devils lake water improvement districtdlwid.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/staff_reports_2… ·...

Devils Lake Water Improvement District

Staff Reports: 2016-02-11

of 38

AGENDA

2016 Feb 11 Regular Meeting: 6 pm

Lincoln City, Council Chambers

801 SW Hwy 101, 3rd Floor

Lincoln City, OR 97367

Devils Lake Water Improvement District Post Office Box 974, Lincoln City, Oregon 97367

Phone: (541) 994-5330 Fax: (541) 994-6040

www.DLWID.org

I. Consent Agenda

a. Minutes of the Previous Meetings

b. Financial Report

II. Comments from Citizens Present on Agenda/Non-Agenda Items: This is an opportunity

for members of the audience to bring to the District’s attention any item not listed on the agenda for public

hearing. Comments are limited to five (5) minutes per citizen and the Board of Directors may use the light

system. Speakers may not yield their times to others, and as a general rule this is not a time for exchange

of questions. At the conclusion of this agenda item, a board member may discuss or raise questions

regarding an item presented by a citizen. The Chair has the authority to reduce the time allowed for

comment in accordance with the number of persons present and signed up to speak. III. Unfinished Business (Agenda Support Item A)

a. The Devils Lake Plan

i. Septic / Sewer

ii. Save our Shoreline

iii. Vegetation Management

b. Communications Report

c. Safety Report

d. MidCoast TMDL

e. East Devils Lake Road

f. Harmful Algal Blooms / Aeration

g. D River Dredging

h. Committees

IV. New Business (Agenda Support Item B) a. Internship

b. Budget Committee

c. Price Agreement ~ By the Sea Gardens

V. Non-agenda Item

VI. Additional Comments from Citizens Present on Non-Agenda Items: This is an opportunity

for members of the audience to bring to the District’s attention any item not listed on the agenda for board discussion.

Comments are limited to five (5) minutes per citizen, and the Board of Directors may use the light system. Speakers

may not yield their times to others, and as a general rule this is not a time for exchange of questions. At the conclusion

of this agenda item, a board member may discuss or raise questions regarding an item presented by a citizen. The

Chair has the authority to reduce the time allowed for comment in accordance with the number of persons present and

signed up to speak.

VII. Board Comments & Announcement

VIII. Adjournment

Meetings of DLWID are handicapped accessible under the ADA.

If special accommodations are needed, please contact the District Office at (541) 994-5330 48 hours prior to the meeting.

Quick Look:

Aeration Contract

Alex Horne

Associates

HBH

Consulting

Engineers

Budget Committee

Appointments

http://www.dlwid.org/



of 38

Staff Reports 2016-02-11

Robertson

Unfinished Business Agenda Support Item A

a. The Devils Lake Plan: A watershed based plan adopted by the Board in 2011 that seeks to

address the root causes of nuisance aquatic vegetation and/or Harmful Algal blooms which

are excessive nutrients.

Executive Summary excerpt*: “Devils Lake is a shallow, 680 acre coastal lake that has long suffered from

the effects of inputs of excess nutrients. Most prominent of these effects was the domination of the lake by

nuisance aquatic plants in the 1980’s. Aquatic weed infestations largely choked the lake covering over 60%

of the surface. Recreation was greatly impacted, and property values were in decline. In 1984, a local

government entity, Devils Lake Water Improvement District (DLWID), was formed with the purpose of

improving water quality, improving the environment for fish and wildlife, and generally reestablishing

beneficial uses, including safe navigation and public access.

“Current concerns in the watershed are ongoing inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus, increasing

sedimentation, erosion, stormwater, annual cyanobacteria blooms, and the threat of the return of nuisance

aquatic plants to the lake.”

*View the full document online:

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects/Devils_Lake_Plan/Devils_Lake_Plan_v2.1.pdf

Projects within the scope of the plan are being worked on simultaneously and are listed on the Agenda and

in this staff report as subheadings. Updates to the work on the projects are presented month to month as

change happens and are left on the agenda until the project is complete. For a full background and all

updates, please refer to previous staff reports and the Projects Page of the District’s Website under these

headings: http://www.dlwid.org/Projects.html

i. Septic / Sewer

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects.html#Septics

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects.html#Sewer

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects.html#Sewer_Devils_Lake

Devils Lake Sewer Presentation: I participated in a group presentation to the Oregon

chapter of the American Public Works Association - Co-presenters were PACE

Consultants, author of Devils Lake Sewer Predesign Report and Stephan Reid, City

Engineer and was attended by approximately 25 individuals including Lincoln City ~

City Manager Ron Chandler, Public Works Director Lila Bradley, City Engineer

Stephanie Reid, Associate Engineer Terry Chamberlin, Wastewater Treatment Plant

Supervisor Joe Whistler, Wastewater Collections Supervisor Craig Craddock.

Septic Inspector Training: DLWID hosted a DEQ sponsored training for certified septic

inspectors on January 28, 2016 at Oregon Coast Community College. Main topic was

covering the state’s relatively new Oregon Septic Smart and the Existing System

Evaluation Report for Onsite Wastewater Systems, which is a new form being used by

certified inspectors. The ESSR better details the homeowner’s system making having an

evaluation consistent across the state. This is a voluntary program that allows the

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects/Devils_Lake_Plan/Devils_Lake_Plan_v2.1.pdf

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects.html

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects.html#Septics

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects.html#Sewer

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects.html#Sewer_Devils_Lake



of 38

homeowner an opportunity to get vital information about their septic system. This can

be a valuable tool as certified inspectors can provide detailed information about what is

working and what might not be, allowing an opportunity to fix small problems before

they lead to expensive repairs or replacement. Evaluations are a wise investment for both

homeowners and prospective home buyers. Details available on our website and through

DEQ’s onsite program.

What is Oregon Septic Smart?

Be Septic Smart - Homeowners Brochure

Be Septic Smart - Home Buyers Brochure

Learn - Septic System Basics

Contact a licensed inspector for an evaluation

Sample Form: Existing System Evaluation

Report

Sewer System Development Charges: The City is reviewing its SDCs for water and

sewer, and it is anticipated to make significant decreases in the rates. Below is table

from their meeting packet for the anticipated rates for sewer SDC in 2016 vs. what is

currently charged. As can be seen a 5/8” household meter would see a savings of $2,901

or 47%, making connecting to sewer considerable more affordable in the near future.

http://www.oregon.gov/deq/WQ/Pages/onsite/SepticSmartHome.aspx

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/onsite/docs/septicowner.pdf

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/onsite/docs/septicowner.pdf

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/onsite/aboutseptic.htm

http://www.lincolncityor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1204

http://www.oregon.gov/deq/WQ/Documents/Onsite/ESERform.pdf

http://www.oregon.gov/deq/WQ/Documents/Onsite/ESERform.pdf



of 38

Link to meeting and materials:

http://lincolncityor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1735

Voyage Lake LID: (Director Green): City Council awarded bid of $278,700.25 made by

Devils Lake Rock, project to be completed by May 2016.

To Do and Pending Items:

Volunteer Inspection Program: DLWID & Lincoln County

Mandatory Septic System Inspection Ordinance: Lincoln City

Urban Growth Management Agreement: Lincoln City and Lincoln County, with FY

2014-2015, DLWID to provide comments to City.

Comprehensive Plan Update: Lincoln City, DLWID to likely asked to serve as

Committee Member.

Devils Lake Sewer System Pre-Design Report - Lincoln City Draft Completed

Strategic Funding Strategy: City? DLWID?

SDC installment Ordinance: Lincoln City

DEQ/City Loans for pumps: Lincoln City

ii. Save our Shoreline (SOS): Mild winters often allow for plantings year round.

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects.html#SOS

iii. Vegetation Management:

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects.html#Vegetation

"Persistence of Triploid Grass Carp in Devils Lake,

Oregon" by Benjamin Clemens, John Spangler, Paul

Robertson, Gary Galovich, Craig Banner, Stephanie

Gunckel, Lindsay Ketchum, R. Kanani Bowden, Sean

Spagnoli, Michael Kent, and James Kirk to be published

in Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management.

b. Communications Report

www.DLWID.org: mobile friendly website complete with water

quality information, research reports, staff reports, links to meeting,

maps and more!

Internet Streaming: Meetings of the DLWID are now

available for live streaming and/or recorded streaming on

the internet. The internet feed can be accessed via the

City’s website: http://www.lincolncity.org/ by clicking on

Agenda, Packets & Video or from the following link:

http://lincolncityor.iqm2.com/citizens/default.aspx

http://lincolncityor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1735

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects/Sewer_Devils_Lake/2015-07-00_DRAFT_ONLY_Devils_Lake_Sewer_System_PREDESIGN_REPORT.pdf

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects.html#SOS

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects.html#Vegetation


http://www.lincolncity.org/

http://lincolncityor.iqm2.com/citizens/default.aspx



of 38

Government Access Channel 4: The

District’s monthly meetings continue to be

broadcast live and throughout the month

repeatedly airs. This channel is available

for Charter subscribers.

Social Media: The District uses these

social media components to reach the

general public periodically.

o YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/DLWID

o Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DevilsLake.Oregon

o Twitter: https://twitter.com/Devils_Lake

KBCH am 1400: The District has had a

standing interview spot on the THIRD

Tuesday of the Month from 7:30 – 8:00

am.

100 History of Devils Lake: http://www.dlwid.org/Communications/Know_You

r_Lake/100_Year_History.pdf

Know Your Lake: Download copies of the

articles from our website’s Project Page: http://www.dlwid.org/Projects.html

Devils Lake Radio 1610 am: Short recorded messages broadcasted on 10 KW AM

frequency from Regatta Grounds.

Clearwater E-Newsletter: Winter Issue Release in December:

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Winter-2016-Newsletter-

.html?soid=1102761961457&aid=7D3sbwFUR_o

Lake Steward: Nominations being sought by March 1 or in person at March meeting

for presentation at Community Days Banquet – April 30.

o Nomination Form:

http://www.dlwid.org/Communications/Lake_Steward_Nomination.pdf

o Send to [email protected]

c. Safety Report (Robertson) Greg Hackson of Special Districts Insurance Services

performed a Safety Visit on January 7, 2016 and provided an overall reflection on insurance,

claim and services. Greg will provide a formal summary shortly, but overall the review was

good.

http://www.youtube.com/user/DLWID

https://www.facebook.com/DevilsLake.Oregon

https://twitter.com/Devils_Lake

http://www.dlwid.org/Communications/Know_Your_Lake/100_Year_History.pdf

http://www.dlwid.org/Communications/Know_Your_Lake/100_Year_History.pdf

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects.html

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Winter-2016-Newsletter-.html?soid=1102761961457&aid=7D3sbwFUR_o

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Winter-2016-Newsletter-.html?soid=1102761961457&aid=7D3sbwFUR_o

http://www.dlwid.org/Communications/Lake_Steward_Nomination.pdf

mailto:[email protected]



of 38

Key Points:

• Loss ratio for General Liability insurance was 107%, while 7 year average was 24%

within their target of < 60%.

• District has received equivalent of $1168 worth of additional membership benefits since

2006.

• Workers Comp – Need to update Volunteer Categorization for dam maintenance worker.

• To increase safety and reduce risk, the District may look moving the staff gauge or other

remote methods of determining lake level. SDIS has a 50-50 grant match for improving

safety.

• Moving to college identified as a significant upgrade for reducing risk in the lab,

including emergency shower, eye wash stations, chemical hood.

• Employee Reviews should be formalized, providing employee a document of their annual

review.

• Need to develop procedures for accident investigation.

• Need to develop Hazard Assessment forms and Job Hazard Analysis

• Need to investigate insurance needs relative to storage unit

• Benefits Available:

o Background Checks – 5 free a year available

o Drug Screening – 5 free a year

o Safety Training available online.

d. MidCoast TMDL (Robertson)

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects.html#TMDL

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has begun the planning process for developing an

Implementation Ready - Total Maximum Daily Load (IR-TMDL) for 303(d) listed waterbodies in the

Oregon Mid-Coast Basin. The initiation of this TMDL process has been a long-time in the works and the

process itself will be lengthy stretching over the next 18 - 20 months. Devils Lake is listed for

Weeds/Algae, Chlorophyll a and pH and Thompson Creek is listed for fecal coliforms, and thus as a local

government we have been invited to participate. Notably, temperature listings are also proposed by EPA

for the lake and one of its tributaries. Representatives from local, state and federal government, special

districts, Tribal Nations, private industry, forestry, agriculture, conservation, NGOs, watershed councils,

landowners, and others were also identified.

Links to the DEQ’s website are posted below. http://www.deq.state.or.us/WQ/TMDLs/midcoast.htm

http://www.deq.state.or.us/WQ/TMDLs/midcoastLSAC.htm

Stakeholder Meeting: No recent meetings.

Bacteria Technical Working Group: No recent meetings

e. East Devils Lake Road: Commissioner Hall reporting that the west side bridge to be

replaced and the remainder of the road raised in summer of 2017.

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects.html#TMDL

http://www.deq.state.or.us/WQ/TMDLs/midcoast.htm

http://www.deq.state.or.us/WQ/TMDLs/midcoastLSAC.htm



of 38

f. Harmful Algal Blooms / Aeration:

Aeration/Oxidation Project: http://www.dlwid.org/Projects.html#Aeration

The District is considering the direct appointment of Alex Horne Associates with support of

Atmos and HBH Consulting Engineers, for the design of aeration/oxidation system subject to

a formal assessment of 17 Methods of Lake Treatment and 5 Watershed Approaches as

described in the proposed initial work plan accompanying AHA’s propsoal.

Proposed Scope of Work: 2015-04-14

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects/Aeration-Oxidation/Devils_Lake_Aeration-

Oxidation_Engineering_Plan_Scope_of_Work____PROPOSED____2015-04-

14.pdf

AHA Proposal with Initial Work plan, including DLWID proposed edits*:

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects/Aeration-

Oxidation/Alex_Horne_Associates_2016-02-04_DLWID_suggested_revision.pdf

*2016-02-04 version includes changes from AHA proposal dated 2015-07-08 to

be consistent with HBH current proposal for tasks and bid amounts, a copy of the

initial work plan provided by Dr. Horne on 2016-01-19, plus minor typographical

edits.

HBH Proposal:

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects/Aeration-

Oxidation/HBH_Devils_Lake_Aeration_2016-01-20.pdf

Background: Following a significant late winter bloom in 2014, that peaked and crashed in

April 2014, significant renewed interest on Harmful Algal Blooms has occurred and HABs

has again become a primary focus of the Devils Lake Water Improvement District.

Following an investigation into methods of HABs control which was presented to the Board

on 2014-04-10 and to greater extend in a HABS Workshop on 2014-04-18, the District began

taking steps towards implementing a solution. To that end, the District formally initiated a

process in November 2014 to solicit a qualified entity to design an aeration/oxidation system

for Devils Lake. This was with a solicitation developed in accordance with public

contracting law outlined in Oregon Revised Statutes 279, 279 A, B, C and Oregon

Administrative Rules 137-048-0210.

While significant interest was garnished, no formal responses where received to the District’s

nationwide solicitation, ending the solicitation in January 2015. Subsequently, the District

refined its objectives to be seeking a cost effective sub-surface and land based

aeration/oxidation system to significantly reduce scum-forming Harmful Algal Blooms. This

removed some of what was considered difficult to achieve objectivesof meeting a

Chlorophyll a standard. For instance, which was in the original RFP. At its 2015-03-05

meeting the District officially authorized a process to seek a direct appointment for an

aeration/oxidation project as provided by ORS 279C.110 (8) and OAR 137-048-0200.

Given his extensive background, knowledge, and experience in limnology, lake and reservoir

restoration, ecological engineering, environmental restoration, lake management as well as

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects.html#Aeration

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects/Aeration-Oxidation/Devils_Lake_Aeration-Oxidation_Engineering_Plan_Scope_of_Work____PROPOSED____2015-04-14.pdf



http://www.dlwid.org/Projects/Aeration-Oxidation/Alex_Horne_Associates_2016-02-04_DLWID_suggested_revision.pdf

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects/Aeration-Oxidation/Alex_Horne_Associates_2016-02-04_DLWID_suggested_revision.pdf

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects/Aeration-Oxidation/HBH_Devils_Lake_Aeration_2016-01-20.pdf

http://www.dlwid.org/Projects/Aeration-Oxidation/HBH_Devils_Lake_Aeration_2016-01-20.pdf



of 38

his geographic proximity to Devils Lake, familiarity with the proposed project, and access to

additional resources Dr. Alex Horne of Alex Horne Associates was identified as the most

qualified of the potential candidate consultants.

As part of an initial information gathering process, Dr. Horne visited Devils Lake and met

with staff at length in April of 2015. By May 2015 Dr. Horne confirmed his willing

commitment to the project, knowing a registered Oregon Engineer would have to be brought

on to the team for the project. Dr. Horne solicited such qualified persons and settled on

developing a proposal with HBH Engineering Consultants, with additional support and

collaboration with an international aeration specialist, Dr. Ken O’Hara of Wales and Richard

Steele of Atmos, a small consulting company registered in the UK.

A formal proposal from Alex Horne Associates with support from Atmos and HBH was

received in June 2015. This included the disclosure of the potential use of a design element

(a regulator) which is held under patent by Dr. O’Hara. Subsequent negotiations provided a

second iteration of the proposal in July 2015 which was reviewed in a special meeting on

July 29, 2015. In August 2015, the Board sought a meeting with Dr. Horne and HBH which

given scheduling was afforded in January 2016. Dr. Horne and Engineers Henry and

Chernishov of HBH presented information and answered questions from the Board and

public.

Subsequent to the January 2016 meeting and at the request of the Board, a proposed work

plan was provided by Dr. Horne. This initial work plan stipulates provisions of sequencing

the work and a stop work clause as favored by the District. In addition, a third iteration of

the HBH section of the proposal which similarly provided the sequencing and stop work

clause provisions, but also identify changes to the proposal aligned with the District’s

objectives and requests was obtained. Additional project scheduling information has also

been acquired from all parties as is shown in the Gantt Chart below. It is this set of proposals

that are presented for consideration for the Board.

Draft sequence and schedule as established in consultation with AHA and HBH.

Phase I:

AHA - Review data, determine methods to be used - _0.5_ months from contract

finalization

DLWID - Review and authorization of Phase II - 1.5 months

Phase II:

HBH - 1) Project management – Kick Off Meeting scheduled ___0.5__ months from

authorization of Phase II

AHA - Conceptual design of system, initial layout completed ___1.0___ months from

Kick off

AHA - Preparation of drawings to CAD scale, specification of pipes, compressors,

regulators, diffusers size & shape completed __1.0__ months from conceptual design

HBH – 2) Permitting services - completed __2-4__ months following receipt of

specifications from AHA

HBH - 3) Survey services obtained and completed __1___ months from receipt of



of 38

federal and state permits

HBH - 4) Civil Design Services - completed __2-4__ months following receipt of

specifications from AHA and completion of Survey (running in tandem to permitting

services)

DLWID – Permits Finalized and Submitted __1.5___ months from receipt of

specification from AHA and Permitting Services from HBH

External – Permit approvals received __6-12___ months from submission

HBH – 5) Electrical-mechanical services completed ___2___ months from receipt of

federal and state permits

HBH – 6) Project Specs & bidding docs ready ___2___ months from receipt of all

permits (including conditional use)

DLWID – Funding Secured __1-12 ___ months from Opinion on Construction Cost

from HBH (running in tandem with project but also contingent on funding availability)

HBH – 7) Bid Assistance Services __1_ months required



of 38

Yellow – Alex Horne Associates Orange - HBH Engineering Consultants Green - Funding Related

Brown - External Review Blue – DLWID Red – ODFW In-water Work Window



of 38

Additional Information:

Question and Answers Submitted to Dr. Horne for 2016-01-14 meeting.

Question from DLWID. One concern in the permitting process will undoubtedly be concerns of increasing turbidity. It is my understanding, you have been an advocate for placing diffusers right on the bottom as turbidity would be short-lived and the benefits outweigh any short-term turbidity. Many designs seek to address turbidity concerns by placing the diffusers a foot or so off the bottom. Can sediment/water boundary oxidation be achieved by such designs, or is this accommodation to permitting counter to the restoration of the lake? If it is counter to the restoration, what assurances can you provide to the permitting agencies that the lake and its ecology are best served by getting the aerators onto the sediment and that what turbidity is caused would be short-lived. Please be specific.

Answer from Horne. The diffusers will be about one foot above the lake bed anyway to prevent them from being covered normal bottom debris. Turbidity concerns with bottom aeration or mixing are valid but not a problem for us. Any turbidity is soon gone as the suspended sediment settles a few yards away out of the immediate mixing zone. However, there is usually a lot less stirring of sediments than most people think. After all, in winter the entire shallow water column is stirred by the wind every few days. My data from Camanche Reservoir, California shows that turbidity (NTU) decreases with mixing by even horizontal water jets. The reason is that the natural high NTU from debris on the lake bed is stirred up to the lower NTU above so the bottom become clearer and the increase above is small.

Question from DLWID. Devils Lake is listed on the 303d list for elevated pH associated with increased photosynthesis during Harmful Algal Blooms. Would aeration maintain pH below 8.5 through C02 mixing from increase contact with the atmosphere significantly to prevent the pH exceedances during blooms that might still arise periodically and or from increased productivity from non-scum forming cyanobacteria or other phytoplankton? Conversely, during clear water periods could increase CO2 mixing lower pH to less than 6.5 in weakly buffered systems? And if so what would the lowest alkalinity be to which this might occur?

Answer from Horne. Overall, a more stable pH closer to 7.5 can be expected from mixing even if the overall algae (chlorophyll is unchanged or rises due to increases in favorable species such as diatoms). If we go for mixing the water column more CO2 is added from the air (so pH does not rise so much in the afternoon due to uptake of the acid component of carbonic acid (CO2) and leaving the alkaline other part. Similarly, the acid end of the pH is less likely since excess CO2 will be vented. I doubt that any acidity in Devils Lake is due to sulfuric acid from power stations since the wind blows from the sea. One reason for the higher pH in Devils Lake is due to the alkaline ions blown in as sea spray. I have worked with SFPUD on a similar problem and a new site specific standard of 9.0 may be applicable.



of 38

Question from DLWID. Molot et.al published an opinion in Freshwater Biology in 2014 suggesting cyanobacteria due to biological restraints of Fe +++ uptake, can be controlled with iron oxidation. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fwb.12334/abstract) Do you support that determination, and if so can aeration realistically achieve iron oxidation throughout the sediment/water interface to significantly limit cyanobacteria growth through this mechanism?

Answer from Horne. Molet et al neglected to reference my paper on the effect of iron limitation on N2-fixation in blue-green algae (Wurtsbaugh, W. A., & A. J. Horne. 1983. Iron in eutrophic Clear Lake, California: Its importance for algal nitrogen fixation and growth. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40: 1419-1429.). Modern authors don’t read the older literature. However, iron is important but really only for N2-fixation which requires much more Fe than normal growth, though I have shown this too (Elder, J. F., R. H. Fuller & A. J. Horne. 1980. Physiochemical factors and their effects on algal growth in a new Southern California reservoir. Water Res. Bull. 15: 1608-1617). Oxygenation, aeration, and mixing will increase DO availability at the anoxic sediments and thus reduce Fe flux from the sediments. However, in any specific lake the Fe flux will also depend on the availability of iron phosphate in the sediments (redox sensitive) and also iron sulfide (not redox sensitive).

Question from DLWID. Some have claimed macrophytes, particularly nuisance, shallow rooted non-native macrophytes such as Eurasian Water Milfoil, are limited in their nitrogen uptake to the reduced ammonium species, and thus the oxidized forms (e.g. nitrate and nitrate) are less bioavailable under aeration/oxidation systems that can successfully oxidize the upper sediments. Do you support this assertion and if so what level of affect can aeration/oxidation have on macrophytes recruitment in eutrophic waters?

Answer from Horne. The majority of nutrients taken up by most SAV plants is via the roots. The uptake via the green parts is controversial for some but is true for non-rooted biota like attached algae. However, assuming some uptake via the leaves there should be less ammonia in the water. What will actually happen however, makes this argument a little less useful. Oxygenation, aeration, or mixing will nitrify ammonia to nitrate but will then denitrify the nitrate giving less overall. So good all round I think.

Question from DLWID. Devils Lake is often dominated by the cyanobacteria Gloeotrichia and/or Microcystis. The Cherry Creek Reservoir Report says that colonial forms of cyanobacteria would be infeasible to mix. Has that assertion since changed as such that colonial species are in fact likely to be well mixed in a system designed for Devils Lake?

Answer from Horne. I did not write the CCR report and I think they don’t like VEM since it does not fully oxidize the bottom (at least in the modified design that was installed). However, the stated objective for the entire project was to prevent the increase in the up to then relatively uncommon large colonial blue-green. If that was not our given objective we might have done HOS. Also I have examined in detail the blue-green species that were most common prior to VEM. These were colonial forms – smaller cells for sure but still colonial. We have other data from Europe that shows reduction of the common colonial scum blue-greens (eg Hampstead Heath and Royal Park lakes in England, including one at Buckingham Palace grounds).

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fwb.12334/abstract



of 38

Question from DLWID. Wagner (http://www.waterrf.org/ExecutiveSummaryLibrary/4222c_ProjectSummary.pdf) and others have reported that induced oxygen demand from the sediment can be 1.5-4 (some as high as 6 x) times greater than expected which occurs simply from the flow of the air or oxygen across the sediment. While those designs that may limit this induced demand may benefit from quicker realization of the oxidation goals, long-term restoration goals of actually oxidizing the sediment would assumingly be either put off or never achieved. Would your design to aimed at meeting induced oxygen demand?

Answer from Horne. My students and I have spent a lot of time on this question using intact sediment cores. The induced oxygen demand is the main reason most early aeration projects failed (not all failed) since they were underpowered. We use a factors ranging from 2.3 to 4.3 and this incorporates the flow across the sediments and induced oxygen demand. The actual speed of water in real mixing or oxygenation plume in a lake is still pretty low and, I suspect, smaller than those used by Wagner.

Question from DLWID. Wagner and other have shown that in many cases successful aeration projects have been an iterative process. Is there a way to vary the patented flow regulators post installation such that if modifications are warranted flow can be increased or decreased relatively simply?

Answer from Horne. It is my opinion that most aeration projects are not using the correct factors so they tend to get is wrong. However, you can modify aeration systems but only if you know by how much before you build. For example, you can replace a compressor with a smaller or larger one but at a cost. Additional aeation pipe systems can be added if you have the capacity to fill them and know where to put the additional lines. So a mixed answer to this one.

Question from DLWID. Please compare and contrast membrane diffusers, soaker hoses, and ceramic diffusers, and/or other diffuser technologies as they relate to aeration diffusion (e.g. fine vs. course), maintenance requirements, cost, and longevity?

Answer from Horne. This one will require us to decide if we are going to use HOS, VEM or standard aeration. But generally for VEM or aeration the 8 or 12-inch diameter aeration heads with rubber cover and small holes seems best. The bubbles need to be fairly coarse to mix the water column and the design is to overlap the mixing cells of adjacent diffusers. The rubber movement keeps the holes from getting clogged like ceramic can. Generally, you should pull up and scrub the heads on the boat each year but they can go for 5 years. Thus the kind of self-sinking pipe used is important – big enough to get the air through with low friction but light enough to pull up from a small boat.

Question from DLWID. What is the difference between the "conventional aeration – oxygenation system" proposed for the deeper water in Devils Lake, and Vertical Epilimnetic Mixing ("VEM") proposed for the shallower areas?

Answer from Horne. No difference except that the distance between the diffusers is less in the shallow waters and the diffusers may have a larger diameter in the shallow water.

http://www.waterrf.org/ExecutiveSummaryLibrary/4222c_ProjectSummary.pdf



of 38

Question from DLWID. The term "VEM" is not mentioned in the Cherry Creek Reservoir feasibility study. Is it new since Cherry Creek or just a new name for the same process?

Answer from Horne. I did not coin the term VEM until after the CCR project was out of my hands. I needed a convenient way to distinguish from ordinary aeration which does not care about mixing the most of surface layers with their blue-green scums.

Question from DLWID. The Cherry Creek project seems to have had success with reducing or eliminating the cyanobacteria scum mats, and much less success with increasing DO levels at the sediment – water interface, decreasing internal nutrient loading, and decreasing chlorophyll-a and overall algal biomass. You said in the Cherry Creek Feasibility Study that spacing of diffusers should be 5X-7X depth in order to increase dissolved oxygen to a sufficient level in the deeper anoxic sediments, but only 20X depth if simple destratification is the goal. If simple destratification (which I assume is the result of "vertical mixing") will reduce or eliminate cyanobacteria scum mats, and we have no solid basis to expect increased DO levels and reduced chlorophyll –a with closer spacing, would it not be worthwhile to consider diffuser spacing in the 20X depth range, rather than the 5X – 7X depth range? That would obviously require only about one third as many diffusers and presumably be much less expensive. Having said that, I do appreciate the comments by Ken Wagner to the effect that aeration systems should be over designed and "overbuilt" to meet the combinations of environmental conditions that Mother Nature can throw at us. My question may boil down to this: Should we "overbuild" for a goal of simple destratification, or should we "overbuild" for the added goal of increasing DO at the sediment – water interface to levels that will significantly reduce internal loading?

Answer from Horne. This one is a bit complicated. The original design was modified. However, if I was doing it again I would insist on a few deep “standard” aerators to remove the low bottom DO since it would have been not much more in cost. I used this modified design for Mountain Lake San Francisco last year. However, my estimate so far for Devils Lake is that nutrients may always be too high to control the algae blooms, even if we get more oxygen do the sediments. If that is correct you need to focus on mixing the entire surface waters so it argues for more aeration sites. So getting oxygen to the bottom is good but not the main focus. This can be discussed further because the cost of the heads is a factor in total cost.

Question from DLWID A related question: Would it be possible and practical to build an initial system with diffusers spaced at, say, 20x depth with the flexibility to add compressors, diffusers, and air line at a later date to achieve closer spacing of, say, 6X depth?

Answer from Horne. Maybe but we need to discuss this with Dr. O’Hara & HBH.

Question from DLWID. Do you have any data on Cherry Creek from 2015?

Answer from Horne. Not yet – I don’t have a inside connection with the consultants.

Question from DLWID. Do you have sufficient data or knowledge of the conditions in Devils Lake to proceed with design? AND/OR has the state of the science evolved to the point that you can make valid assumptions about the conditions and how to treat them



of 38

without developing more data specific to Devils Lake? OR do you need to do a feasibility study similar to that done at Cherry Creek before the system can be designed?

Answer from Horne. Probably have enough data

Question from DLWID Please explain the effectiveness of the "regulator" invented by Dr. O'Hara and how much difference it might make. Was this regulator used at Cherry Creek?

Answer from Horne. It was used at Cherry Creek and also at several other sites. The effectiveness of the regulator is just that you cannot balance aeration lines unless they are on a flat lake bed (like a sewage treatment tank). The reason is that the head of water over each diffuser is different if the depth is different so deeper diffusers (or holes in a pipe) have to be bigger with depth. The formula for calculation is complex. Otherwise you need a separate airline and regulator for each diffuser (or group of diffusers on flat ground). Once you get more than 10 valves balancing the air is difficult.

Question from DLWID. What is the useful life of the system you would be likely to propose? This information can be important for financing purposes.

Answer from Horne. About 20 years but some maintenance is needed, pulling up diffusers for scrubbing every few years, changing oil in compressors etc.

Question from DLWID. Would you expect that the system would be operated for only part of the year, say, May through November? Or for the entire year?

Answer from Horne. Part of the year – primarily when the blue-green blooms are likely (VEM) or when anoxia is likely (April-Nov?).

Question from DLWID. Will the water color change?

Answer from Horne. No

Question from DLWID. How long will it take to clear the bottom?

Answer from Horne. Most of the effect will occur in a few weeks. A couple of years may be needed for final equilibrium as the algae and zooplankton species change.

Question from DLWID How will the fish be affected?

Answer from Horne. Fish should do better, especially the more sensitive ones like the salmonids. This should occur since there will be more cool oxygenated water (HOS) or more oxygenated water (VEM-aeration). There should also be more food for some life stages of many fish in the now oxygenated bottom waters. Zooplankton should also increase and provide more food for small fish stages.

Summary of staff phone call with Chuck Reid, Manager, Cherry Creek Basin Water

Quality Authority:



of 38

Destratification system (aeration system) on Cherry Creek Reservoir not likely to run this

summer as the Authority continues to evaluate the reservoir. The water quality goals as

previously relayed have not been met, however there is a consensus that the

destratification system has improved water quality. He suggested that the question

might be is there strong enough anecdotal evidence to warrant its use in the future. As

you may recall they have a Chlorophyll a standard that has not been achievable (see 2010

evaluation and 2015 links below), which if anything the destratification system has likely

contributed to its increase. He also reiterated the trouble with switching labs had on the

way algal composition was determined, making it unclear as to reductions of

cyanobacteria from pre-destratification to during destratification. The system to his

estimation was vastly underpowered and the placement of the aerators did not cover

enough of the footprint (only 25%). Also given the climatic conditions the system is

undersized. The overheating problems also still trouble the system and the regulatory

system of ownership of the reservoir (BLM and USACE) make for a complicated process

for determining what if anything to do next (e.g. apply to expand it). Currently they are

seeking to develop a Reservoir Model and are switching consulting firms who handle the

sampling and analysis.

Links on Cherry Creek Reservoir

Cherry Creek Reservoir Destratification ~ Feasibility Report, 2005

Summary Memorandum, 2008

Independent Evaluation, 2010

Ongoing Considerations & Data Collection, 2015

Correspondence from Dr. Horne including images in reply to questions raised in Richard

Danielson Email quoted below:

Paul: thanks for the information. The attached memo by Richard Danielson was interesting. In his memo he compares changes in algal abundance using numbers (older reported data) with bio-volume (more recent revised data). Which method to use (numbers or volume) is a common concern problem in algae measurements since very small algae (especially small green and even smaller ones called pico-plankton) can be very numerous. In contrast, common diatom Asterionella are large. Most of our ecology is based on the larger algae since the small ones are sometimes not even counted using standard x100 or x200 lenses. They do show up on x400. The small ones may be more active per unit volume but even so their overall effect is small in more productive lakes. In very oligotrophic lakes and oceans there is often little else but picoplankton and there they are obviously important to the metabolism of the water since they are the only actors except for scumming blue-greens like Trichodesmium in the tropical gyres. There are systematic errors in both methods but, in some ways, more in bio-volume since you take algal numbers and use a factor based on the average size (volume) of each species to get bio-volume. As you know, the same algal species can vary in size quite a bit – diatoms do so

http://www.cherrycreekbasin.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FeasibilityReport-CherryCreekReservDestrat-12-05-05.pdf

http://www.cherrycreekbasin.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Cherry-Creek-Reservoir-Destratification-System.pdf

http://www.clrma.org/files/events/CLRMA%202010_CraigWolf.pdf

http://www.cherrycreekbasin.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/20150107163857823.pdf



of 38

until one half vanishes. Sometimes we can correct this by using informal classifications, I have used small-celled vs large-celled Anabaena in Upper San Leandro Reservoir (Oakland CA). In addition, the volume of an irregularly shaped algae can be tricky to estimate. However, if the same methods are used the errors are not too bad and it is acceptable at least to me to use either or both methods. However, I now use chlorophyll a (all algae) and increasingly phycocyanin (blue-greens only) as a better overall method for “biomass”, since they can be approximated by use of a probe and calibrated with spot measurements if needed. So I now tend to like counts. That said, it is odd that something that was 45 % of the algal numbers in 2006 and 76% in 2007 (both before the aeration) could have almost zero numbers in later years during aeration if they were in fact present in numbers. Fortunately, for everyone, the situation can be easily resolved. In the first figure that we have (pie charts of bio-numbers) we can see that before aeration (given as 2006 and 2007) the blue-greens were high and fell to very low levels after mixing. The other figure (stack charts of bio-volume) does not use the pre-aeration data, starting only at 2009 which is the 2nd year of aeration according to the first report. Thus the memo below does not compare pre and post aeration (or VEM) but only the period of aeration-mixing with one year of no mixing. Dr. Ken O’Hara and I now call vigorous aeration-mixing of the epilimnion VEM (Vigorous Epilimnion Mixing). Thus the consultants are correct in that the 2014 year (no aeration) was not very different from two of the previous 5 years of aeration. But, the blue-greens in 2014 were presumably present in much smaller amounts than in pre-mixing years. This could be a real effect (no effect of VEM) or a residual effect (reservoir not fully settled back to pre-VEM days). If VEM was discontinued for several years, the question could be answered but I am not sure I would be too keen to try that – the reservoir is highly used. Thus there is no problem with the methods: no matter which method of counting is used the percentage of blue-green algae during the VEM period was small (say 2-15%) and varied somewhat randomly from year to year. The percentage by bio volume prior to VEM is not known (since it is not given in the revised counting data) but was presumably larger than 15%. In addition, the year when VEM was not used the agency reports scumming blue-green algae. So though we need to get comparable bio-volume units for the pre-aeration (per-VEM) data there seems no reason to think that, as in many other lakes and reservoirs systems, well-mixed water (whether naturally mixed or artificially stirred) does not favor large, colonial blue-green algae such as Anabaena and Aphanizomenon. Such well-mixed waters may, however, favor single filament blue-green algae such as Planktothrix (formerly Oscillatoria). From the Devil’s Lake viewpoint, we know we have had scumming blue-green algae in past years. Thus the option for use of some forms of aeration-mixing and VEM remain on the table. I will consider VEM as part of my 17 methods analysis along with HOS, alum, dredging etc. For Devils Lake it is best to know that, as in many cases, the VEM system finally installed at Cherry Creek had some differences from the original design. A major difference was the lack of a few deep water aerators. In a recent VEM design in small and shallow Mt. Lake, The Presidio, San Francisco, CA I used three diffusers in the deepest section to act as classical lake destratification agents and get at least some chance of moving surface oxygen to the lake bed. I have 9 smaller diffusers round the lake to give VEM for the rest of the system. How much of the lake or reservoir area to stir with VEM is not a settled question but since it is uneconomical to mix the very shallow water (say < 2 m) it is less than the entire area. I would probably use



of 38

this duel aeration-VEM design in the future as I might have insisted for Cherry Creek but cost and other considerations are not my choices to make. Finally, Richard Danielson in the memo below used the terms destratification which is understandable. And indeed, the VEM method does break up the temporary thermal stratification in the epilimnion. However, it might be less confusing if the term destratification be restricted to breaking the permanent seasonal thermal stratification; that is mixing the entire water column (if possible). Alex Alex J. Horne, Ph. D., CED, CLP* Professor Emeritus, Ecological Engineering

Dept. Civil & Environmental Engineering

University of California, Berkeley

*CED = Certified Ecological Designer

*CLP = Certified Lake Professional



of 38

From: Richard Danielson Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 1:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Fwd: Tonight's meeting

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Richard Danielson

Date: Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:39 PM

Subject: Tonight's meeting

To: [email protected]

Please take the time to do your due diligence before making a decision to aerate the

lake. A couple of excerpts from some online data relating to Cheery Creek Res. that

states the aeration for de-stratifying has been turned off (2014) due to poorer than

expected results including the bubble plumes were actually allowing better nutrient as

fodder for all types of alga. I wish I could be there to look some of you in the eye.

Richard Danielson

Based on Hydros Consulting’s analysis of algal species data from 2009 to 2014, when the

same lab was analyzing the data, comparisons were made between years with the

destratification system on (2009-2013) and off (2014). Biovolume and density data were

analyzed over three different time periods: annual (calendar) year; June – September; and

July – September. Hydros concluded that, using these metrics, there is no evidence of

cyanobacteria reductions with the use of the destrification system. Also, Hydros

compared the one-time July, 16, 2010 results analyzed by the Authority’s previous lab

(C.U. Center for Limnology) with pre-2009 results also analyzed by this same lab.

Hydros stated it could not conclude that an overall reduction in cyanobacteria has

occurred with the use of the existing destratification system operating under current

operational parameters. (Memorandum dated February 3, 2015 from Hydros Consulting

Inc. to Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc.)

The response of the algal community, including nuisance cyanobacteria, to

destratification management or its absence is continuing to be studied by the Authority.

The Authority will be evaluating the mechanisms and effects that various reservoir

conditions have on the biological assemblages as well as the other beneficial uses of the

reservoir during its Reservoir Model Project.From 2008 through 2013, the Reservoir

revealed mixed results when placed in the context of design objectives for the

destratification system. The temperature data indicate that the periods of thermal

stratification were reduced when the destratification system was operated, yet dissolved

oxygen conditions near the bottom remained conducive (i.e., <2 mg/L) for internal

nutrient loading. As a result, the internal nutrient loading continued to supply

bioavailable SRP and DIN that facilitated algal production. Despite the destratification

system’s apparent inability to completely mix oyxgenated water all the way to the bottom

of the reservoir, the system did sufficiently mix the bioavailable nutrients released from

the sediment into the photic zone for uptake by algae. This mixing created more uniform

conditions in the reservoir and facilitated the growth of algae as indicated by the elevated

chlorophyll a levels during the growing season. This highlights the propensity of algae to

respond to optimal growing conditions (see Section 7.2.1.2). There has also been

uncertainty regarding the destratification system’s ability to control nuisance





of 38

cyanobacteria. This was confounded by a change in the algal identification laboratory

that occurred in 2009, which resulted in algal identification being performed differently

by each laboratory. The change in laboratories (2009) coincided closely with the

initiation of operation of the destratification system (2008). At the request of the reservoir

modeling consultant, the Authority decided to not operate the destratification system in

2014. That way, it could specifically examine the response of the nuisance cyanobacteria

and the rest of the algae community in terms of both composition and biovolume as well

as biomas (i.e., chlorophyll a), both with and without destratification utilizing the same

laboratory. The algal biovolume data are discussed herein because it provides information

relative to the size and density of the algae taxa, as well as provides more information

relative to chlorophyll a (algal biomass).Based on Hydros Consulting’s analysis of algal

species data from 2009 to 2014, when the same lab was analyzing the data, comparisons

were made between years with the destratification system on (2009-2013) and off (2014).

Biovolume and density data were analyzed over three different time periods: annual

(calendar) year; June – September; and July – September. Hydros concluded that, using

these metrics, there is no evidence of cyanobacteria reductions with the use of the

destrification system. Also, Hydros compared the one-time July, 16, 2010 results

analyzed by the Authority’s previous lab (C.U. Center for Limnology) with pre-2009

results also analyzed by this same lab. Hydros stated it could not conclude that an overall

reduction in cyanobacteria has occurred with the use of the existing destratification

system operating under current operational parameters. (Memorandum dated February 3,

2015 from Hydros Consulting Inc. to Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc.)

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/CherryCreekAR2014.pdf

Email exchange with John Tucci, Lake Savers, regarding aeration design

Paul, Thank you for the response. I understand and appreciate the process the District is going through on this effort. It is the right process and you have one of the World's leading authorities guiding the process. I have the utmost respect for Dr. Horne and the due diligence the District is taking. My emails and comments are generated from years of experience with the RFP's and the RFP process. It is a difficult one and at some point technical experts such as Ken O'Hara or myself are often necessarily engaged to develop specifications. I have seen very open RFP documents that allow for different technological solutions and approaches and very narrow RFP's that effectively lock out all but one technology. RFP's that focus on the “whats” that need to be accomplished versus the “hows” tend to be more open. For example, I have seen RFP's so specific as to require a specific brand of compressor versus a prescribed amount of air. I have seen RFP's specify the number, type and materials of diffusers versus a mixing rate that needs to be achieved. I just wanted to share that based on Dr. Horne's comments about regulation of airflow, effective depth of diffusers, organic muck reduction and macrophyte control that there was another firm and approach (Lake Savers) that has, through independent scientific analysis, produced different results with a different technology than what has been produced on projects studied by Dr. Horne. Thank you again for the response. Again, I applaud the process the District is taking. Based on Dr. Horne's presentation, I thought it was an appropriate time to reaffirm our interest in putting forth a potential solution at the appropriate time. In addition, based on questions from the public and the Board, I think a first-hand look at our projects on very similarly developed lakes that started in similar condition to Devils Lake would provide additional

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/CherryCreekAR2014.pdf



of 38

affirmation that the District is on the right track.

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:58 PM Paul Robertson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi John,

Thanks for the email and invitation for Board Members to visit Michigan to see your installations. I will forward that offer on to them. In the talks that we have had to date the design (should VEM be the preferred method, which in itself is yet to be determined), the elements within the design would for the exception of a regulator be basically off the shelf technology which would be widely available for contractors to ascertain for making a bid. While the design of your patent pending technology may be appropriate for many uses as may Dr. O’Hara’s patented regulator, the ultimate design decision would be left to Dr. Horne, should the District opt to move forward on a contract with him. Just as an aside, in our attempt to get a designer and engineer for this project, as you may remember we did not get any responses to a nationwide search, and hence why we have been moving forward with the direct appointment with Dr. Horne who has assembled a team including HBH and Atmos of Wales, UK which includes the services of Dr. O’Hara.

Given that you have interest in providing input, I would be happy to forward on to Dr. Horne information you might like to share as it would be he, not HBH who would be making the basic design decision. Regardless, it would seem likely, that given your experience, if so inclined, you could be well position to meet any number of design criteria that may come forth, so I do hope you continue to stay interested in this potential project.

Thanks again. Paul Robertson, Lake Manager P:(541) 994-5330 E:[email protected] W:www.DLWID.org

From: Lake Savers & AerationTech Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 6:22 AM To: Brian Green <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Devil's Lake Aeration Project

Brian,

I am fine with sharing the email with Dr. Horne. Please, please emphasize that I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with anything that Dr Horne is proposing nor that there is anything wrong or “not as good” with Ken O'Hara's technology.

I am not familiar with his technology so I am certainly not claiming ours is “better”. I am simply raising the issue that the RFP Specs will drive the proposals and if the Community is interested in evaluating different approaches the specs need to be able to accommodate different designs.

With respect to air regulation on our








of 38

system, we use a shore-based regulated, valved manifolding system as well as a valving system on each diffuser. In addition, our patent pending diffuser utilizes a unique design to ensure even delivery of the air through the entire surface area of the micro-porous ceramic membrane.

We have done several large drinking water reservoir projects where flow meters were required to confirm that we are able to achieve and maintain precise regulation of air to each diffuser.

Below are pictures of the manifold for a drinking water reservoir in Massachusetts. In this project, we have diffusers ranging in distance from the compressor from 600 feet to 3300 feet. We are continuously maintaining 4 cfm to each diffuser regardless of distance from the diffuser. I would be happy to put you in touch with our customer contact to talk about their experience if you like.

On the second picture, you can actually see (although it is a bit difficult) that each flow meter (tall metered device) is reading 4 cfm of air. You can also see by each pressure gauge (round gauge) that pressure is evenly regulated across the system.

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:16 PM Brian Green <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you, John, for your input and the perspective. Unless you or Paul object, I would like to run your

email by Dr. Horne. He seems reasonably objective and straightforward and your comments are not

anything that he should take offense at. It can't hurt to run this by him and maybe we would get a more

objective and inclusive RFP, if that is a possible issue.

What Dr. Horne seems to like about Dr. O'Hara is that he has a patended regulator that provides air to the

diffusers more evenly throughout the system, regardless of distance from the compressor and depth of the

diffuser. Could provide some comment on that?




of 38

Thanks again for your input, John.

Brian

On Jan 18, 2016, at 7:52 AM, John Tucci < > wrote:

Hello Brian & Paul,

I thought I would drop you a quick note. I had the opportunity to watch the video of the

DLWID Meeting on January 14.

It was great to see Dr. Horne present. I thought it might be useful to share some of our

perspective and reactions to the information presented for the Board's consideration. Dr.

Horne's experience, knowledge and capabilities are beyond indisputable, but there are

significant differences in aeration technologies and some of his conclusions may not be

based on the latest data from these different technologies.

Specifically:

We have independent data collected and analyzed by a Professional Limnological firm that clearly

demonstrates that our technology CAN reduce organic sediment on the lake bottom by much more

than a few centimeters. 6 to 12” reductions per year for at least 2 - 3 years are common. Some of

this data was presented at the NALMS Conference in 2012.

We have data that clearly demonstrates that control of aquatic macrophytes is possible with our

technology. Some of this data was presented at the most recent NALMS conference.

We have successfully deployed our technology in shallow lakes where diffusers are placed in

water between 1 - 2 meters deep and have achieved similar results in those areas as in deeper areas

and/or deeper lakes.

In addition, it appears from Dr. Horne's presentation and comments that the projects he

has overseen require lots of infrastructure for compressor buildings and power. I want to

reiterate and emphasize that our technology has been specifically designed and

engineered for application in densely developed recreation lakes where shore-front

property is at a premium and large, potentially noisy compressor buildings are

undesirable.

Best of all, our technology has proven to be affordable to lake communities without the

need for bonding programs etc.

It should be noted that Mr. Ken O'Hara (“Dr. Aeration”) is an aeration technology

solution provider that has a specific product and technology to sell -- like Lake Savers. If

he is to be the main adviser to HGH Engineering on the RFP, then it is likely that the RFP

Requirements will be focused on Atmos' design requirements and specifications.

This makes it highly likely that technologies such as ours that are proven to deliver

results on dozens of large recreational lakes, but use different compressor technologies,

airline configurations and diffusers will be shut out based on the equipment specifications

in the RFP.

I would submit that based on our much more extensive experience in implementing

destratification systems on large recreational lakes and integrating these systems into the

development footprint of extensively developed shoreline communities that we are as or



of 38

more qualified to provide input to HBH Engineering. I would be happy to volunteer my

services in that regard.

I understand that it is still early in the process for your community and that it most likely

take through 2016 to determine whether the DLWID will move forward with an aeration

project for the lake. This is a good thing in terms of taking the time to do the due

diligence necessary before committing to a new technology for the lake.

Given this timeline, I would like to extend the invitation to members of the Board to

make a trip to Michigan this Spring/Summer. We can take you on a tour of 5 - 10 all-

sports recreational lakes where we have active projects. We can also schedule time to

meet with the independent limnologist who is monitoring these projects so that you can

review the data and results.

Let me close by making it clear that I have the utmost respect for Dr. Horne. He is the

best resource in the world to help DLWID evaluate potential solutions for the lake. In his

presentation, he made it clear, however, that detailed knowledge of the

mechanical/technical side of aeration is not his specialty. For this he relies on Ken

O'Hara of Atmos who is a vendor of aeration equipment.

Based on our experience on prior projects, we have seen that this can lead to a structuring

of an RFP that is uniquely suited to the vendor that guides the RFP development.

Feel free to call or email if I can be of assistance.

John Tucci

President

Email from Brian Kling – Clean Flo

Hi Paul, I just wanted to touch base with you. I saw where Dr. Horne had done his presentation and I think you are having an additional follow up meeting. We are still very interested in the project and believe our technology will work and can be implemented at a reasonable cost. In fact we now have a financing company that will finance our programs over a 3, 4, or 5 year period with $0 buyout at the end of the term. We have terminated our relationship with Lake Savers in the past year. However we have other distributors on the west coast that are performing the same functions they did and we feel comfortable that we have someone to fulfill the installation and maintenance obligations for the project. Anyway I am not sure where you are in the final analysis on the project, but wanted to let you know that we are still here and interested in the project. Let me know if there is anything we need to do or provide. I have attached a recent executive summary on a partial lake (<1% of acreage) project we are doing with our southeast distributor in



of 38

Florida where blue green has decreased 12.5% in the treatment area in four months of operation. The full report is also available. Have a great weekend. Thanks, Brian Kling, PE CLEAN-FLO International Cleaning Water Biologically

END OF HABS – Aeration

g. D River Dredging:

On January 22, 2016, approximately 30 days from when it submitted, the District got

news from its Level I assessment within the Sediment Evaluation Framework to USACE.

The materials to be dredged were determined to be suitable for unconfined, aquatic

placement without additional testing. The Portland Sediment Evaluation Team has

assigned a “very low” management rank to the project area. The “no test” determination

is valid through January 2026, unless site conditions or the project proposal changes. In

addition, if new information regarding chemical of concern are identified, then additional

review may be necessary.

Gravel Lease Application in process, but temporarily on hold until completion of

Removal/Fill permit.

Removal Fill Permit application in process. Application is approximately 80% complete.

Need to meet with contractor on clearly identifying Section 6 C ~ Construction Methods;

complete a site plan; and complete cross-sectional drawings. Once it is complete we can

send for signatures of property owners, Lincoln County and submit.



of 38

h. Committees: The following is the draft Policy and Procedure Template for use to develop

specific committees. Board representatives have been charged with determining the Purpose,

Membership and Powers of their respective committees. The question of whether to require

background checks has also been asked such as is the case with City of Lincoln City

committees. A sample Agenda and a sample Committee application and application process

have also been included.

DRAFT ONLY

Policy & Procedures: Establishment and Governance of the

Devils Lake Water Improvement District ____________ Committee

I. Establishment & Purpose.

Through the adoption of Resolution _20___- ____ a ____________ Committee of the Devils Lake Water

Improvement District (DLWID) has been established for the purpose of _________________

________________________. The Committee is advisory to the DLWID Board of Directors (Board) and shall be

considered a public body for the purposes of the Oregon Public Meetings Law and shall be subject to all of the

provisions of that law, as embodied in ORS 192.610 through 192.690.

II. Membership.

A. The Committee shall consist of _______ members. The Board shall appoint persons who

meet the qualifications of this subsection. Lincoln County voter registration records may

be used to determine residency as may the Lincoln County Assessor’s records.

B. Qualifications.



of 38

1. One member shall be appointed from the DLWID Board of Directors.

2. _______ members of the Committee shall be electors of the District, meaning they

are eligible voters residing in the District’s boundaries.

3. _______ members shall be property owners within the District. These individuals

may or may not be electors of the District.

4. ______ members may at large, selected from the general public.

C. Any Committee member may be removed from the Committee by a majority vote of the

DLWID Board of Directors.

III. Terms of Service.

A. For the initial Committee appointments, _______ members shall serve three-year terms,

_____ shall serve two-year terms, and _____shall serve one-year terms, as designated by

the Chair.

B. On expiration of initial members’ terms, subsequent members’ terms shall be three years.

C. Appointments to vacancies of unexpired terms shall be for the remainder of the term of

the vacated position.

IV. Vacancies.

A. A Committee vacancy is created and the position shall become vacant before the

expiration of the term if:

1. The incumbent is absent from three or more regular meetings without good cause;

2. The incumbent dies, resigns, or is removed from office;

3. The incumbent ceases to possess any other qualification required for Committee

membership.

B. If a vacancy on the Committee occurs, the Board shall fill the vacancy by appointment

for the unexpired term within 60 days.

C. Vacancies shall be filled in accordance with the process set forth for appointment of

members described in the District’s Policy for Volunteer Committee Selection Process.

V. Notice and Location of Meetings

A. Compliance with Law: All Committee meetings shall be conducted in accordance with

the Oregon Public Meetings Law ~ ORS 192.610-192.710 and 192.990.

B. Notice: Notice must be provided of all meetings in a manner that allows for staff to

publish and give notice through electronic means to interested persons, including news

media that have requested notice. Notice shall be in the form of an Agenda sent to staff

in a timely manner.

The Agenda must include a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be considered at

the meeting and be sufficiently descriptive so that interested persons will have an

accurate picture of the anticipated agenda topics. The law does not require that every

proposed item of business be described in the notice, but rather a reasonable effort to

inform the public of the nature of the more important issues to be considered. Additional

subjects may be considered at the meeting, even though not included in the notice.

C. Regular Meetings: The Committee shall select, give notice to, and hold a place, day, and

time for regular monthly meetings (e.g. 3rd Tuesday at 10 am at Oregon Coast



of 38

Community College) or at such other places and times as the Committee may designate

from time to time.

D. Special Meetings: The Committee shall hold special meetings at the request of the Chair

or any three members of the Committee. If the Chair is absent from the District, special

Committee meetings may be held at the request of the Vice Chair. No special meeting

shall be held upon less than 24 hours public notice.

E. Locations of Meetings: All meetings shall be held within the geographic boundaries of

the District, except for training sessions held without any deliberative action. No meeting

shall be held in any place where discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, sex,

age, national origin, sexual preference, or disability is practiced. All meetings shall be

held in places accessible to individuals with mobility and other impairments, and a good

faith effort to provide needed interpreters for hearing-impaired persons needs to be made.

F. Meetings Held by Telephone or Electronic Means: Meetings held by telephone or other

electronic communication are subject to the Public Meetings Law if they otherwise

qualify by virtue of their deliberative purpose and the presence of a quorum ~ ORS

192.670(1). Notice and opportunity for public access shall be provided when meetings

are conducted by electronic means. At least one location shall be provided where

meetings held by telephone or other electronic means may be listened to by members of

the public ~ ORS 192.670(2).

VI. Quorum & Voting.

A. A quorum consists of 50% of the number of Committee members, plus 1 or more

members.

B. Any recommendation or action of the Committee, to be effective, shall require a majority

vote of the Committee.

C. Committee members may append to the record, at the time of voting, a statement

indicating either the reason for their vote or abstention.

VII. Rules of Procedure.

A. The Committee shall be free to adopt its own rules of procedure.

B. In the absence of such rules, or in need of procedural resolution, Robert’s Rules of Order

shall prevail.

VIII. Duties & Responsibilities.

The Committee shall perform the following duties and have the following responsibilities:

A. Elect a Chair to preside over the meetings and administer the duties of the Committee.

B. Elect a Vice Chair to act in absence of the Chair.

C. Committee members shall adhere to all Policies and Procedures of the District.

D. Committee members shall review and observe the requirements of State Ethics Law

(ORS 244.010 to ORS 244.390), and shall identify all potential and actual conflicts of

interests regarding any issue, refraining from participating on issues of actual conflict of

interest.

E. Committee members shall prepare for and attend all meetings.



of 38

F. Committee members not be able to attend a meeting, shall notify the Chair of their

anticipated absence.

G. The Chair or designee shall receive matters referred to the Committee from the Board.

H. The Chair or designee shall provide an Agenda for each meeting and shall share an

electronic copy of it with staff for timely publication well in advance of the meeting. For

standardization the Agenda should be PDF and labeled as in the example:

Agenda_Aeration_Committee_2016-03-17.PDF

I. The Chair or designee shall prepare written minutes of all meetings of the Committee.

Minutes shall include a list of members present, a summary of deliberations during the

meeting, reference to any documents discussed, and the outcome of any votes including

who voted for or against. For standardization the Minutes should be a PDF and labeled

as in the example: Minutes_Aeration_Committee_2016-03-17.PDF

J. Minutes shall be reviewed and approved by the Committee.

K. If additional documents or presentations are provided for or at the meeting, electronic

copies as PDFs shall be provided to staff. For standardization the documents should be a

PDF and labeled as in the example: Document_Aeration_Committee_2016-03-17.PDF

or Presentation_Aeration_Committee_2016-03-17.PDF

L. The Chair or designee shall provide to staff electronic copies of the minutes in a

reasonable time for publication. Minutes shall be made available to the public even if

they are not yet approved.

M. The Chair or designee shall report to the Committee’s recommendations to the Board

which shall use the recommendations as it sees fit.

N. The Committee shall provide an annual report of its activities to the Board.

O. The Committee shall provide additional reports to the Board upon request from the

Board.

IX. Public Records

A. Public Records Laws apply to all government records, no matter what kind including

those from Committees. As defined by the Oregon Statutes, public records are any

information that is prepared, owned, used or retained by a state agency or political

subdivision that relates to an activity, transaction or function of a state agency or

political subdivision; and that is necessary to satisfy the fiscal, legal, administrative

or historical policies, requirements or needs of the state agency or political

subdivision.

B. Public agencies are required to maintain a public record without regard to the

technology or medium used to create or communicate the record. Public records can

be in the form of paper, tape, film, photographs, discs, pictures, sounds, symbols, or

any other physical medium used to record information including email. As with any

public record, a public body must make all nonexempt e-mail available for inspection

and copying regardless of its storage location.

C. Committees and Committee members are responsible to maintain Public Records in

accordance with state law and the District Records Retention and Destruction Policy.

D. Committee members are discouraged from using private emails as Public Records

requests can require access to such and/or personal computers.



of 38

E. Committee members shall be aware of concerns in electronic communication which

may constitute a Public Meeting. Email shall be confined to direct communication

from one to one or one to many. Use of Reply All should be avoided in nearly all

circumstances as any deliberations or discussion included in an email may likely

constitute a violation of Public Meeting Law.

X. Powers.

The Committee shall have the following powers:

A. Advise the Board on matters related to

_____________________________________________.

B. Review _________________________________________.

C. Implement ______________________________________.

D. Operate ________________________________________.

E. Provide _________________________.

XI. Dissolution.

The Committee may be dissolved at any appropriate time by a motion of the Board.



of 38

Sample Notice and Agenda

Devils Lake Water Improvement District Post Office Box 974, Lincoln City, Oregon 97367

Phone: (541) 994-5330 Fax: (541) 994-6040

www.DLWID.org

Committee: Aeration

Type of Meeting: Regular/Special

Day: Thursday

Date: 2016-03-17

Time: 10 am

Location: Oregon Coast Community College

3788 SE High School Drive

Lincoln City, OR 97367

AGENDA

I. Roll Call

II. Minutes of the Previous Meetings

III. Comments from Citizens Present

IV. Unfinished Business

a. Financing Aeration

V. New Business

a. Education & Outreach

VI. Non-agenda Item

VII. Announcements

a. Next Meeting: __Thursday, 2016-04-21______

VIII. Adjournment




of 38

APPLICATION _______________________Committee

I, ____________________________, respectfully request to be considered as an applicant for a vacant position on

the Devils Lake Water Improvement District’s _____________ Committee. Terms are for up to three years.

This committee’s primary responsibility is to ______________________________________. The committee is

subject to public meetings law and public records law, meets regularly and makes recommendation to the Board of

Directors.

Name: ________________________________________________

Address: ________________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

Phone: (H)_____________________________(W)________________________

(Cell) ______________________________________________________

Email: _________________________________________________

Some committees may be limit membership to being an elector of the District; being a property owners, and/or have

neither such requirement and thus members may be able to serve at large. Please answer the following questions to

help determine your potential eligibility:

Do you live in the District? YES or NO

Do you own property in the District? YES or NO

If yes, what is the Site Address or Parcel ID: _______________________________________________

Are you registered to vote in Lincoln County? YES or NO

Please describe your interest in this committee, including goals that you have for the committee.

*Applications must be signed. A space is provided on the back along with an opportunity to share additional

information.

-over-



of 38

Background information: (Feel free to supplement with a resume or other documents)

Occupation: _____________________________

Professional History: ____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Education: ____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Do you have governmental experience? ____________Please specify: _____________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

Have you served on a DLWID committee before? _____Please specify: ______________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

Do you have experience with other committees or boards? ______Please specify: _______________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

Please consider providing a brief outline of your additional experience which may assist the Board of Directors in a

making a decision to fill this vacancy:

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________

Signed: _____________________________________ Dated: _____________________

SAMPLE PROCESS:

Committee Memberships Solicited for specific time period.

Applications forms are made available through the website and details provided to media and all interested

parties.

Applications are received, compiled and supplied to the Board.

Board may choose to have a background check Board may choose to interview candidates or appoint individual board members to interview and make

independent recommendations.

Board may consider recommendations and choose to Appoint Committee Member or may choose to reopen

the search.



of 38



of 38

New Business: Agenda Support Item B

A. Internship: The District is offering a summer internship again this year for the

equivalent of 17 fulltime weeks at a hourly rate of $13.50. The intern will participate in

weekly field and laboratory work including lake sampling and beach water quality

monitoring programs for E. coli and cyanobacteria. The intern will also focus on

outreach, educating lake users, and property owners about lake management issues and

restoration objectives for the lake. A creative component to the position will include

developing graphics for use in the District’s outreach campaigns. The intern will also

serve to provide administrative support to the Lake Manager which will involve some

filing, data archiving and other duties as assigned.

Full details and application information available online:

http://www.dlwid.org/Announcements/Internship_Summer_2016_Devils_Lake.pdf

Applications due: Friday, February 19, 2016

B. Budget Committee:

There are currently two vacancies on the Budget Committee. Current members are the

Board, plus Holbrook, Wahlke, and Landhuis. DLWID has been soliciting application

through February 3, 2016 for appointment to three year terms at this February Meeting.

Budget Committee Meeting is scheduled for May 13, 2016 at 10 am to 12 pm at Council

Chambers.

Candidates seeking appointment are Mitchel Moore and Mark Christie. Applications

included below.

Action Needed: Appoint budget committee.

http://www.dlwid.org/Announcements/Internship_Summer_2016_Devils_Lake.pdf



of 38



of 38

C. Price Agreement ~ By-the-Sea Gardens: Solicited formal price agreement for services

from By-the-Sea Gardens to perform labor to necessary for: Review and comment of

permit applications, documents, graphics, research and presentations for DLWID at a rate

of $50/hour. Price agreement would be good through 2016. Board approves all

contracts, so if you are interested in having the dredging project removal fill application

reviewed as discussed, the District may authorize this contract which then staff can

administer. Estimated time for review as I understand was provided to be 4 hours.