[1:21:18] So, in the big events, the three-foot events, your scouring capacity is little to say it's 4 feet deep.

[1:21:25] That is, if your lake level is now a foot higher, you're not going to scour until you hit that four-foot depth, which might be up-up-up-land.

[1:21:35] And so the sediment is not going to be getting scoured away and therefore can deposit.

[1:21:42] And so effectively by changing a high-than-a-lake, you actually can allow sediment to come

[1:21:48] into where it was three feet.

[1:21:51] Now you've gone up and thought you created four feet, but yet because the wave action isn't

[1:21:57] going to move that sediment, the mud can kind of slip in there and you actually make it

[1:22:01] a zero gain.

[1:22:02] Does that make sense?

[1:22:04] No.

[1:22:06] So you have a wave and it's a bit like the maximum waves strength that we have to have three

[1:22:15] foot scouring, wind wave or a boat wave, which we saw that a boat wave and we can throw

[1:22:21] at least at 2 and a quarter or 2 and a half foot wave. I can't remember what it was from the

[1:22:24] report, but that wave can only reach down and affect the sediment in the bottom by a factor

[1:22:33] of 1.25 times it's original height.

[1:22:37] So if it's this deep, it can only scour down and we'll show you a little bit further

[1:22:43] than that.

[1:22:46] So the way the bottom is maintained is through that scouring.

[1:22:52] And so if it's scouring away, as the wave crashes, it's going to be depositing or scraping

[1:22:59] away soil based on the energy getting dissipated on the shoreline or not.

[1:23:04] As it's coming in and it starts to hit the bottom, it's going to tend to wheel underneath

[1:23:08] there and want either way, the sediment.

[1:23:12] Now if you bring the height of the lake up, it's not going to wheel away and either way until

[1:23:17] it gets further on shore, some more.

[1:23:20] Yeah, and so the sediment here that was deeper now may in fact get the scouring happens

[1:23:28] The fear and it may pull it down and lay it where it was already getting scoured.

[1:23:33] So you can actually, you know, your slope is going to try to get more and more or less that

[1:23:39] like the slope of the shore that it was previously, but now you're just doing it up here

[1:23:44] because the lake level is up there.

[1:23:47] And that's certainly a consideration with, you know, the real tools out there, this wind action

[1:23:55] and there's boat wave action which are manipulating the sediment. The other bits that

[1:23:59] manipulate the sediment are just the boats. Because we have a sample out there and

[1:24:06] there would be one dock that was foot and a half of them and then it was in muck. The next

[1:24:13] boat dock which is a nicer boat sitting there and was actually in the lift is four feet of water

[1:24:18] there. Well, they had run in the motor, you know, I mean they were just carving it out. So,

[1:24:24] You know, these data represent the full, you know, set of data from this one that's in a foot and a half.

[1:24:31] It's right next to the one that's in four feet.

[1:24:33] That's next to one that's in two and a half or three, whatever it is.

[1:24:36] So the capacity to provide the mud to move,

[1:24:42] who's highly dependent on the boat that might be sitting there.

[1:24:46] So I guess it just states that there's, there isn't a fact there by the virtue of the use of the dock.

[1:24:53] or lack of you, or lack of you, it's exactly, yeah, that would be the more important.

[1:24:59] Okay, I think that covers that slide.

[1:25:02] Okay, and so that's, that's the boat docks survey.

[1:25:07] The second component that we looked at was the fish and wildlife.

[1:25:10] It's going to move pretty quick because you know all of this.

[1:25:13] But goes like home to a threatened species of co-host salmon.

[1:25:17] Here's a picture of volunteer helping one of those adults across East Hills Lake Road.

[1:25:22] But here's a picture our damn what we're interested in is the outward migration

[1:25:28] So that was a picture of the inward migration after the big fish are there

[1:25:31] But the big fish are coming up in the wintertime with the dark the dam is not in place

[1:25:35] What our concern is is the juvenile outward migration

[1:25:38] Of which these fish are when the dams there force to go through a small weir

[1:25:44] Shown in the shadows here this kind of murky area on the south side of the D river

[1:25:50] Now,

[1:25:53] they have to migrate, you know, that it's an essential migration need, obviously.

[1:25:59] I mentioned the threat.

[1:25:59] So what we did in the new regime, comparing the old to the new, quite simply,

[1:26:06] we have a partial reduction into the outward migration impact for small fish.

[1:26:11] They migrate between May and mid July, so by not impounding as early as April,

[1:26:18] So, we have shortened that impact window all the way to June 1st and the potentially June 15th.

[1:26:29] So, six weeks to four weeks of impact, depending on the empowerment period, four to six weeks,

[1:26:41] versus the full made of Magiola.

[1:26:44] And as I mentioned, outward migration unaffected.

[1:26:46] Another official wildlife that we presented in May reflected back to that C-run cutthroat,

[1:26:53] another native fish in Devil's Lake, was also called an address that moves in and out

[1:26:58] of the ocean in a lake. They actually migrate between June and mid-August. By virtue of putting

[1:27:06] the dam in June, you're not really fixing any impacts that would happen to their outward

[1:27:12] migration. June 15th, slightly, but they're really moving through mid-August, so July is

[1:27:19] they're going to be a big push. And then the Anadremus Lampray, they're moving inward,

[1:27:30] reverse to the Samanids, between February and October, a big window of time. So, basically,

[1:27:37] almost any time you have the dam in, you can expect that you'll have impact to those in an

[1:27:42] address species. And that's my first two sections. That's going to take it and then we'll

[1:27:49] be back.

[1:27:57] Okay, so I just tried to look, try to give you guys some perspective of increasing

[1:28:01] leg level and the impact that's going to have on the septic systems that we have around the

[1:28:06] leg. And in doing that, there's a few things that I looked at, so I just want to give you some

[1:28:09] the impact of septic systems, design standards, what those are supposed to achieve, then ground water and so

[1:28:16] characteristics, you'll see you're very related and if I just give you a summary of the impact.

[1:28:23] So I think this is number 685 is one that we've talked about a lot, but what we haven't really ever done is

[1:28:27] broken it down by the properties that border the lake. So other 685, 42% of the systems

[1:28:33] directly board of the lake and of those 285 to 42% 104 we don't have a record on

[1:28:42] so we're as a total population set the systems we know one third don't have

[1:28:46] records we look specifically at late-front property owners a few percentage points

[1:28:50] higher another 64 systems a 23% over 20 years old to be add those together

[1:28:58] you know looking at about 60% of our systems that are concerning systems you

[1:29:02] don't have a record on or over 20 years old.

[1:29:06] And then we have 20 sand filters out there

[1:29:09] and at least 10 advanced treatment technology systems.

[1:29:13] And as we move from like the mid 90s,

[1:29:14] we run from the sand filter.

[1:29:15] And now we're seeing a lot more advanced treatment

[1:29:18] as the way to go.

[1:29:18] They're not really using sand filters.

[1:29:23] Take material out of those systems.

[1:29:25] 60% we don't know, which kind of matches up pretty well.

[1:29:28] Those numbers we saw earlier.

[1:29:31] That's an unknown take material.

[1:29:32] 26% are concrete, 13 are steel, and then just for fun I put the weighted scale in there

[1:29:39] but to be honest that those numbers probably aren't that important because we have 60%

[1:29:43] that are unknown and generally when we look at older systems we see more steel and we do

[1:29:48] concrete. And the reason steel is important is that if we're going to be increasing like level

[1:29:52] which is increasing ground water levels which means probably more chains are sitting saturated

[1:29:57] steel curls a lot more quickly than concrete.

[1:30:00] Oncrete does. So the first thing that still contains is the subject density of the subjectings that we have. And really, suffixing sums aren't intended to be used at municipal density levels. They're intended to be used in rural areas where people don't have access to, you know, to city infrastructure.

[1:30:24] So looking at like what EPA recommends and EPA recommends, one separate system per 16 acres.

[1:30:31] And what they're basically saying at that point is if you have, once you go over that level, one of 16, you can

[1:30:36] expect to see some groundwater contamination. We exceed that. I have that out there. We

[1:30:41] see that by 5,900 percent on a regular basis. And I think it's up to like 10,000 percent in

[1:30:48] other areas, which really just means we have six septic systems for acre. It's really like what

[1:30:52] you'd see like a traditional city block.

[1:30:57] But then I looked at something that's like a little,

[1:30:59] more reasonable than one per 16 acre. So I looked at the university of Purdue put together the

[1:31:04] study where what they did is they looked at 20 different subjects studies in 15 different states

[1:31:10] and compile events of like one one are we really seeing issues and remember they came up with was

[1:31:16] one septic system per acre or two septic systems per acre depending on soil characteristics and things

[1:31:25] Like that and still even at that point, you know, we're exceeding that by 300% or more.

[1:31:34] I'm still looking at design standards.

[1:31:39] Design standards can be variable and these are like organ DQ design standards.

[1:31:42] I'm not going to get super into the details of them.

[1:31:45] But for the most part, what we see in the water shed are standard systems.

[1:31:51] You know, you have like ATT standards, you can get variances.

[1:31:57] If you have a steep slope, your standards change.

[1:31:59] I just tried to go to like the most basic DQ standards and talk off of those, and you know the standards are why we have these standards is in order to protect the land, surface water, ground water, and public health.

[1:32:15] So here's the basic septic system that we're looking at, and really like the two big things that we're talking about for lake level is your drain field.

[1:32:27] We're seeing me like these depths right here and then your depth from the bottom of the

[1:32:31] trench which is here down to where the ground water is and the first five feet is

[1:32:35] imperative no matter where you go everyone's looking at protecting that first five

[1:32:39] feet that's where the majority of the treatment is going to be happening so in Oregon

[1:32:43] this trench

[1:32:47] this is going to be about 18 inches this bottom part here is going to be

[1:32:52] about 18 inches to two feet deep where we can expect the bottom of the trench sorry

[1:32:58] two feet down there, and then what they suggest here is four feet, not what they suggest

[1:33:03] with the rule is,

[1:33:07] is four feet then from the bottom that's wrenched to groundwater.

[1:33:17] The

[1:33:17] one thing that is also important is for that four feet, and I think here's what's really

[1:33:22] important to think about is when we're adjusting, we're going to re-bring the lake level up.

[1:33:27] That four feet is what they're doing when you have a permanent groundwater table. However, that

[1:33:31] number changes when you have a temporary groundwater table. And if you have a temporary groundwater

[1:33:36] table, DQ says that you can have the temporary ground water table come to the same place

[1:33:42] with the bottom of the trenches. So it really becomes concerning as if we're going to raise

[1:33:46] the leg level and winter and by changing the hydrology we could potentially be doing is changing

[1:33:53] a temporary water table into a much more permanent water table so it's something to keep in mind.

[1:34:05] And then by doing that of course it's important to say why do we have suffocating so it's the

[1:34:10] reason for having those and you know these are the things that it's made up in effluent

[1:34:14] so anytime that we're saturating

[1:34:19] saturating those soil, saturating that top four feet where all the treatment should be happening

[1:34:23] we're really just creating this easy path for bacteria viruses and then really important for us is the nitrogen in phosphorus

[1:34:32] something like a groundwater in soil characteristics so there hasn't been like a real full in-depth groundwater study done for devils like

[1:34:40] So it can give you here just general things, how's groundwater moving, and then how that's tied to soil characteristics.

[1:34:54] So I think this is a really good image, and it really kind of shows what's really happening for the most part.

[1:35:00] So groundwater is really going to follow surface water, and that's going to follow typography, and it'll follow better oxygen extent.

[1:35:10] So, if you're wondering where your groundwater table is, just from a visual impact, you can probably look where the lake is expressed that out into your property, and that's probably going to be where groundwater is, especially for these near shore properties.

[1:35:27] So, it'll follow the topography, and then as we know, like during dry seasons, depth of groundwater will increase during wet seasons, it decreases in the winter, groundwater is going to be higher and the summer is going to be lower.

[1:35:41] ground water first flow downward with gravity, but we'll also flow from high pressure to low pressure

[1:35:47] so get this high hydraulic pressure that can push ground water up. That's going to be another impact

[1:35:52] if when you have higher lake level you're going to be pushing ground water further up into the water shed.

[1:35:59] And that's how you were defining me for a minute to the temporary water table level.

[1:36:04] Great.

[1:36:07] Theoretically, a higher we keep the water in the summer, the higher the water, so therefore

[1:36:11] the average depth of the water table changes and becomes permanent at a higher level.

[1:36:23] And then finally, another concern that we see here is, and what this image is, it's very simple

[1:36:29] image.

[1:36:29] I probably would be able to even draw it, but what you see here is just water flowing down.

[1:36:36] And then these black lines, saw black lines are just the land, the dotted black line is the water's able.

[1:36:42] And what we get in addition is like springs coming out pretty frequently around the lake,

[1:36:47] where once water's going to circulate in, it's going to hit that ground layer, hit like a better rock layer,

[1:36:53] and then we start seeing streams and things like that.

[1:36:55] And that's just basically some ground water characteristics to talk about.

[1:36:59] So now we start getting some charts and soils, soil information and ground water really closely tied and the best information that we have in the watershed.

[1:37:13] About ground water, we really find through the USDA NRCS soil survey.

[1:37:19] Let me find my notes for that real quickly.

[1:37:30] So the table that we have here, this is, these are all the different soil types that we have in the watershed.

[1:37:36] I think we have about eight different ones, and as you can see in this next map, our soil

[1:37:42] suitability for drain fields, our soil suitability for septic systems is every soil

[1:37:47] on the water shed is classified as very limited for this use, and our limitations range,

[1:37:54] and the number of things flooding, ponding, depth of saturated zone, subsistence, slow water

[1:38:02] movement to Steve Death's a better doc to cemented pan and seepage and really as far as

[1:38:07] septic systems go, it's that Death through a saturated zone and Death's a better

[1:38:11] aquisher really important because any time that we have over saturated conditions,

[1:38:17] rocking proper treatment of the effluent, you're creating an oxa conditions when you have water

[1:38:22] which means no oxygen so you don't have bacteria working it on it, things aren't being broken

[1:38:26] down and then also reclaim this direct link to the lake kind of earlier when you're talking

[1:38:33] about the problem with any die testing is that you know things are just going down in the

[1:38:39] groundwater it's kind of that same situation like we're not getting any treatment happening and

[1:38:46] then it's difficult to see a failure when that's happening also because again generally like if

[1:38:53] If your septic system is failing, say you have a clay soil, you're going to get backing up into

[1:38:57] your house.

[1:38:58] If it's water, you're not going to get backing up into your house.

[1:39:00] It's really difficult for people to know when there's a system failing.

[1:39:07] And then if we just go back up to these, the red boxes are areas that we have depth of saturated

[1:39:13] zone as the problem.

[1:39:15] The yellow boxes are the ones we have depth of bedrock and for those near shore properties, depth

[1:39:21] the better oxystems are going to be showing similar characteristics to the depths of saturated

[1:39:27] zone because really that water has nowhere to go so it's just going to be following that

[1:39:31] better octral. And then we can show a map of those right there. That's kind of what our

[1:39:37] water shed looks like. And then all those black boxes are the our septic systems that we have.

[1:39:47] As far as the impacts that we're seeing, just basically the septic systems that we have in

[1:39:52] water shed create a lot of concerns for us. Once you've damaged levels like and you're

[1:39:58] going to increase water levels, you're going to decrease the treatment zone which is really

[1:40:02] important. We're going to be impacting those for the first four feet by saturating more

[1:40:06] of that layer. The high water table makes it more difficult to see the signs of failure again

[1:40:13] because you can have effluent that's going directly into groundwater as opposed to having

[1:40:17] soil treatment area. Something that's used greatly exceed known standards and the concern

[1:40:24] there is just like the compounding effects of more systems failing and having instead of

[1:40:30] one area where you have a more of a saturated zone or saturated whole areas to really create

[1:40:35] some trouble spots. The saturated soils decrease their ability to treat soil and already we

[1:40:42] have soils and water shed that have been designated as having

[1:40:47] depth of saturated zone problems.

[1:40:49] So really, if we're raising like level, all we're doing is kind of

[1:40:51] exacerbating this problems and doing the summer, which is like the

[1:40:55] high time of year.

[1:40:58] Is that when it says impacts that data and the middle data in

[1:41:02] the right, should that be saturating the soils to

[1:41:05] there are ability to treat effort, that's soil, that's right, that's right, okay, yeah, thank you.

[1:41:23] Okay, thanks Seth, so this is the fourth of five and this topic is on water quality and I showed this slide in May,

[1:41:35] because a lot of the uncertainty around nutrients and water quality in,

[1:41:40] these assumptions of more water and what that might look like.

[1:41:45] And now you seem to add more water, you get more delusion, you know, that's better.

[1:41:50] But that's not necessarily the case for the reasons that we're outlined in May.

[1:41:54] You know, you can be saturating septic systems and providing more nutrients coming in.

[1:41:59] You could dissolve more nutrients out of the soils, etc.

[1:42:05] So when we look at this originally in May and then through the hearing process,

[1:42:09] water quality I tried to let you guys know that's going to be the most difficult thing

[1:42:15] that's not going to be cut and dry there's just a lot of variables it's very complex

[1:42:20] similarly with temperature you know there was an assumption I you know if you have a

[1:42:26] quarter water on the stove and you shouldn't heat on it boils

[1:42:31] you know more quickly than if you had a gallon of water on the stove and those aren't you know

[1:42:37] bad assumptions but when you look at a lake and you put it in the ad

[1:42:41] biology and you've had the actually the ad the meteorology and you had all these other

[1:42:46] variables it's not as clear cut and so you might have more surface area which

[1:42:52] can heat up faster you can actually have wetlands that actually would be dry in the

[1:42:57] summertime now are wet and absorbing you know and waters connecting until you're

[1:43:01] actually getting heat transferred via the water it's just a lot of different

[1:43:05] variables, and so this has always been a big, a big, difficult thing in my estimation.

[1:43:14] And to the point about predicting water quality by water level, if you know, if that's

[1:43:21] our assumption that we can do that, I just reflect back to 2003 again, and this just happened,

[1:43:27] I just discovered this stuff when we're going through some materials, actually on three

[1:43:35] half-inch floppy drive at my dad. We're digging. We actually dug up some archive stuff for the district.

[1:43:43] Manager Report July 10th, 2003. The lake level shown here 9.7 feet in May,

[1:43:51] which dropped to by the time the report is in really 9.26 feet.

[1:43:57] change that into, can recalculate that based on the improperly installed stage at the time,

[1:44:07] basically 9.9 feet to 9.46 feet. Similar to what would have been the impoundment at peak

[1:44:17] time. Now, you think okay if you're impounding a water, if it's true that water clarity is

[1:44:24] better by impounding water, why do you have a one-foot second depth? Well, this doesn't

[1:44:28] tell the whole story, it doesn't tell what I'm talking about. The sunshine doesn't talk

[1:44:31] about anything. But if you're just going to use that as a parameter, you're going to misguide

[1:44:37] probably 50% of the time easily. Now, a month later, the lake level had dropped down and

[1:44:44] got gotten down to a low as to the converted 8.86. And the second depth was 2.3 meters.

[1:44:54] The temperature was the same, 70 degrees and 70 degrees.

[1:44:58] So just by...

[1:45:00] Trying to to try to predict water quality by lake level is it's going to be a pretty difficult thing. And this is just an example from a previous manager that had reported on this to the district.

[1:45:12] So what do we know? What can we show? And I showed these data in was a September I guess as part of the water quality report.

[1:45:20] precipitation, it was better than five years ago, but about as wet as last year, a little bit

[1:45:29] later rain event, I think we had some middle of some information last meeting that showed

[1:45:36] that June was particularly wet. And so we had potentially a big surge of nutrients coming into the

[1:45:44] watershed, because that's where a lot of the stuff comes from. The rain's pushing it through the system

[1:45:48] and it's coming into the system.

[1:45:50] The lake level was less than it was in the previous year,

[1:45:56] but it was higher in 08, no 9, which we showed data

[1:46:03] about to have it here again for each night.

[1:46:05] I've got the sign of bacteria.

[1:46:07] So we're just going to measure lake level

[1:46:08] to sign bacteria blooms.

[1:46:11] Well, the data we have for five years

[1:46:13] shows that it was bad last summer for sure,

[1:46:17] but it was even just as better worse when the lake was higher.

[1:46:22] So these things are not like a one to one.

[1:46:25] That's I think the biggest take home message is like,

[1:46:27] this is, this is not, it's very complex.

[1:46:30] Things are very complex out there.

[1:46:32] Similarly with temperature, temperature was about the same

[1:46:35] as it was last summer, a little cooler the year before.

[1:46:39] As it had been in the previous 2010 cycle,

[1:46:43] this being summer, here's January 2010 line, where the temperatures low.

[1:46:50] But when we had some big blooms we had high temperatures, exceeding 70 degrees and that's where that line goes.

[1:46:58] That quick question.

[1:46:59] Sure, the difference slides on 4243 are those, is the wake level more modest for the GF that's going from what

[1:47:13] two tenths were two high two tenths or whatever was, we adjusted them, is out of just.

[1:47:17] This is, yes, yes, these should be with that two tenth calculation, yes.

[1:47:24] And then, so, you know, and we reflected on this at the previous meeting too, that, you know,

[1:47:29] This data set doesn't show 2010 because we really didn't have a bloom that we were monitoring.

[1:47:34] We did get one in September after our season of observation season when they were closed.

[1:47:40] So it's not captured but the water quality was certainly no better in 2008 or 2009 either.

[1:47:53] So, you know, was there a difference between 2011 and 2012 visually?

[1:48:01] Yeah.

[1:48:02] It was different.

[1:48:04] But, you know, is that because of the lake level, I wouldn't make that call.

[1:48:08] I wouldn't point it, say that was the reason.

[1:48:11] Or I wouldn't say that's not the reason either.

[1:48:13] But if anything, I would say that it's, I would, I would caution on that.

[1:48:19] It's, it's probably not directly correlated.

[1:48:22] And, and I just showed you these slides, I think, these are in your package.

[1:48:25] This is from a 1990s bloom of Anabena, which is a highly toxic form of cyanobacteria,

[1:48:30] blue green algae, worse than the one that we currently have, school of trickia.

[1:48:34] And these are the aerials of, and then a near-shore shot of a regard around, so it was, you know,

[1:48:39] pea soup out there.

[1:48:41] I think this is 95, I think.

[1:48:46] It wasn't 1984, I think it was 95, because 94 was another historically bad, really

[1:48:52] And this is just all green, I don't know if people can see this, this slide shows online too, by the way.

[1:49:00] But this is just all green, this is just balloons.

[1:49:04] So has Devils Lake had historically bad balloons before, yeah, it has.

[1:49:09] And it had them as recently as 2012, and as also as recently as 2009, in 2008.

[1:49:17] So that completes that element of it.

[1:49:21] And then the last section we have here is the wetland and shoreline vegetation survey.

[1:49:26] I show this picture because it's almost Christmas time.

[1:49:29] We actually shot this photograph when we were doing the aquatic survey or the erosion study.

[1:49:38] Yeah.

[1:49:41] Tony Paddington snapped his photos of those three-year entering the lake, which is, you

[1:49:46] know, why you need shorelines?

[1:49:48] You know, we're not the only people out there, you know, or organisms out there.

[1:49:51] I mean, we need shorelines.

[1:49:53] And so when we're looking at our SOS program and limiting the impacts, you know, there's

[1:49:59] a reason.

[1:50:01] Anyway, so moving on, just a bit of background wetlands in shoreline vegetation is dynamically

[1:50:09] has a dynamic capacity to be in more water and less water, it's a range of tolerance, it's

[1:50:18] inundation, but it can handle a little bit, but it can't handle a generally more than two

[1:50:23] weeks.

[1:50:24] If it's instanding water for more than two weeks, the soils are going to go anoxic, like

[1:50:28] Seth was talking about, those roots that are in the soil that anoxic soil are going

[1:50:36] die off. And so I'm going to be other specialized plants, aquatic plants, that should be living

[1:50:42] in some of that muck. Even even aquatic plants don't. They like the boxes too, and they're

[1:50:48] supposed to. But the leg fluctuations are some natural part of their scenario, their life,

[1:50:56] their life cycle. And it's important to note, I've had this slide because it was the SOS program

[1:51:02] and the potential impacts to that SLS program that got the district asking about leg

[1:51:07] level to begin with and the shoreline and that's why we do the erosion study. So the district's

[1:51:13] investment in that erosion study which also provided all that photographic shoreline stuff, the

[1:51:20] other inventory stuff that we collected as well, was initiated as a result of whether we were basically

[1:51:32] by raising the lake low, like are we not going to be able to restore the shoreline as

[1:51:37] a result of another activity that we're embarking on, which was impounding water.

[1:51:43] And for the SOS program, it's clear to me at least that I think our greatest opportunity

[1:51:50] is on public lands, elevations below this meandered line of 10.4 feet.

[1:51:55] Because, frankly, we haven't had the outpouring of private

[1:52:03] people coming to us and saying, let's do a shoreline restoration on our shoreline.

[1:52:08] We've had six to date that I've actually done a project.

[1:52:12] And if we have 393 structures out there, well, there's a lot of opportunity.

[1:52:16] But we're, frankly, we're not getting it.

[1:52:17] And we need that shoreline.

[1:52:19] So, where's our best option for restoration, below 10-4, you know, for sure, as well as just other public lands, which we've already developed some demonstration sites on.

[1:52:35] This slide is just a catch from that shoreline planting guide that TetraTek did for us previously as well.

[1:52:43] So, you know, just talks about the plants, and in the picture it actually shows the same plant in standing water and in dry water.

[1:52:50] So it's just, you know, alluding to the fact that these things can handle a range of wetness.

[1:52:56] But they do need to have that dry parade to, they don't tolerate that complete standing water.

[1:53:03] So in order to assess the vegetation, now, I told you that we're trying to assess a half

[1:53:10] of foot change over a half a year.

[1:53:13] There's not going to be, you're not going to find tremendous change in a half a year or

[1:53:18] a half of foot.

[1:53:18] And, in fact, that was the part one of the main issues about doing that originally said to me in a way.

[1:53:23] It was a really fine window that you're looking at trying to create a data set around.

[1:53:29] So, what I'm going to show you is some photographs that do shows some changes

[1:53:35] and then others that you can't really call any difference because it looks almost...

[1:53:41] If anything, well, they must have painted the house or something.

[1:53:44] It's the only changes you'll actually see or not going to be very observable on the shore

[1:53:49] on because of just the reality of a pretty small window of change.

[1:53:55] And I want to thank Alyssa Clayton for compiling these photos and trying to zoom in to match

[1:54:04] up some 2011 photos with the 2012 photos.

[1:54:08] And I do have one of 2008 to show you.

[1:54:12] But before I get into that, I just want to show you this slide here.

[1:54:15] This picture is from the early D River, and it shows it, I'm going to guess 2030 feet.

[1:54:22] It's probably summer.

[1:54:23] I don't know.

[1:54:24] But it's an old photo of doubles of the D River from Ann Hall's book there that she did for her

[1:54:30] winner, and if you compare that to where it was looking in the summer time, now we had

[1:54:37] all the sand that washed in, and we actually had vegetation, if you can see that growing

[1:54:41] on that sand.

[1:54:42] So it just shows you that the lake does repair, and it does change over time.

[1:54:48] This isn't an estuary because it's not getting saltwater inundation every day, but it's

[1:54:53] starting to act more and more flat as that sand comes in.

[1:54:57] That's going to be the natural slope of the de-gribber area.

[1:55:01] It's going to try to push that.

[1:55:02] As we know, we've got big storms.

[1:55:03] In fact, I was thinking it was going to get clogged up yesterday and the day before, because

[1:55:06] it was, the storms were pretty, pretty big in there.

[1:55:10] But, you know, the D River probably, in the winter time, if you were to look at this photo,

[1:55:16] would flood over the top of this area, you can see up up the top corner of this kind of where the pops up of it.

[1:55:24] That's the floodplain.

[1:55:25] That's where it's going to go with its big water.

[1:55:27] But then it's going to drop back down because it just doubles like.

[1:55:30] It just goes up, runs for a while and it's going to flatten back out.

[1:55:34] And so, you know, if we look at this area long term,

[1:55:37] This, to try to change the management of this relative to the ocean, it's going to be a

[1:55:43] big investment.

[1:55:43] We've talking about that.

[1:55:45] Now if it recovers and it just actually becomes vegetated again, like it has in the past,

[1:55:53] which it would do over time, then you aren't going to have, potentially, this is off topic,

[1:56:00] but areas for those signals to land and things like that.

[1:56:04] So, you know, when we look at that discussion later,

[1:56:08] just might bear in mind some of this picture in particular,

[1:56:12] that the de-river, as with this shoreline,

[1:56:14] here is highly manipulated.

[1:56:16] And it wants to nature's trying to push it back

[1:56:19] to where it wasn't manipulated.

[1:56:21] And so it's going to be depositing sand

[1:56:23] and trying to grow vegetation when it's not,

[1:56:25] when it's not inoxic, because it's flooded with water.

[1:56:29] And so this picture shows it really clearly, I think,

[1:56:32] And I took this picture in 2008 in October, 24th, and the lake level when it was photographed

[1:56:41] was 9.0 feet according to our records.

[1:56:46] The summer inundation had been 9.8 feet to 10.2 feet, and it was highly inundated through

[1:56:52] the year.

[1:56:53] Basically a foot higher than it was like that from June 5th to the lake end of August.

[1:57:00] I mean it was, it was high the whole time, 2008.

[1:57:04] And what we see here is a very denuted shoreline.

[1:57:08] Nothing like that historic photo,

[1:57:10] where you had grass as growing up,

[1:57:12] and that when the lake did flood,

[1:57:14] the water would probably go over the top of those plants,

[1:57:17] not ripping out entirely, or if they did,

[1:57:20] they would regrow in the next summer,

[1:57:22] and it was just kind of at a home use basis.

[1:57:25] This here is showing impact to me.

[1:57:26] This is showing a lot of impact manipulation, because this shoreline could sustain growth if it had been exposed to the sun through the summer, but it was flooded all summer, so there was nothing that could grow here from like a wetland type species, and then when the dam was taken out, well then you have this very clear line of where the height of the water probably likely was.

[1:57:57] because this is hard to tell, it's too dimensional now,

[1:57:59] but if you can imagine, this is a bit of a lip pair

[1:58:03] with a vegetation in the city.

[1:58:07] Okay, so that's 2008.

[1:58:08] Most of the photographs are going to be 2011, 2012.

[1:58:10] But this one I thought was captivating,

[1:58:12] and I wanted to show it to you.

[1:58:15] This here is a picture from 2012.

[1:58:17] More or less at St. Harry, you see the unit 50 building

[1:58:19] off to the right again.

[1:58:21] And this is trying to recover.

[1:58:24] There's plants growing up through that.

[1:58:26] You know, it's showing that there's life will happen if you let it, you know, if it's and then what's also interesting about this photo is this clump of

[1:58:36] Algo Matt here, which is rather undesirable frankly this stuff is free-slimeing people don't really tend to like it

[1:58:44] Not gonna pick on it biologically

[1:58:46] You know when it comes to like greens come people tend to frown versus well people maybe people frown it prickly stuff to but I'm just saying that

[1:58:55] If you're supplanting this area, if you're innovating this, you may be encouraging stuff like this too, because it's on the aquatic side.

[1:59:05] This is a similar picture of that one and just showing a little bit further way.

[1:59:09] This is all regrowth in that same area that was from the 2008 photo.

[1:59:14] And then this is shot from the D River Bridge and so this area where the rocks are is where

[1:59:20] it was impounded out through the summertime and then it's down to say probably 8.7 or whatever

[1:59:28] it was and then this whole area here, this band of vegetation is what's been recovering since

[1:59:34] those 2008 in the hiring and addition so this shoreline was to continue growing.

[1:59:43] And it's obviously if you manipulated, if you mull it, or if you indated, it's not going to grow.

[1:59:48] So those are the two major issues there.

[1:59:51] This is again just from just off a hostile alert park there.

[1:59:54] Just showing that this area where it wasn't indated, the summer grew a foot.

[2:00:01] That means that the sentiment that's underneath that vegetation is less likely to be transported out to see when the water comes racing through there, which means that there's less turbidity for when

[2:00:28] you are stabilizing that entire shoreline.

[2:00:32] OK, so to some of the on 2011, 2012 comparisons.

[2:00:38] 2011, you know, a lot of vegetation growing in here

[2:00:43] looks pretty good.

[2:00:45] They, after inundation and the substorms, I guess,

[2:00:49] had them die off.

[2:00:50] These were submitted to me.

[2:00:54] So starts, you know, shows that kind of inundation zone

[2:00:57] where it was probably inundated up to here.

[2:00:58] I think you can see some water marks up on this other boat.

[2:01:01] It goes too shady against there, but my screen it kind of shows.

[2:01:04] You can kind of guess where the inundations happening here.

[2:01:07] But you know, it recovers when it's not, you know, inundated, you know, it's kind of expected.

[2:01:15] This picture, I think you're not going to see much difference in all of my memories.

[2:01:19] It's just like 2011, 2012.

[2:01:22] In fact, if anything, I think we chose this picture to show that the minimum

[2:01:25] the relation of this shoreline by mowing puts this a little bit more at risk than it was

[2:01:30] in 2011, where it was vegetated.

[2:01:36] So, you know, these practices on the on the on the on the lake's edge actually have a

[2:01:40] lot to do with whether or not that soil is going to stay there too.

[2:01:44] This comparison is is probably going to show very little difference, maybe, you know, the orientation

[2:01:50] of the houses a little off to you and apologize for that we, we tried to link these up as

[2:01:56] this one I think it's kind of interesting because we see a lot of sheeppiling around the lake and

[2:02:03] sheeppiling provides very little habitat and 2011 there's a little clump of stuff that's growing in front of us here

[2:02:11] 2012 that clump is growing up considerably you're getting more and more you know it's just it's kind of reclaiming it

[2:02:18] And then we move actually to the left, which would be to the north actually for the east side.

[2:02:26] There's another picture from 2011.

[2:02:28] Fairly Vedshade, we can see the wall.

[2:02:31] And then a little bit more dense in 2012.

[2:02:34] And then the next line, this is at the tail end of that initial structure.

[2:02:39] And you can see where we are compared to the next one pretty clearly because that same blue thing is in the background.

[2:02:48] So it's really completely mentioned it. It just reclaimed it. You can just see a very tail of that

[2:02:56] Right there of that

[2:03:00] Sheep on this photo

[2:03:04] Quick comparison

[2:03:05] Kind of flip through it. Yeah, I can see much. You know, it's a half of foot

[2:03:11] Probably not a lot of changes that they did on the landscape like it's that maybe they changed

[2:03:15] Oh, they, it looks like they added some fronting here to the fence line, you know, you know,

[2:03:20] your eye's not going to pick out any changes that you felt there's probably really wasn't much in a half a year at a half of foot.

[2:03:30] But in other cases, we do, we do see some here, like this is really pretty much, you're not going to see much.

[2:03:36] Same thing here, this is just kind of showing the modification really of the shoreline by the homeowner, you know,

[2:03:43] And it's pretty much going the wrong way, they're sorry.

[2:03:48] It's pretty much the same.

[2:03:51] They may have actually mode more, or something down to the edge.

[2:03:55] So you're not going to be able to pick at that too much.

[2:03:59] This property though gets a little bit interesting, because this was a highly risk property relative

[2:04:03] to erosion.

[2:04:05] And you can see some vegetation trying to come back on this to the north of that property

[2:04:10] It's the same photo zoomed in and see some stuff trying to reclaim.

[2:04:14] It's not really evident, but when you look at this part of the picture on the next

[2:04:17] couple of slides, you can see this stuff kind of compared that and find the right one.

[2:04:25] So here's two between each other and then this one and this one.

[2:04:30] So this one and this one, just the density is grown and it's just trying to prepare that

[2:04:36] just what's happening, you know, the broke off for whatever reason, you know, maybe somebody

[2:04:41] had a shovel there, but you know, wave action or whatever reason, it fell off and slough down,

[2:04:47] and it's just trying to grow back up. It's not a lot of no big surprises here. Same thing,

[2:04:53] you're not much change, you're not going to see much. This one is from a, what was a major slide,

[2:04:59] there was like a couple trees, this house on the corn actually came off, it's a foundation a few

[2:05:05] years back. So there's a major slide repair here, and they came in and ripped, and they were

[2:05:12] supposed to have actually, to my understanding, have re-vegetated that, apparently the

[2:05:18] permit actually didn't require that, but it's starting to try to just reclaim itself.

[2:05:24] It's just, you know, the rocket's self doesn't provide any habitat, but what do you get

[2:05:28] to get Scott's room? Nothing great, you know? That's why you want to go re-vegetate these

[2:05:32] because, you know, what's going to come in first or the invasives, you know, nasty stuff.

[2:05:39] Here it is again, lots of Scotch for them coming in.

[2:05:42] It gets even denser to 2012.

[2:05:47] Because there used to be these kind of sickest fruit sitting right here.

[2:05:51] You're recording.

[2:05:54] And then this one here kind of a near shot of, you know,

[2:05:58] not a lot of change there, you know, it's just pretty similar, maybe a little, you know,

[2:06:03] Vegetation dies back in winter time too. So if it if it even gets back to where it was

[2:06:09] year before that that's

[2:06:11] That's a plus for it's the plant itself, right? It's like breaking even

[2:06:14] Whether it can make gains on that has more to do with maybe the nutrients on the soil or how much sun there was. So

[2:06:20] In a vegetation is gonna be very

[2:06:23] considerably variable based on

[2:06:25] year to year

[2:06:27] because a cold year went here, you know, tree-ring data show you, you know, you get big years

[2:06:32] of growth, I mean you're staying growing very well.

[2:06:38] This shot here, this is a parcel of the city owns actually, that they tried to do a repair

[2:06:45] in 2008,

[2:06:48] but they had the willows get removed and they're looking at trying to do something

[2:06:53] again to fix this again, but what's happening here is it's just kind of reclaiming itself.

[2:06:59] and really just by not mowing in or something would help it considerably, which is, you know,

[2:07:08] maybe aesthetically, I don't even know if the city actually mows it off the neighbors,

[2:07:12] because typically people really like to modify the shoreline.

[2:07:18] And as you can see, the neighbors have highly modified areas too,

[2:07:22] So that might be indicative of why that hasn't just gone to maybe a more wild look.

[2:07:30] This, I think we're getting closely in here, this is a rock wall that has a lot of

[2:07:37] little starts of meditation going through, and you know, whether it's because it was the next

[2:07:42] year was very favorable because of the weather or because of the lake levels or whatever

[2:07:47] cases. You can see that the lake is sitting right at that shoreline. But it's going

[2:07:53] considerably better. It's growing. You know, there's a real benefit comparison between

[2:07:58] these and this one. So given the chance vegetation, I guess take on memory, messages will reclaim

[2:08:07] some of those areas that are denuded by not denuting those areas or having those areas reclaimed.

[2:08:13] And you reduce the amount of sedimentation coming into the system.

[2:08:16] You help stabilize the shoreline as we saw in those D River photos,

[2:08:22] and then there's

[2:08:22] a couple more here.

[2:08:24] I think one, the last one is an SOS project where, you know, this kind of goes back to your

[2:08:30] investment.

[2:08:31] So you helped with this project 75% of this project, cash managed, right?

[2:08:37] Um, here's the 2011 photo, 2012, it's just flourishing, you know, and that's what you want, right?

[2:08:45] You want it, something, you know, this has been invested in, it's not an invasive, like the Scotch

[2:08:51] Room where the vegetation wasn't replanted.

[2:08:55] Um, you know, it's a really stark comparison.

[2:08:59] Obviously, these plants are starting to take root, and so there's like just a whole

[2:09:02] growth here and they had room to grow so they helped grow so you know there's that

[2:09:08] variable too but what we know about sediment the shoreline and the way those plants

[2:09:16] are adapted to they're better off without the dam that's pretty clear and so you

[2:09:24] You know, with the impoundment as at 9-0, are they less worse off, probably, would they

[2:09:33] be worse worse off at 9-53, probably even more so, for sure, because then you're creating

[2:09:39] like a permanent water table like stuff was talking about the relative of the septics,

[2:09:43] because when we looked at that origin city, it was showed that the lake level was actually

[2:09:49] higher on average in summer time, and in the winter time, and that was because of the

[2:09:54] impoundment. And so, you know, can the vegetation do better without impoundment? My professional

[2:10:03] get estimation, absolutely, yes. And I think that's it for the whole thing we did it in

[2:10:10] about 70 minutes.

[2:10:18] Anybody have questions for Paul in the presentation?

[2:10:28] So, are we on the goal setting?

[2:10:47] Vegetation survey, actually. From Portland State.

[2:10:50] This is the next one.

[2:10:54] This document is online.

[2:10:56] Portland State's Vegetation Survey.

[2:10:59] I think I've provided a couple take-home points

[2:11:02] that if you don't mind, I'll just kind of look at to refresh.

[2:11:07] But we mentioned one of them is that,

[2:11:10] well, at least from there, two passes in investigation,

[2:11:12] we didn't have any of the Brazilian idea,

[2:11:14] nor the millfoil, which is good, you know.

[2:11:21] You've got a copy of the abstract, you've got a copy of the actual document.

[2:11:25] If you go to our research page, you can find it there for 2012.

[2:11:31] Key findings, 20 species of plants, and I preliminarily we spoke about this, and I thought

[2:11:36] that was impressive, but I thought we wouldn't find more than a handful.

[2:11:41] Because the lake has so little vegetation that you would expect less diversity.

[2:11:47] Well, actually it was quite diverse.

[2:11:51] Talked about the two non-animals that weren't found.

[2:11:57] Finally, less density in the second sample over the first sample.

[2:12:01] There was one fewer species found.

[2:12:04] I think it was like a July 15th in September,

[2:12:10] and it's a time period.

[2:12:15] One of the findings are reported in the report.

[2:12:17] that says that, you know, without ongoing control, 35 to 60% which was what was estimated

[2:12:24] to have been vegetated pre-grass farm would return, you know, that's the same deficit

[2:12:31] beds of water and where there isn't maybe enough wind energy to rip the plants out of

[2:12:40] their sediment.

[2:12:42] You know, that's kind of the platform for vegetation on those, like 35 to 60 percent.

[2:12:50] And that would happen again more or less.

[2:12:53] I mean, that's what we've heard.

[2:12:55] I've always said, you know, you stop mowing the lawn, grass car mowing the lawn.

[2:13:01] 18 months have not mowing the lawn.

[2:13:03] It's going to look a lot different than when you mow the time before.

[2:13:05] So, something on that window is, you know, or greater.

[2:13:12] They also documented, this was in part of the actual agreement, but they actually documented

[2:13:18] 14 shoreline species for us, five of which were non-native, and we know a lot of those

[2:13:23] of purple blue strife, the Canary Reganary Grass, the Yellow Flag Iris, which dominates

[2:13:29] much of the shoreline.

[2:13:32] Recommendations, additional education and outreach, such as the shoreline planting guides,

[2:13:36] So plotting us in that effort, you know, and we do have copies of that if people want that,

[2:13:41] we want people to register the shoreline.

[2:13:43] And as we saw in some of those slides, if you don't vegetate it, when you have an incident

[2:13:47] like a slide, you're probably going to get vaccinated as they even vases, like a Scotch

[2:13:51] room.

[2:13:52] You know, it's what's typically going to move in.

[2:13:55] So we do have that program.

[2:13:59] Boat ramp signage.

[2:14:00] They've talked about other interpretive displays that we have the devil's like radio.

[2:14:07] Other recommendations, eradication of pioneer infestations.

[2:14:12] So they're recommending ongoing monitored for early detection and then therefore if you

[2:14:15] have detected something, you can maybe activate some sort of action that would help eliminate

[2:14:22] that.

[2:14:23] That might be a bottom barrier or diverse system section, as we talked about a few months ago.

[2:14:28] That's that targeted bang. Okay, we can effectively

[2:14:35] eradicate something from a small area such as such as near-regotter grounds where you have the

[2:14:41] infestate infestation come about you know this hypothetical now because of that both that came in so by monitoring

[2:14:49] Makes sense and I think you know we'll you know we went just have to look through budgetary means

[2:14:54] It's that how we we look at this in the future

[2:14:56] But that's pretty much it.

[2:15:01] You know, there's, you know, we can go into it at greater depth later, if you want. I, I, I, I felt like this would probably be enough based on the meeting load that we had.

[2:15:11] But, you know, and certainly if you have any questions, it's Joe peppers has it of course already and he's looked at it and incorporated points of it.

[2:15:20] I'm going to make sure that he includes those out.

[2:15:25] The Eurasian milk foil and resultant all idea that aren't found currently.

[2:15:30] That was like a coordinate of this study.

[2:15:33] Hopefully, it was comprehensive enough.

[2:15:36] That was a goal.

[2:15:36] They did do a pretty comprehensive study to 250 passes or something.

[2:15:41] So 400 sites.

[2:15:43] Anyway, there's any questions we can bring them back,

[2:15:47] or just talking to me, uh, uh, uh, you know, in the office sometime too.

[2:15:58] That's it.

[2:16:02] All right, Goldstone.

[2:16:03] Okay, so we had our Goldstone in October 13th.

[2:16:08] Um, had, um, a review of those minutes.

[2:16:12] Pull together this, uh, thanks to the help of Linda.

[2:16:17] Um,

[2:16:19] and what it's showing is the highest ranking items from your survey that we did.

[2:16:25] we had that, remember we did that online survey,

[2:16:28] we got a fair amount of respondents.

[2:16:30] I don't recall the numbers there.

[2:16:32] We got quite a few respondents, prioritizing

[2:16:35] septic tank revitalization, sanitary sewer,

[2:16:39] invasive species prevention shoreline,

[2:16:40] repairing vegetation in the SOS program again,

[2:16:44] and erosion prevention settlement control.

[2:16:46] Those were the top external controls from the survey,

[2:16:48] and I'm not going to read these for you

[2:16:50] because you've got to admit front of you,

[2:16:52] but what I'm hoping to have happen

[2:16:54] as a way of creating like a next top five if that's if that's your intent through this

[2:17:01] process is to just the board to provide really a clear goal or objective. Something that's

[2:17:11] really targeted within these parameters that I think you've voiced in the public as echoed

[2:17:18] in a lot of ways. Within these external controls, these in-like treatments, this education

[2:17:25] and stuff,

[2:17:28] send me your real targeted objectives, and we'll put that into our January

[2:17:35] meeting, and if we only get one from each of you, maybe that's it, and we should just ask

[2:17:41] for one from each of you, I think that there might be some overlap and that might leave us

[2:17:47] with one goal or two goals, so maybe we could ask two or three from each, and then we can

[2:17:54] kind of, we've done in previous years is just, you know, like, those are both on it.

[2:17:58] Then, you know, we, or, or, however you want to come to consensus.

[2:18:03] If that's, if that's a reasonable request.

[2:18:06] You know, I think three to five would go

[2:18:13] against, you know,

[2:18:14] figure out what next top five are, right, or maybe they're the same as what they are to this.

[2:18:19] Yeah, right, exactly. And there's some ongoing ones there that are very important.

[2:18:23] And I wouldn't expect the district to run away from Grascarb, you know,

[2:18:29] I think the idea is to just, you know, what are we going to move into next and, you know, if we end up with a top 7 or something to you, I don't think that's a bad thing.

[2:18:39] I know we had discussions years ago about, well, we should have a top 20 or top, you know, however many, whatever we're listing, we should just all recognize that these are, and certain things happen.

[2:18:54] and explicitly that might help move the one that goal that was way at the bottom would

[2:18:59] write to the top because it's you know it's DQ wants to do a project here oh we wanted to

[2:19:04] do a project but we thought that was out of our you know capacity at the time but bang

[2:19:09] it's not so but what would really help me is like taking a look at these kind of bullet points

[2:19:15] and just actually writing the the goal so if you can just provide the sentence that would make

[2:19:22] it really simple because otherwise I'm going to be having to interpret what you're saying

[2:19:27] and to write a goal and it would just be easier if we just got a list of like if we

[2:19:34] got three from each of you and 15 if we got five from each of you 25 whether or not they

[2:19:39] overlap or not and then we can prioritize it would be from this list here.

[2:19:45] Well you know if there's something else and I actually add this thank you for that.

[2:19:48] If there's something that we've missed, please bring it forward.

[2:19:52] Absolutely.

[2:19:53] Yeah, thank you.

[2:19:54] So like, you know, the discussion item on the coal I made,

[2:19:59] when I brought that up,

[2:20:00] I would assume the goal is to, you know, do some sort of,

[2:20:06] you know, to bring it down below the levels of, you know,

[2:20:10] where it's dangerous though.

[2:20:11] Right.

[2:20:12] The goal would be to reduce it down to where we eliminate that hot zone.

[2:20:18] You know, in terms of, you know, doing things to, you know, that maybe discouraging signals or whatever that is, you know, just to get that down, looking at ways that we can, you know, accomplish.

[2:20:31] And, and that would be specific enough of a goal.

[2:20:37] If there's another layer below that, you know, more specific that you have, go ahead and put that one too.

[2:20:43] You know what I mean, but that that that's a very admirable goal and then we can come back and say well

[2:20:50] To meet that goal, we can look at these three fourth five things and say, oh, this is practical

[2:20:55] This one would be practical if we did you know whatever the case may be

[2:21:00] So let me get this straight

[2:21:11] Seagulls back necessarily be what so it's what select to do

[2:21:16] In the discussion during the goals

[2:21:20] I had said, you know, when we looked at, you know, you know, when I was mentioning it, I was doing it in context of, you know, what are some,

[2:21:30] center is important to do that, right? Either getting rid of the sand bars, have a, you know,

[2:21:39] open a little bit not to navigation, you know, perspective to get rid of the seagulls, right?

[2:21:45] And other means that might be,

[2:21:50] so it was just, in reference to what could we look at.

[2:21:54] What was that?

[2:21:55] Two goal itself is not to drag it.

[2:21:58] The two goal is to reduce the E.C.O.I. to green levels.

[2:22:06] And some of the ways that we could do that would potentially be to drag your discouraged

[2:22:10] Seagull activity.

[2:22:13] So that's what that was in relation to.

[2:22:15] right. Now you may want to make it navigable down. I just think in terms of the cost of

[2:22:24] something like that. Sure, that's it's been done before. God's fortune man. Yeah, it was

[2:22:32] 60 grand. I know one one bill that was paid by the district. 60 grand or somebody. I don't know

[2:22:38] if it was all the district that paid it but there was a bill of 60 thousand dollars. I saw for age

[2:22:41] 25 years ago, yeah, well even less than I probably in the 90s after like the 96

[2:22:46] months probably.

[2:22:49] But yeah, so that would be, I think, a little way of moving this

[2:22:55] forward and we'll take, you know, because then we, you know, you've already provided me

[2:23:02] the list, we can have people make a case for, you know, you can have your discussions

[2:23:07] about it and then just prioritize from that, and you know, inform each other offline too.

[2:23:15] You know, hey, this is what I'm thinking, you know, like the such as, you know, we can do this,

[2:23:19] this is too.

[2:23:19] I mean, you know, these are goals that you're formulating for the district.

[2:23:24] So the more communications you guys have, one to one, and the better, you know, so that,

[2:23:32] you know, this time here is the decision making.

[2:23:35] you can tell the public where how you came to your decisions, you know, and how justified,

[2:23:44] but it's expensive format too, and in two hours is already coming up. We're already

[2:23:49] past two and a half hours for our meeting for that, and I guess to be able to be able to

[2:23:51] not miss these. It's an interest of time and sanity.

[2:23:59] So, and when do you need those five calls? Well, do you have the date of our next meeting?

[2:24:04] It's the, this is the 10th, 10th, 10th, 10th, and we're, well then, how about like, is the third, is that like a Thursday, it would be a Friday,

[2:24:25] ideally by the second, I think,

[2:24:29] right,

[2:24:31] actually, oops, it just shut off,

[2:24:39] is that going to be it?

[2:24:42] Jane, are you saying?

[2:24:48] No.

[2:24:49] All right.

[2:24:49] Just to clarify that, what we're doing,

[2:24:54] or for a bunch of different suggestions,

[2:24:56] but how about what we do as we each give you

[2:24:58] our top by all?

[2:25:03] Yeah.

[2:25:05] I mean, if somebody's got a burning desire

[2:25:07] and a put in a sex fine,

[2:25:09] but basically, so you do this in a consistent way.

[2:25:13] We each give you five.

[2:25:14] Yeah.

[2:25:15] Um, you know, I'm fine with getting them that this the Monday before I'm eating too.

[2:25:23] Um, we have to have them in time to put the pack in.

[2:25:25] It would be nice to get them in the packet.

[2:25:28] So, um, shoot for the second.

[2:25:31] Yeah.

[2:25:31] That'd be great.

[2:25:35] It's a prize.

[2:25:39] Okay.

[2:25:44] Any other questions on the goal setting?

[2:25:48] Okay.

[2:25:49] So, uh,

[2:25:50] Just less pointed to version one.

[2:25:52] Okay.

[2:25:53] Um, I haven't read this since I've written a road.

[2:25:56] So I don't have to reflect to it, but the water right here that we're talking about we're calling this less point of diversion is actually the city of Lincoln City's water right on Brock Creek that they have, you know, with with the Confederated Tribes or Chinook wins the applicants.

[2:26:16] two water resources created a second point of diversion. So instead of grabbing water up the hill and rock creek

[2:26:23] where the dam was, or slightly still is, they pursued a water right, the same water right.

[2:26:33] A different point of diversion on that existing water right on Devs Lake, and it's all this less point of diversion.

[2:26:38] So I want to be clear that it's the city of Lincoln City's water right that we're talking about here.

[2:26:42] And it's a municipal water ride on that, that tributary.

[2:26:47] So it's basically for 2.5 cubic feet per second, and what this new water ride that was

[2:26:55] actually approved, which we supported for a number of reasons, limits the amount, it's

[2:27:06] And basically 75 acre feet of water that was a goal, that the golf course felt that they

[2:27:12] needed for irrigation to supplement their existing tributaries coming through their property.

[2:27:21] Now that water would be taken over at least 75 days, so the actual transfer of water is at

[2:27:30] a maximum rate of 0.5 CFS cubic feet per second.

[2:27:35] This last point at a version was in the Northwest arm, right across from Blueharing.

[2:27:41] I was put in, and they've actually just started using it this last year.

[2:27:48] And, you know, I guess the crux of what I want to report back to you is what that usage was.

[2:27:56] And look, it would look like probably in the future, and I got an email from Jeff Colmer,

[2:28:05] I hope I'm going to pronounce this right correctly, who was the new superintendent.

[2:28:08] He wasn't here when we spoke about this a few years ago, but he's the one that's in charge

[2:28:15] of that, and so they activated it, and what they use of the total 75 acre feed that they had

[2:28:24] to was 14 acre feet. So like 16% of that or something like that. Significantly less.

[2:28:34] And it was his estimation that they'd actually probably use less water in subsequent

[2:28:39] years that maybe like less dry. Because June was wet as we know, but August, July, August,

[2:28:47] and September, I think there was one day of rain in August, a slight rain.

[2:28:51] So it was a really pretty far, I played some of them.

[2:28:55] So there are 75 acre feet needs, maybe, you know, obviously in this first year of data

[2:29:03] show that they didn't need that much.

[2:29:04] So that's good.

[2:29:05] So they're actually needing less water.

[2:29:09] Now I wanted to find out what that look like for rock creek generally, and there's a really

[2:29:19] data set about rock crease water and it's published on our website in the diagnostic and feasibility

[2:29:27] study from 1983. And the last paper packet has a table 3.5.1 and it highlights a highlighted

[2:29:37] July August and September for the total amount of water that came through that system. And these

[2:29:44] numbers are highly, you know, we're, we're collected on a daily matter because the city was running their waste

[2:29:51] water shooting, our drinking water plant based on these numbers, so they actually had a collect daily record.

[2:29:55] So these these data are really great solid for this, for this year.

[2:30:01] And what it shows is, and I've summed it, I've kind of like added stuff to their original table. So the table itself has some blue-colored ink, kind of three quarters of the way down.

[2:30:16] It says maximum water, right? So 75 acre feet, which computes to about 92,000 cubic meters, which is about 3% of rock creek in the summer months that are shown in yellow.

[2:30:29] So, only about 3% of the water of that kind of water that's typically coming on that system would be necessary to meet the needs of the golf course of which only about one sixth of that was actually used.

[2:30:49] So they only needed these 14 acre feet, which is basically about a half a percent of the water,

[2:30:56] typically coming out of rock creek in a set of months. So that's comforting to find because

[2:31:02] when I was looking at this originally it was looking at like well rock creek can get pretty low

[2:31:07] you know we can get down there a couple you know seven CFS a minute and if they're taking out a half a CFS

[2:31:14] a second I mean if they're taking out a half well that's a pretty large fraction you know

[2:31:21] 15th and if it gets down to 5 CFS and they're taking out a half, well that's, you know,

[2:31:26] ten percent, right?

[2:31:29] But it's seemingly more like a 1 half to, you know, maybe up to 3%.

[2:31:36] And the other benefit is that the water, as we know, is extracted after it's already come

[2:31:41] through the system from a visual wildlife perspective, that water stays in the stream.

[2:31:48] It goes all the way through the wetlands, comes in and doubles like provides cold water

[2:31:53] refugia for some on it, these threatened species, all the way down gets warmed up when

[2:31:59] it hits doubles like because it's sitting in the sun now it's not running down hill because

[2:32:03] those lakes warming up and then gets extracted later so in that respect it's guaranteed

[2:32:11] like a flow of water through that system. By virtue of the extraction,

[2:32:17] happening in Devil's Lake, there's a guarantee of water that has to get to

[2:32:21] Devil's Lake. And it's a small percentage as if these data

[2:32:27] represent a typical year, but even if they don't, you know, it's, I was

[2:32:34] happy to see that it was a lot less than I anticipated, frankly. So, the other

[2:32:39] elements that I need to provide feedback to and the other interest was the nutrient reduction.

[2:32:46] That was one of the main reasons that we supported this sleds point of diversion.

[2:32:53] And frankly, you know, had a nice long talk with Jeff and he's very open in very communicative

[2:32:59] and happy to share new stuff, new data, but they actually don't have a record of what they

[2:33:06] applied in the past, and I was hoping that they, at least,

[2:33:09] have maybe a monetary value to it and say,

[2:33:13] well, the bag of fertilizer costs, X, Y, Z.

[2:33:15] But he said that the data just aren't there to provide.

[2:33:21] But he has committed to doing monitoring of the streams

[2:33:26] that run through that, through the golf course,

[2:33:29] and it ended up was like, pre and post of the golf course

[2:33:34] in an attempt to look at impacts or potential impacts and hopefully, no impacts of nutrients coming

[2:33:43] on to down to a devil's lake.

[2:33:46] So that was a nice commitment and I, like he suggested that the district could do a complimentary

[2:33:50] set of data run off suite of nutrient analyses, you know, and do it on it, you know, another

[2:33:57] week or a new year week or do it at the same time if we wanted to have, you know, replicate

[2:34:01] example or whatever you, and then we could look at this and look at it from a nutrient perspective for a term,

[2:34:06] you know, is there nutrients being adverse?

[2:34:10] Are nutrients coming in off the golf course?

[2:34:13] And in his estimation, they aren't.

[2:34:15] And so, you know, he's happy to look at that.

[2:34:19] So that's pretty much what I have for you.

[2:34:22] That was the first year of the implementation of that.

[2:34:27] point of vision and wait till like a sixteenth of minutes of water or something. Oh, well, yeah,

[2:34:35] it's basically immeasurable in a lot of respects.

[2:34:41] The 75 acre feet would have equated to,

[2:34:46] I think, one inch, five sixteenths of water seems to stick in my head for some reason. That would have

[2:34:52] 75 acre feet, which kind of makes sense you've got 688 acres and you want 75 acre feet.

[2:35:01] So you stretch that need out, but the acre foot being all the way across the foot

[2:35:07] need at 75 acres would do it, but then you go down 680 and then it's like, it should

[2:35:13] half. That's at the full 75.

[2:35:18] That if you were to pull it all at one shot.

[2:35:21] It is, you know. So pretty much in discernible effect, certainly the lake level.

[2:35:30] You know, I think we heard that from public comment or to one point that somebody brought that forward.

[2:35:35] You know, it's been monitoring this pretty regularly in the top two, so appreciate that.

[2:35:39] And, yeah,

[2:35:43] the other benefit that I've, or the other, not an impact that I was happy to see was that percentage of actual flow being barely low of the total.

[2:35:56] For, you know, and it's, it's days in the stream, you know, it doesn't get, it doesn't get harnessed until after it hits the levels like systems, bottom of the system.

[2:36:07] It's really, it's really hard for me to buy the fact that they have no information or data regarding fertilizer use in previous years.

[2:36:20] I mean, they know how much they buy and get the records of what they purchased on the supplier and previous.

[2:36:28] and have a good baseline to have, so I mean, they can give us the future years, use, or next years,

[2:36:36] use, and have some basis for comparison?

[2:36:41] Yeah, yeah, I mean, I frankly was surprised to, I thought, you know, we could hopefully

[2:36:46] have seen something relative to use application rates, you know, or anything,

[2:36:53] but what was conveyed

[2:36:56] to me is that when it comes to, you know, application of fertilizer, the, you know,

[2:37:08] you're

[2:37:08] not going to get runoff of that provided you know when you're fertilizing and you know

[2:37:13] when it's going to rain and, you know, he was very adamant that, you know, he's judicious

[2:37:19] in the use and will not be, you know, fertilizing in a rainstorm we're getting hit by,

[2:37:23] or over fertilizing, and so that's when the plant then can consume the need, and then

[2:37:30] he's suggesting that the fatch layer will then make use of all block basically, all the nutrients

[2:37:36] from migrating to the groundwater.

[2:37:40] And by large, if you only feed a plant, what it means, that would be true, and then provided

[2:37:46] you also take those grass clippings, and you're not composting them in an area that is

[2:37:53] You know, it can go to groundwater or it can go to a stream channel or something else, you know, it's a full practice that you have to do.

[2:38:04] But even if they're just feeding the golf course what it needs, the idea I thought was it's supposed to need less because getting this nutrient rich water from the lake.

[2:38:14] So, you know, whether it binds fertilizer with a turf binds fertilizer, it still should require less.

[2:38:24] Yeah, absolutely.

[2:38:26] Just be nice to know that they're using less.

[2:38:31] In the event that he's wrong, some of it does actually run off into the back of the way.

[2:38:38] Less, running into it.

[2:38:39] I can definitely try to reconnect with those and have that conversation again and maybe he

[2:38:47] found something since, but you know he said that the records that he came into or frankly

[2:38:52] not very good.

[2:38:53] That record he did not represent those data for whatever that's worth.

[2:39:00] I did bring to the attention the idea of heart and parcel to the idea of using nutrient-rich

[2:39:07] water.

[2:39:08] He said, well, you know, the nutrients that comes like, yeah, they're going to, they're

[2:39:10] ill supplement, but you're still going to need to grow turf grass, you're still going

[2:39:14] to be supplementing, quite a bit.

[2:39:15] Well, I understand, but it should make some different.

[2:39:19] Yeah.

[2:39:19] But the other point that I made to him that I don't think he was aware of is, or he hadn't

[2:39:26] considered, was this idea of this chlorinated water tap water being applied to the turf,

[2:39:32] which basically kills the biota, any microbes in the soil, which you have a really key role in nutrient recycling.

[2:39:42] So, whether or not, I mean, I would love, I want to see hard numbers.

[2:39:47] I thought I was in an impression that we were going to see some numbers from the previous talks we had.

[2:39:53] Soft numbers would be fine.

[2:39:56] But, you know, there is, I do have scientifically a high level confidence that the turf will be healthier relative to where it was, with chlorinated tap water, and that's the nutrient recycling of microactivity is better, such that anything that's applied gets more utilization.

[2:40:16] So that in itself would help lead to a reduction. The numbers, I love the same two.

[2:40:21] Maybe we could just ask him as if they've used a consistent one or two suppliers over the years

[2:40:27] that they can get some data from how much they've purchased so we can assume that they use with the purchase.

[2:40:34] The comparative future years would just be nice to know that it's a win-win for everybody that I bet.

[2:40:41] The nutrients available.

[2:40:43] Putting them on the golf course and they're telling him he says they're not coming back because it's binding to the turf.

[2:40:48] So I think that could be just a little nervous about, but it's not a times of fertilizer on our golf course and I have in the past three years, but I think it's like Ryan says I think it's a win-win for them to say yeah, we have an hour using nutrient which water which is helping us kind of back now this coming year we project only to put it on a huge savings for us and nutrient load.

[2:41:15] I think you make it really good. I don't see how they could lose if they put the numbers after what they've done in the past if they can find it

[2:41:22] But they're gonna have a hard time putting a fix on how much less they need because they won't know unless it burns

[2:41:29] I suppose

[2:41:30] Seriously over how do we need to know if they're using a little more than they need to

[2:41:38] I hope that professional that would be something

[2:41:42] Well, yeah, and typically superintendent, it does have a degree at, I know, the objective in agronomy.

[2:41:48] So that's, that's, your soil science, your church science.

[2:41:52] So, yeah, you know, the skill sets there, you know, and, you know, and we do have a commitment from the tribe and from,

[2:42:02] in from Shnuk, when generally that, you know, they're, they're certainly on board with the environment.

[2:42:06] I don't think you can think that that's not a major concern for them.

[2:42:10] and so applaud them in that and I believe that and so, you know, yeah, I would mean I have more information, maybe we can get more, you know, and, you know, maybe the concerns are like you were saying, well, that's, that's a, you know, yeah, there's those, this is, you know, maybe there's some nervousness there, but, you know, stewardship moving forward, you know, I think, you know, the golf courses is in good hands,

[2:42:40] relative to, I don't know who owned it, like side, whatever, I'm saying they did it

[2:42:48] anymore better, but I'm just saying I think from an entity that does own it, I think we

[2:42:54] do have a vested community member group owner.

[2:42:57] I'm not at all doubting that they're on board with the technical environment, but I believe

[2:43:02] that they are.

[2:43:03] It just seems like maybe this was a glass still a little bit, and maybe really thought

[2:43:09] about it, there is a way to get some data that we could, you know, compare a post or pre-extraction

[2:43:18] of water from the lake versus post-extraction, yeah. I'm really thinking that what we would

[2:43:26] see would be quite positive for both the golf course and the lake. Yeah, and I think like you're

[2:43:33] You know if you got like three years of data and assume that they did use most of at least

[2:43:40] at all three years or consume more or less by the time to divide that by three and then you had

[2:43:45] another three years later you can at least say on average there was a reduction or something.

[2:43:50] So I will definitely you know open up that channel communication again relative to that.

[2:43:57] I mean even if they started this year, right?

[2:43:59] Yeah, should see microbiology changes, other over the years, it should reduce.

[2:44:07] Well, the chlorides are very short-lived, so it's really kind of an impact it cuts off

[2:44:16] as soon as you stop eerie to those bounces back.

[2:44:19] I think that was pretty resilient, yeah, because he actually tested the soils for chlorides

[2:44:23] and found nothing, which makes sense because it rains, and the chlorides get picked up

[2:44:29] get washed back through. But now, you know, you know, it's just like with your drinking water supply,

[2:44:38] you know, as soon as that chlorine residual gets down below, I forget what they have to have

[2:44:43] a one part for something million or billion. I can't remember if it's a million or a point five,

[2:44:48] or whatever it is, once it gets below that, bacteria can start again, and it does. And so it's

[2:44:59] and a lot.

[2:45:00] I have system that's just suppressed versus just like a sterile drinking water tank or something.

[2:45:14] It's move on to non-agenda.

[2:45:17] It's just kind of reference back to our original public comment period for the board in terms of providing

[2:45:29] the letter to board for the just the activities.

[2:45:34] I personally like to see if you've got the issue to that.

[2:45:40] I think it would be beneficial, efficient to bring levels like a little to the

[2:45:52] activity and

[2:45:53] recreation.

[2:45:55] I'd be willing to get and see if there's some staff time that would provide that system,

[2:46:01] and kind of getting that first year, because I know experience and getting a god of grant,

[2:46:10] set up from

[2:46:14] the CS, you know.

[2:46:16] some level and then considering doing some of the fighting some of the funding, if some

[2:46:27] of the other sources can't make it happen, make that under consideration in a

[2:46:31] future time to give it a chance.

[2:46:41] So one of our, one of our, and I had to, I made that note on non-agenda items too, but the

[2:46:46] I mean one of our very fundamental goals is their purposes and even in our enabling

[2:46:56] statute says there were to be encouraging and recreational activity and to a great recreational activity

[2:47:06] has an economic benefit for the city.

[2:47:10] You can add some 38 or you can unpack study as a result of just ski races in the future.

[2:47:18] So, the truth is that this is about how much that ski races add to an economy.

[2:47:24] Much ask the National Association if they do have any information regarding that.

[2:47:29] We're trying to do an economic impact study for devil's life.

[2:47:33] They might have something.

[2:47:34] That's

[2:48:07] a can you come up and speak into the mic so that people can hear you and see, sorry, I know it, we're

[2:48:23] come for two days and spend money in town and their kids spend money in the community while they're raising their jet skis and their goal is to get enough points in their competition through the summer.

[2:48:43] that they go to Lake Havasu for the National Championship.

[2:48:51] So I definitely think there's economic benefit, not to mention the spectators you might come

[2:48:55] in the town, and just enjoy a minute of our citizens here, so definitely I want to see

[2:49:01] what we can do to support you anyway we can.

[2:49:03] I'm sure I miss part of your testimony here.

[2:49:07] I have been one man show for instigating some excitement in Lincoln City since I moved down here

[2:49:14] whole time, and I've got the Association, the Jetsky, the Jet Sports Association for the Pacific

[2:49:25] Northwest Oregon, Idaho, and Washington that would like to have their first event of the

[2:49:35] 2013 season here, and Chinook Wins is going to be the presenter, which means we spend about

[2:49:43] hundred dollars on our insurance policy, which is a $2 million liability policy that protects the city and the state.

[2:49:56] The Jewa have you had any communication with the BCB about this at all?

[2:50:01] Yes, we've got that base covered.

[2:50:04] I've got that base covered, but I haven't gotten the application in and Roger Horneck from Omec Washington who's been the project.

[2:50:13] manager for the Jetsky Association is completing that. I hope tonight when he goes home and

[2:50:24] then he'll email it to me and I'll take it in to Sandra. Yeah, the paperwork's pretty simple. Yeah.

[2:50:33] Well, Miles, I would bet that if you have some kind of economic information I was looking for, but you know,

[2:50:38] how much each jet-skiing family brings to the community for the weekend in terms of meals,

[2:50:45] purchase, hotel rooms, purchase, et cetera. And because those kinds of associations

[2:50:50] might to keep that kind of date and have it so they can, they can, they probably have, have it.

[2:50:57] Yeah, that's not quite for now.

[2:50:58] Sure. So I'll get that tomorrow and I reported back to Paul and he can get it out to you in an email.

[2:51:09] But anyway, I think the consensus is we support you doing a letter of support for the jet ski races.

[2:51:19] Okay, so do we need a motion for that or are we giving it?

[2:51:23] Oh, I'll make that motion.

[2:51:27] All those things.

[2:51:27] Hi.

[2:51:31] So can you drive that up for tomorrow and I'll sign up for seeing the morning?

[2:51:35] Sure.

[2:51:35] Yeah.

[2:51:36] Miles can pick it up.

[2:51:38] Yeah.

[2:51:38] And be great.

[2:51:42] Can you give all the particulars first thing in the morning is to, you know, who I need to address that to?

[2:51:51] Okay, it's Heather Hatton, who is the marketing director, or the director?

[2:51:58] Dr. Cunary, Cunary, how was relationship director?

[2:52:02] Actually, okay.

[2:52:05] They seem to have written her.

[2:52:06] Okay, good.

[2:52:08] Good night.

[2:52:09] Thank you, thanks.

[2:52:10] And I hope that I don't feel comes together.

[2:52:17] I think that's valid.

[2:52:18] You know, I'm working on some other project for us.

[2:52:24] I wouldn't object to providing, you know, after we find out what the VCB does, as far as

[2:52:30] grants them, they're being pretty flexible to my knowledge.

[2:52:35] I sure wouldn't object to working with them to provide maybe some financial

[2:52:40] If need as well, let's

[2:53:22] make sure you just disqualify this all five I'm glad you support it

[2:53:34] Thank you, Moff

[2:53:36] I see any additional public comment. I must even know I see something over here and board announcements or comments

[2:53:50] I'm going to make a comment, and I'm going to apologize for it up front.

[2:53:56] No.

[2:53:57] When you're going to sail, if you ever look over to the sides of those big fields outside of

[2:54:02] sailing the side of it, you see cutouts, usually steel, cutouts of coyotes, once in a while

[2:54:08] you even see a billowing ball legal.

[2:54:12] And you can go down and for your own garden, you can buy a plastic owl to put up there.

[2:54:17] First of all, you should have some idea of whether or not those things are just to get the gullible or whether or not they actually work

[2:54:25] And I was thinking in terms of these two these birds that we have that screw up the

[2:54:30] Exit of the lake. Why you put a big ball legal on one of those logs out there

[2:54:35] Yeah, that would work at all. I know that they certainly have short term benefit whether or not they have long term benefit as far as being naive and getting to tourists. I got

[2:54:47] bamboozled and Vermont with a bison or something I stared at and a bunch of other people on the side of the road

[2:54:53] My neighbor came by and I was staring at the bison, so yeah, yeah, yeah, they get blood pretty good and so whether that works long term for seagulls and other birds

[2:55:05] You know, that's maybe

[2:55:07] To be seen, but you know, you do see people around the lake that have like a a bald eagle on their dock or something

[2:55:14] There's a couple examples of that and

[2:55:17] shadows of a coyote you know that that could make a difference I think it could I know

[2:55:21] those from many ranchers and farmers you know that could move in every once

[2:55:28] and while so it gets brand new life each time yeah yeah could get an animatronic

[2:55:32] thing going on too but yeah and that's definitely consideration and you look at

[2:55:37] this bacteria thing you know it's of discouraging seagulls you know the first thing

[2:55:43] I think it's getting the humans to quit feed them.

[2:55:45] That's the biggest encouragement is getting the populations where they're not stained

[2:55:50] outside of their natural habitat, which is, you know, we would go down if you're not

[2:55:56] being, you know, and I think we've seen benefit there.

[2:56:00] We've seen less people feeding and we could be better at the D River.

[2:56:03] Well, the great growers deal with bird populations too.

[2:56:07] I don't know what tools they use, something might be cheaper than a $65,000

[2:56:12] right. Yeah, you know, having, you know, loud banging sounds. You know, I mean, you know,

[2:56:22] obviously airports deal with birds. There's lots of like, uh, uh, things that, you know,

[2:56:28] you could be done, uh, whether or not fish a wildlife will let you. We have to look into the

[2:56:32] full capacity that, but I think putting a owl sculpture is pretty low on that, uh, riskless

[2:56:38] as far as being a permit, but yeah, I think it's worth investigating.

[2:56:44] And I've got bluffed by that buffalo, I still don't forget that.

[2:56:47] Or additional comments.

[2:56:52] I apologize, I did the wrong thing.

[2:56:55] Potions are accepted to follow the show.

[2:56:59] Okay.

DLWID Board of Directors Regular

Transcript