"
The recorded comments below are expressions of council members
and are not approved policy until voted on. The statements were not
recorded verbatim and cannot be used as quotes. "
AGENDA:
I.
Call to
Order
Meeting was called
to order at
II.
Roll Call
a.
Sign-In Roster
Council Members Present: Paul MacNellis, Pat Klein, Chuck Ide, Tom Edmonds, Cam Vossen, Tim Holysz, Steve Kohler, Bill Steinmann, Duane Hampton, Bob Nagler, Mark Hoffman, Michael Nassaney, Tyler Bassett
Guests Present: Kay Chase, Mark Kieser, Cari DeLong
III.
Adoption of Agenda
§
Charles Ide moved to adopt the
IV. Approval
of
§ Bob Nagler suggested that a statement such as, the recorded comments are expressions of the council members and are not approved policy until voted on, should be included in all meeting minute documents.
§ Chuck Ide suggested the minutes include names.
§
Tom Edmonds moved to approve the
V.
Old Business
a.
Asylum
(Watershed Loading and
Paul MacNellis
§ Paul reported that the management plan committee will meet to discuss the savanna 1 and 2 management unit plans tomorrow. The plans will be brought to the Council to look over as soon as each of the units are completed. Once all of the units are done, Council will have one month to look over the management plan and vote on it.
§ Paul reported on the need to study water quality due to the changes taking place surrounding the property, and the large inflow of storm water from these areas. There have been studies but they have not been very complete or for a long period of time.
§ Passed out a proposal “Water Quality Assessment and Management Study of Asylum Lake” from Mark Kieser of Kieser’s Associates. Mark has much experience with local watersheds.
§ There was question from Bob as to previous water quality studies by Dr. Means.
§ Paul - He hasn’t been able to obtain any data from Dr. Means. Dr. Barnes gave him data with a few samples from the lake but most from BTR park.
§ Chuck - Dr. Means had spent money to perform research at A.L. but hasn’t given out any results.
§
Mark Kieser reported on his companies many local
watershed studies. They have done some sampling of
§
Mark K. reported that storm water runoff is a
big concern. There is one source of
direct runoff on the northwest end of the lake.
Need to know what the contributing pollutants are. Phosphorous levels next to
§ Mark K.- They will be taking a mass balance approach. Measuring what is coming in and what is coming out of the lake and then determine how it is reacting within the lake.
§ Mark K.- Once the problems are addressed mitigation strategies can be weighed according to cost benefit analysis. Cheaper to deal with problems early on. There may be federal and state programs to help pay for mitigation costs.
§ Mark K. - Need to first know the sources of pollution and how much each pollutant is contributing to the problems. Look at volumes, flow rates and concentrations of pollutants from different sources.
§ Paul asked Mark K. to explain the types of water quality sampling that will take place.
§ Mark K. – 4 locations in lake and sampling in storm water outfalls. Will focus on suspended sediments, phosphorous, nitrogen, and chlorofola. In the lake they will look at water clarity, pH, dissolved oxygen, etc. 1976 data indicates there is 0% dissolved oxygen.
§ Continued sampling could be more minor than initial efforts but effective.
§ Steve Kohler asked about nutrients in the sediments. Mark K. responded that these will be included as part of task 5.
§ Chuck - Would chlorides be measured to take into account the road salt? Mark K.- This would be included in the spring sampling.
§ Chuck – What about measuring metals, oil and choloform entering the lake. How much would it cost to add these to the analysis? Mark K. – the collection of the sample is free. The analysis would be the extra cost. Ecoli is included with storm sampling in the complete proposal.
§ Kay – Always valuable to have data. Many solutions will be outside of A.L. Use data as a hammer. DEQ study found heavy metals from stadium drive area. Could we look at these?
§ Mark K. – Matter of money. First tasks include delineating the watershed and estimating the amount of runoff from different areas. Samples will target the suspicions. Need the data first then deal with the biggest issue. Doing this will capture the problem of heavy metals while addressing the biggest issue.
§ Duane asked Paul for his vision for the study.
§ Paul –This study will show us what is happening in 2006 but it should not be let go. We will find out what we have to do and then we should develop a monitoring program.
§ Bob – Good opportunity to include students. Learning process. Get them interested in this area. Could also save money.
§ Paul – Agreed.
§ Kay – Students should be involved not just to save money.
§ Mark K.– Great idea for a volunteer monitoring program. However the baseline study should be done professionally.
§ Mark Hoffman – How do you delineate the watershed? Will the pond behind the trailer park be looked at?
§ Mark K. – Yes that area will be looked at during task 2. They will figure out the connections and flow of the water. Look at manholes and sewer lines. If the trailer park site is built Oshtemo may require on-site water retention.
§
Pat – Is there is a stream going under
§
Mark K. – A study for Parkview Hills was
performed and determined that
§ Duane – Suggested the council refer to experts within the council. Discuss the council’s objectives once finished with the presentation.
§
Paul – This proposal is just for
§ Chuck – Has anyone measured the mercury levels in the lake? Mark K- no. Fishing is not a key issue initially but could be something to target down the road.
§ A report, “Recommendations for Stormwater Evaluation and Management of Asylum Lake” was passed out
§ Mark K. – This report includes an aquatic plants survey. Keep a check on invasives.
§ Bob – Commented there is potential grant funding with Biology and Chemistry Depts.
§
Paul – Yes and there are also grants available
through Kalamazoo Watershed. Kieser & Assoc. has
been working on a
§
§
Pat – There was suggestion that the earth damn
between Asylum and Little Asylum be removed to let water flow naturally. Would this contaminate
§ There was general agreement that a proposal for baseline research is long overdue.
§ Mark H – How soon do you need a decision from the committee? Mark K – recommend beginning this spring, April or May.
§ Paul – Anxious to get started based on changes taking place around the property.
§ Paul – Proposing the Council ask Mr. Beam to petition the foundation to give us money to perform the study. A summary of the funds available through the Foundation was given out.
§ Tom – This study should be a priority. Water quality is most critical aspect. Longer we wait. Longer we suffer the consequences.
§ Bob – Move to endorse Paul’s request.
§ Duane – Would like to discuss it further.
§ Duane – Study is a good idea. The comprehensive study makes more sense than just doing a piece. Can’t do A.L. without Little A.L. Are we capturing all the data that we need to manage? Incremental costs are not that great if adding necessary parameters. Asked Bill for his thoughts as a consultant.
§ Bill – Liked his proposal but just one source. Price looks competitive. Not atypical to go out to bid. May want to.
§ Michael – This budget was brought to the council. With normal procedure the Council would determine their needs and request proposals.
§
§ Bob – Basic to anything else going on at the Preserve. Kieser is a local firm with experience in the area. We should get started now. Concern because Little A.L is one-third of the surface area compared to when moved there.
§
Paul – WMU has been doing work with Kieser. They have
been working with local groups for a long time.
They have done
§
Bob – At
§ Tom – Don’t disagree philosophically. Pragmatic standpoint. The price is not that expensive. Falls under an ordinary range of bid proposals. There is a trade off. Have to compare the ability to move now to the price of inaction. Price of inaction is more.
§ Steve – Council needs to know we are getting what we want out of this study. Need time to look over the proposal
§ Tom – The Council should vote on the proposal next meeting.
§ Pat – Waited a long time for water quality studies. Responsibility given to Council is to stop or reverse degradation. Not necessary to get other bids.
§ Chuck – There may be an issue of what is being measured. Only a few are measured. May want to look at heavy metals, for example, in storm water. This contaminates the ecosystem. Council should know about that even if it costs more money.
§ Duane – To know what is coming in and from where you have to specifically measure it.
§
Chuck -
§ Michael – Desire to support healthy biological conditions. However discussing the scope of what is needed is important. There may be other parameters.
§ Mark H.– Bylaws don’t discuss bids. Require research and education committee to look into proposals. Could the committee look into this?
§ Kay – Expertise within the Council could be tapped.
§ Duane – Beneficial to expand the committee or subcommittee for this purpose to include Steve. Use the experts we have on the Council.
§ Chuck – Good idea. Add to subcommittee a ground water opinion. Carla Koretsky could have input. She has done chemistry studies of the lake.
§ Duane - Do this before the next meeting. Council should give Mark K. some guidance.
§ Paul – Asked for a volunteer subcommittee – Steve, Duane, Chuck, Bill volunteered.
§ Paul – Could this committee meet before next meeting? Yes.
§ Duane – There are not many firms that could do what is proposed. Don’t need to look at another firm. Need to make sure this proposal does all that we want it to do.
§ Paul - subcommittee contact person? Chuck volunteered.
§ This issue will be brought up next meeting and voted on.
VI. New
Business
a.
Dogs at
Pat Klein
§ Pat – Reported her concern with controlling dogs at the property. Last weekend saw many dogs there – none leashed. Are we serious about this? Should these dogs even be allowed?
§ Pat - Do police ever go there?
§ Tom – There is police activity there. They respond to calls. Mostly over by the time they get there.
§ Pat – Current method not working.
§ Duane – Are there complaints of malicious dogs?
§
§ Tom – Find out whether any prosecutions or citations.
§ Mark – Wife was attacked by a dog. No follow up from WMU. Cannot go there anymore.
§ Tom – Cannot walk leashed dogs. They get attacked by unleashed dogs.
§ Paul – There are signs at all entrances.
§ Tom – Identify peak problem time. Put an officer there at peak times - effective. Don’t have to do it everyday constantly.
§ Tom and Paul will look into it.
VII. Project/Special
Committee Reports
a.
Research/Education Committee
§
Proposal extension from Duane Hampton and Neil
Couch to gather more data on slug testing in the old field. Approved extension until September of 2006.
b.
Operations Committee
§ Operations committee has not met.
VIII.
Public Comments
None.
IX. Council/Staff
Comments
§ Kay – Wild Ones hosting a series, Natural Landscaping for Sunny Areas. Info is available on the website.
§
§ Pat – Requested the discussion of purple loosestrife at the next meeting.
X.
Adjournment
§
Meeting was adjourned at