| |
Date: March 16th, 2010
Time: 3:00pm
Board Members Present: Al Johnson (USFS), Andy Schaedel (ODEQ, Retired), Ben Johnson (Secretary, Unaffiliated), Jesse Ford (OSU), Karen Williams (President, ODEQ), Michelle DaRosa (Stoel Rives), Paul Robertson (DWLID), Roger Edwards (Past President, Retired), Steve Wille (USFW), and Toni Pennington (Treasurer, Tetra Tech).
Additional Attendees: Shannon Hubler (ODEQ) and Leslie Merrick (ODEQ)
Treasures Report: Current checking Balance $3,986.46 + Current savings balance $3,000.53 = $6,986.99 Treasures report approved.
Past Meeting Minutes: February 2010 minutes approved.
Action Items:
Andy will deliver a report on the three membership models discussed during the February membership committee meeting.
Karen will send out a final reminder for providing feedback on the lakes assessment to Shannon and Leslie.
Notes: Toni hasn’t received checks for the new savings account.
NALMS has sent OLA an invoice for its annual affiliate dues of $250.00
The HABs conference dates have been set to May 24th and 25th
o A save the date notice should be sent out ASAP.
o There will be room for an announcement in the March newsletter.
o We still haven’t agreed on a price for conference attendance.
The March newsletter is coming along nicely.
Shannon Hubler and Leslie Merrick from ODEQ joined the meeting to discuss the National Lakes Assessment.
National Lakes Assessment background.
o 30 reference sites were established in Oregon.
o Criteria for selection included: > 4 hectares, >1 meter deep, >1/4 acre of open water, perennial, and not brackish.
o Biological condition, recreational use, water quality, and lake shore habitat were used as indicators in the assessment.
o The weighting of each individual lakes inference was based on size class and regional placement.
Discussion of the National Lakes Assessment.
o It was stated that drawing comparisons across the region from such a small sample size would be difficult. The main utility of the National Lakes Assessment for Oregon may be that it represents the diversity of lakes in the state.
o Compared to the National Hydrography Database the National Lakes Assessment in Oregon biased lakes in the Blue and Coastal mountains while leaving the Willamette Valley unrepresented.
o A sample size of 30 lakes was deemed an okay number for the statistical confidence needed by the USEPA in the state of Oregon. This was partly due to the removal of roughly half of Oregon lakes due to their size being <4hectares. Some states bolstered their sample size out of their own funds.
o As a rule of thumb 30-50 sample sites is considered enough to characterize a large area. The number could vary depending on the homogeneity of the area and sites.
o Concerns were expressed about extrapolating the results from the National Lakes Assessment to lakes that weren’t sampled in Oregon.
o Shannon mentioned that he feels as though there is a need to draw comparisons among Oregon lakes and those throughout the west, but wants there to be some practical application of the study results.
o Would comparisons be made between mountain and xeric lakes?
o Were benchmarks for lake quality fixed for each variable or adjusted by ecoregion?
- 50 sites were used to establish a baseline biological condition across the west. These lakes were from both mountain and xeric environments.
- 51 lakes were used to reference habitat conditions.
- Chemistry bench marks were set at reference sites nationally and on the ecoregion scale.
o The sample size of the study led to false results such as the lack of microcystin in Oregon lakes. This may be due to sampling each site only one time. This type of probabilistic randomized sampling has missed significant issues in the past.
o A long term longitudinal study of lakes in would probably paint a different picture.
o The next survey of Oregon lakes will be in 2012.
o Is there potential to fund the sampling of extra lakes?
o The current study will likely provide a snapshot of Oregon lakes and the foundation for future studies.
o The state may want to calculate additional metrics during the next assessment. There was a target list of invasive species during this assessment, but sampling teams weren’t well versed in identification.
o During discussion of the Washington Lakes Assessment it was noted that limiting lake size for the assessment to lakes >4hectares excluded the majority of lakes leading to a misrepresentation by the study.
o It may be wise to note explicitly in the report how the data could be misused.
o It is interesting to note that Oregon had the highest error bars of any state (variability, diversity?).
What components of the National Lakes Assessment would be useful to lake managers?
o Parameters and characteristics that are integrators of other parameters.
o The importance of riparian cover and shore line habitat.
o There were attempts to address the influence of land use on lake quality, but there were few urban lakes.
o In general biology suffered with increased chemical loading.
The National Lakes Assessment Oregon report is due out at the end of June.
The National Lakes Assessment Washington report in due out in May.
Shannon was willing to present the Oregon component of the National Lakes Assessment at the 2010 OLA conference in Corvallis. There is also potential for a technical workshop on the National Lakes Assessment before the conference.
Next Meeting: To Be Determined
|
|
