FINAL. MINUTES OF THE MEETING of the HARRIS CHAIN OF LAKES RESTORATION COUNCIL. September 11, 2009

Transcription

1 FINAL MINUTES OF THE MEETING of the HARRIS CHAIN OF LAKES RESTORATION COUNCIL September 11, 2009 The regular meeting of the Harris Chain of Lakes Restoration Council (Council) was held at 9:00 AM on September 11, 2009 at the Lake County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Chambers, 315 West Main Street, Tavares, Florida. Members Present Skip Goerner, Vice Chairman Rick Powers, P.G., Secretary Keith Farner Robert Kaiser, P.E. Don Nicholson Richard Royal Jon VanderLey Members Absent Hugh (Dave) Davis II, Chairman Edward M. Schlein, M.D. 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice (V.) Chairman Skip Goerner called the meeting to order at 9:05 AM. 2. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE An Invocation was given by Councilman Bob Kaiser, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL V. Chairman Goerner called roll. Chairman Dave Davis and Councilman Ed Schlein were absent. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES V. Chairman Goerner called for a discussion of the revised draft June 5, 2009 meeting minutes. Councilman Richard Royal approved the edits to his position on the issues discussed on Page 3. No further edits were suggested and the June minutes were approved by unanimous vote. V. Chairman Goerner called for a discussion of the draft August 8, 2009 meeting minutes. No edits or comments were suggested and the minutes were approved by unanimous vote.

2 Harris Chain of Lakes Restoration Council Meeting September 11, 2009 Page 2 of PRESENTATIONS / ACTION ITEMS Lake Trafford Dredging Project Barron Moody, FWCC Barron Moody, a Regional Fisheries Administrator with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) gave a presentation on the Lake Trafford dredging project in the Florida Everglades. Highlights of his presentation are provided below and the complete presentation is included as Attachment 1 of these minutes. Lake Trafford Restoration - Located in Collier County in the Florida Everglades o Largest lake south of Lake Okeechobee o 1,500 Acres in size o No direct flow through the lake but sheet-flows into the Corkscrew Swamp - History o Popular fishing destination starting in the 1930s and 1940s o Has been known as good bass and crappie fisheries o Historically the lake has had problems with water hyacinth, hydrilla and rough fish populations (e.g. gizzard shad)

3 Harris Chain of Lakes Restoration Council Meeting September 11, 2009 Page 3 of 16 - Hydrilla o In the 1970s the hydrilla was treated chemically to carve boat paths for access o Accumulated organic material contributed to algae blooms and fish kills o Massive fish kills in 1996 and 2004 Councilman Kaiser asked what chemical is used for spraying the lake. Mr. Moody said the primary chemical currently used is Sonar, but in the 1970s a different herbicide was used. He added that hydrilla is becoming more resistant to the effects of the Sonar. Councilman Don Nicholson asked if Hurricane Charley may have had an effect on the 2004 fish kill. Mr. Moody said no, the fish kill occurred in April 2004 before the hurricane. V. Chairman Goerner asked if there is water quality monitoring conducted on the lake. Mr. Moody said yes and he believes the United States Geological Survey (USGS) may have conducted sampling in the past. He said currently that Florida LAKEWATCH collects the samples. V. Chairman Goerner asked if there were water quality samples taken during the fish kills and if recent hydrilla treatment could have caused the water quality problems. Mr. Moody said once the FWCC was notified of the event and went to the lake to collect dissolved oxygen (D.O.) data; it appeared the oxygen levels had begun to recover because although the D.O. concentrations were low, they were not low enough to cause the massive fish kill. He also noted the hydrilla treatment was conducted 20 years prior to the first major fish kill in Dr. Dan Canfield of the University of Florida / Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) and Chairman of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to the Council explained the issue with Lake Trafford is that being a shallow lake, the bottom sediments can be easily resuspended by wind which could lead to oxygen depletion and fish kills. Councilman Keith Farner asked who funded the project. Mr. Moody said the majority of the funding came from the [South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)] Big Cypress Basin funds and the FWCC contributed $3 million from their Aquatic Restoration and Enhancement Section. Secretary Rick Powers said this entire restoration effort was spear-headed by Ski and Ann Olesky, owners of the Lake Trafford Marina. He said it was their tireless efforts that really got the restoration project moving and it was a shame that Ann had passed away a few years ago. Mr. Moody noted the public park on the lake near the marina has been renamed for Ann Olesky. Mr. Moody continued with his presentation: - Muck deposition / profile o Light / gelatinous organic material in the center of the lake which overlays a marl / shell layer and a hard sand bottom o Need to dredge the littoral / near shore areas o The marl layer was determined to be approximately 9,000 years old

4 Harris Chain of Lakes Restoration Council Meeting September 11, 2009 Page 4 of 16 o Jacobs/MWH Joint Venture Report on Lake Trafford Muck Removal, dated October 3, 2002 discussed methods to reduce the volume of muck needed to be removed to restore the lake from the originally proposed 8.5 million cubic yards (mcy) - Phase I dredging o Construct a dredge spoil disposal site approximately one (1) mile from the lake o Gopher tortoises at the disposal site were relocated to a created habitat adjacent to the area o Dredging the center of the lake began in late 2005

5 Harris Chain of Lakes Restoration Council Meeting September 11, 2009 Page 5 of 16 - Phase II dredging o Littoral zone dredging began in late 2006 o In April 2007 dredging was stopped because of low water conditions brought on by drought o In September 2008 Tropical Storm Fay restored the water levels in the lake V. Chairman Goerner asked what the total cost of project has been. Mr. Moody explained that Phase I removed 3.5 mcy of muck at a cost of $10.3 million, Phase II removed 1.0 mcy at a cost of $5.1 million, and Phase III is estimated to remove 2.0 mcy at a budget of $7.5 million; for a total of approximately $23 million. - Phase III dredging o To include littoral zones as determined by the SFWMD (indicated by the dark line in the figure below) and additional dredging in the center of the lake to remove muck which has sloughed or moved from the littoral zones to the center of the lake after Phase I dredging.

6 Harris Chain of Lakes Restoration Council Meeting September 11, 2009 Page 6 of 16 o In June 2009 there were 50,000 Giant Bulrush stems were planted on a sandbar at the southwest portion of the lake o Timeline:

7 Harris Chain of Lakes Restoration Council Meeting September 11, 2009 Page 7 of 16 - Stocking Bass o By the time of the 2004 fish kill, largemouth bass had been essentially eliminated from the lake o In 2010 they plan to stock 150,000 fingerling bass and 50,000 advanced fingerlings o Hatchery raised fingerlings o Good potential to study the success of hatchery-raised fingerlings V. Chairman Goerner asked about the status of the current fishery in the lake. Mr. Moody said the lake has maintained a good black crappie fishery throughout the fish kills and low water. He added there are good numbers of bluegill and red-eared sunfish. Mr. Moody also explained that Lake Trafford offers a unique opportunity to study the success of bass fingerlings and advanced fingerlings because there is no bass fishery currently in the lake. Conversely he said that when fingerlings are released into lakes with a good bass fishery, they essentially become food for the larger bass. Councilman Kaiser said that if a total of $23 million is being spent to restore a 1,500 acre lake, then the cost to dredge Lake Apopka which is 20 times the size of Lake Trafford would be very high. Secretary Powers explained that if a total of 6.5 mcy of muck was removed at a cost of $23 million including the cost of the disposal area; then the dredging actually cost approximately $ $4.00 per cubic yard, which is very cheap. He also asked if Mr. Moody knew how much of the muck in the 2.0 mcy estimated for Phase III dredging, will come from the center of the lake which has sloughed from the littoral zones. Mr. Moody said he tried to get that information prior to the presentation, but does not have that answer. V. Chairman Goerner said that years ago the Lake Griffin Task Force discussed the possibility of dredging to create a sump in Lake Griffin that would allow the muck from the littoral zones to move into the sump. He suggested perhaps a project like that could be conducted on Lake Apopka. Secretary Powers said although that has been proposed for Lake Okeechobee, there has really been no large-scale project conducted to create a sump in the middle of a lake for the littoral muck to migrate towards. He said it may take longer to remove all the muck but if a large enough sump were dredged in the middle of the lake, then the same area could be dredged periodically to remove the littoral sediments that have moved into that area. Secretary Powers said that would be much cheaper than trying to chase all around the lake to remove the muck. Councilman Royal suggested it might be a lot more efficient to dredge a relatively small area in the lake [Apopka] near a disposal site to either allow the near shore muck to move to and repump or to possibly pump continually at a slower rate with a smaller dredge. Secretary Powers said that could be viable, but there has never been a large demonstration project using that method. Councilman Royal noted that one of the major concerns with the fluid muck in Lake Apopka is its movement down the Apopka-Beauclair Canal and asked if perhaps a sump could be dredged in the lake near the entrance of the canal, which would limit the volume of muck available to

8 Harris Chain of Lakes Restoration Council Meeting September 11, 2009 Page 8 of 16 move down the canal when there is a surge of water. V. Chairman Goerner believes that would be true. Secretary Powers also agreed. Councilman Royal suggested that limited dredging in the vicinity of the entrance to the Apopka-Beauclair Canal might prevent fluid muck from Lake Apopka entering the downstream lakes. Councilman Keith Farner suggested that a dredging project could be designed to only pump the volume of muck required to backfill the cell(s) in the former farmlands [at the north shore] to allow reconnection of the marsh to the lake. Secretary Powers agreed but noted in order to make a sizeable contribution in removing the muck from Lake Apopka, that several sumps would need to be dredged. Councilman Kaiser said one of the obstacles for a project like this would be the need for approval by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), which that might be difficult due to the current relationship between the District and the Council. He said he would like to be able to work with the SJRWMD on something like this. V. Chairman Goerner said he would also like to work with the SJRWMD to reconnect the marshes and that with the lifting of the agreement with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); the District also wants to start reconnecting the marshes. Mr. Moody said one of the factors which made the Lake Trafford project so successful is the broad base of support it received from both community groups and governmental agencies, including the Big Cypress Basin [Board]. When asked about the availability of water quality data for Lake Trafford, Mr. Moody explained that Florida LAKEWATCH has collected data for the past three (3) years and that possibly the SFWMD and Collier County may have some older data available. He also noted that when the water levels in the lake went down in 2007, the water quality improved; bringing the lake from hypereutrophic to eutrophic, however after Tropical Storm Fay the nitrogen and chlorophyll levels went back up. The Council thanked Mr. Moody for his presentation. Discussion of the Annual Report Council V. Chairman Goerner called for a discussion of the Council s annual report. Secretary Powers suggested the annual report should be a shorter format and not necessarily include all the same information as in previous years. He said the backup material could all be included on either a CD with the report or posted on the Council website, like the previous reports. Secretary Powers also suggested the Council should not remain at odds with the SJRWMD and the report should reflect a leadership role by the Council to suggest methods of restoration that may be more effective. Councilman Royal agreed with Secretary Powers and suggested the report should consist of the Executive Summary like last year and include language where the Council does not agree with all of the methods of the SJRWMD as stated previously; but to also include suggestions of alternatives that should be considered.

9 Harris Chain of Lakes Restoration Council Meeting September 11, 2009 Page 9 of 16 V. Chairman said the annual report needs to be more positive and stress the accomplishments of the Council including the community meeting held earlier in the year; the efforts of the FWCC to balance the predator prey relationship in Lake Apopka as discussed by the Council; and the willingness of the SJRWMD to begin reviewing reconnection of the marshes to Lake Apopka. He said that he had spoken with Dave Fisk, Assistant Director of the SJRWMD and that he is willing to come and discuss these projects with the Council. Councilman Royal suggested the Council members submit their comments for the annual report and then vote on them at the next meeting. He believes the report should not be more than ten (10) pages in length and all the previous information should be referenced on the website. Councilman Kaiser agreed and said the language does not need to create an atmosphere where Walt Godwin and Dave Walker, both of the SJRWMD are no longer attending the Council meetings. Secretary Powers said possibly all the additional material normally included in the annual report should be put on the website and not even include a CD with the 10-page report, because that is what people reviewing this report would normally expect. He also said there should be an explanation in the report that outlines how the funds previously received from the Florida Legislature has been spent. Councilman Jon VanderLey said there are more positive ways to say the same thing. He also expressed his opinion that water withdrawals from Lake Apopka should not be discussed until the minimum flows and levels (MFLs) have been established for the Harris Chain of Lakes (HCOL). Councilman VanderLey also believes that perhaps the Council should suggest the SJRWMD consider a holistic approach to lake restoration, not just water quality and phosphorus. Councilman Farner suggested the annual report should improve relations with the SJRWMD, so the Council can work with them on future restoration projects. He believes that dredging will be important to the restoration of Lake Apopka and there is funding available through federal sources to assist with that project. Councilman Royal said when it comes to using the muck to raise the farmlands on the north shore of Lake Apopka, there would not be enough muck in the entire lake to raise the farmlands the seven (7) feet that would be necessary to create the marshes. He said there would be enough muck available to raise a few of the cells to a level where a marsh could be restored and then reconnected to the lake. Councilman Royal also said the report should be clearer as to reconnection of the marshes V. Chairman Goerner suggested that a 10% reconnection of the marshes to the lake would be a 10-fold increase over the 1% marsh habitat and vegetation currently at the lake. Councilman Royal again suggested the Council members should submit their comments to Patrick Hunter, Recording Secretary of the Council for inclusion in the annual report summary. The Council members agreed. Mr. Hunter requested the Council provide their comments by Friday September 18 th, because the October meeting was only three (3) weeks away.

10 Harris Chain of Lakes Restoration Council Meeting September 11, 2009 Page 10 of 16 V. Chairman Goerner then discussed the draft Upper Ocklawaha River Basin (UORB) Funding Initiative for fiscal Year prepared by the SJRWMD. He said the Council is in disagreement with the In-Lake Nutrient Reduction via Rough Fish Harvesting, which is ranked as their #1 Priority Project, and the Council cannot support that project. V. Chairman Goerner explained that the FWCC recognizes the problem with the predator prey relationship [sport fish versus rough fish] within the lakes and is taking steps to help bring that into balance. V. Chairman Goerner outlined the other priority projects identified in the UORB Funding Initiative that the Council may agree with but disagrees with the priority rankings: Restoration of the North Shore of Lake Apopka Priority Rating 2; Implement Enhanced Lake Level Fluctuations and Minimum Flows and Levels Priority Rating 3; Control of Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation Priority Rating 4; Nutrient Loading Reduction Priority Rating 5; Wetland and Aquatic Habitat Restoration Priority Rating 6; Habitat Restoration-Planting of Desirable Vegetation on Lake Apopka Priority Rating 7, and; Lake Beauclair Aquatic Enhancement Priority Rating 8 V. Chairman Goerner suggested the Lake Beauclair Aquatic Enhancement should be the Council s #1 Priority Project in order to assist the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA), which has expended a lot of money on the Lake Beauclair Nutrient Reduction Facility (NuRF) and has been a good partner to the Council on various projects. He suggested the Council should request that the SJRWMD reassign the Lake Beauclair Aquatic Enhancement as their #1 Priority Rating. After additional discussion of the UORB Funding Initiative, the Council requested that a representative from the SJRWMD be present at the October Council meeting so the individual projects could be discussed. Dr. Canfield explained that there is funding available through the Eco System Management Trust Fund and other trusts for public agencies. He said through the statutory authority granted to the Council, it may request potential reallocation of the funds from one agency to another to work in support of Council projects. Dr. Canfield also noted that when the FWCC says there has been a reduction in their funding received from the Legislature; the issue wasn t that there was necessarily less money available from the Legislature, but rather it was reallocated to different agencies. V. Chairman Goerner said the Council should produce its own funding initiative for projects. The Vice Chairman also noted that he will be meeting with the Legislative Delegation on September 30 th at 1:00 PM and he will present the Council s funding initiative at that time. He explained that it is his intent to develop a funding initiative based on the projects discussed by the Council, which will be ed to the Council members prior to the Delegation meeting.

11 Harris Chain of Lakes Restoration Council Meeting September 11, 2009 Page 11 of 16 Councilman Farner suggested the Council should request funding to partner with the LCWA on the Lake Beauclair Dredging Project. He added that partnering is an important component of receiving Legislative funding. Council and Public Questions & Answers No public or Council member questions were asked at this time. Agency Updates V. Chairman Goerner called for a report of the August 24 th meeting of the TAG. Dr. Canfield explained that when the TAG was discussing potential projects for the Council, they considered projects that would provide the most benefit for the funds that are available. Below is an outline of the projects discussed and the minutes from the TAG meeting are provided in Attachment 2. - Watergoat would run out of funding in one (1) year - Artificial fisheries habitat o Variety of fish attractors were discussed including gravel, limerock, concrete and brush piles (wood) which could be used depending on bottom conditions o Plant Spatterdock (Nuphar lutea) in the vicinity of the attractors to improve fisheries habitat Spatterdock does not need a sand bottom and can grow out of the muck Spatterdock or Cow Lily forms a hard bottom which the fish can spawn on o The FWCC would support the reallocation of Council funds approved for the bass tracking telemetry study for use in artificial habitat creation o The Council could partner with the FWCC and LCWA on the project o The habitat could be placed near enough to the shoreline to provide barriers for wind-driven wave action that will assist in revegetation efforts o Funding Utilize the $112,000 previously allocated to bass stocking/relocation Utilize the $34,000 previously allocated to FWCC for the telemetry study o Create multiple habitats beginning with a the site at Hickory Point Councilman Nicholson asked how the Spatterdock would be managed because it has the ability to spread very rapidly. Dr. Canfield explained the plants could be controlled either chemically with herbicide or mechanically with the harvester. He also said building this habitat at several locations in the HCOL will provide cover for the existing bass in the lakes to spawn naturally. V. Chairman Goerner requested the TAG recommend specific projects / locations for the artificial habitat and present them to the Council. Dr. Canfield said that with the cooperation of the other agencies involved, over time as many as 50 habitat areas could be established. The consensus of the Council is to move forward with the projects and requested that Dr. Canfield and the TAG prepare a priority list of the projects including costs and locations. Dr. Canfield agreed.

12 Harris Chain of Lakes Restoration Council Meeting September 11, 2009 Page 12 of 16 Councilman Farner suggested the Lake County Aquatic Plant Management Department be notified of these efforts to ensure they do not spray herbicide on the plants. Dr. Canfield had no further updates for the Council. Bill Johnson, Biological Administrator II with the FWCC provided the following updates to the Council: - They have secured another source of funding for the bass telemetry study and would like to release he funds allocated by the Council for use in the artificial habitat projects - They plan to begin sampling the sunshine bass the FWCC stocked in Lake Apopka o It is estimated that approximately 10,000 sunshine bass will be caught / killed in the commercial gill nets this year Barbara Bess, Ex-oficio TAG member said she had no updates for the Council. Mike Perry, Executive Director of the LCWA provided the following updates to the Council: - They had discharged up to 600 cubic feet per second (cfs) from lakes Dora, Harris, and Eustis ( Superpond ) through the water control structures at Burrell and Moss Bluff o Superpond lakes are between their regulatory schedule and Maximum Desirable water levels due to recent rains o Minimum discharge through the Burrell and Moss Bluff structures is 32 cfs Those structures are currently discharging near or at the minimum o Lake Apopka remains below minimum regulatory levels There have only been minimum flows through the NuRF - Permit Applications for the Lake Beauclair Dredging Project will be ready to be submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) within a week or two - The total phosphorus concentration (TP) in Lake Beauclair is very close to the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements - The NuRF is currently in operation o An Open House will be held at the facility on October 14 th from 10 AM until 2 PM - The draft LCWA budget for next year still includes $40,000 for the operation of the Council o The next budget meeting will be held on September 23 rd for a final vote Councilman Farner asked whether whole-lake alum treatment on Lake Beauclair is being considered. Mr. Perry explained that currently alum treatment for the lake is not being

13 Harris Chain of Lakes Restoration Council Meeting September 11, 2009 Page 13 of 16 considered, although it may be the next logical step for nutrient control after completion of the Lake Beauclair dredging project. Nancy Christman, Intergovernmental Coordinator with the SJRWMD provided the following updates to the Council: - They are currently working on three (3) contracts that involve the Council; o UF Website Contract for website maintenance o LCWA Contract for their final budget o Council Recording Secretary Contract V. Chairman Goerner said that it is his understanding of the Council s annual budget of $10,000 from the SJRWMD and $40,000 from the LCWA, for a total of $50,000; that the SJRWMD funds were to be spent first. Ms. Christman agreed. V. Chairman Goerner said according to the figures he has seen, the District utilizes less than $10,000 of its funds and then $15,000 - $17,000 of the LCWA funds. Ms. Christman said she can only speak of the current fiscal year and the SJRWMD did spend their $10,000 first. Mr. Perry explained that previously the SJRWMD agreement was to only pay for certain activities and therefore spent less than the $10,000. He said that when Ms. Christman took over the position of Project Manager there was an agreement made where the SJRWMD would utilize their $10,000 first. V. Chairman Goerner also asked about the position of the SJRWMD with regards to the activities of the Council s Recording Secretary. He understands the District is of the opinion that the SJRWMD supplies the Recording Secretary to the Council and even though the Council has directed Mr. Hunter to attend a couple of functions, the SJRWMD refused payment for those activities. Ms. Christman explained in the two (2) instances where that occurred over the past year or so, those activities fell outside the terms of the contract between the Recording Secretary and the District. V. Chairman Goerner said the current contract for Recording Secretary services includes provisions for up to 14 meetings, which includes two (2) special meetings and that the Council requested Mr. Hunter to attend those activities and payment should not have been denied by the SJRWMD. Councilman Royal leaves the meeting at 11:30 AM. After an extended discussion on the Recording Secretary contract, the Council agreed to submit an amended Statement of Work by the end of the day for the contract that includes language where the Recording Secretary will attend special meetings and functions as directed by the Council and will be paid for that attendance. The Vice Chairman also asked that Dave Fisk (SJRWMD) attend the next Council meeting to further discuss this matter. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comments were made.

14 Harris Chain of Lakes Restoration Council Meeting September 11, 2009 Page 14 of COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS V. Chairman Goerner made a call for Council member comments. Secretary Powers said he felt it was a good meeting today, which gave the Council some direction. After a brief discussion, the October 2, 2009 Council meeting was rescheduled to October 9 th. Prior to the end of the meeting, Ms. Christman spoke with Lake County and the BOCC chambers were scheduled for the new meeting date of October 9 th. Discussion of October 9, 2009 Meeting - Dave Fisk SJRWMD to discuss the UORB Funding Initiative, Recording Secretary contract and other matters - Annual Report Council Discussion 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 AM. Respectfully submitted by: Chairman Dave Davis Secretary Rick Powers, P.G.

15 Attachment 1 Presentation on Lake Trafford Restoration Presented by Barron Moody - FWCC September 2009

16 Lake Trafford Restoration Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Division of Freshwater Fisheries Management Barron Moody Regional Fisheries Administrator 11 September, 2009

17

18

19

20 Influences of the Past Popular fishing destination Renovation Hyacinth problem Hydrilla growth/control

21

22 The move towards restoration Immokalee Chamber action Collier County forms Task Force SFWMD, FWC, DEP, Collier Co., Audubon, Conservancy of SW FL, Friends of Lake Trafford, Citizens Grass roots BBQ, Bluegrass, CAS, schools and kids

23

24 Use this layout when all you need is a photo or graphic layout with no copy or headline. Use 20 point type in italics flush left for the caption.

25

26 Phase II Littoral /Shoreline Dredging Phase I Lake Dredging

27 December 12, 2006 May 7, 2007

28 May 7, 2007

29 May 7, 2007 June 5, 2008

30 Oct 18, 2007

31

32

33 Phase II Littoral /Shoreline Dredging Phase I Lake Dredging

34

35 Time Line 1996: Fish kill, Task Force formed, grass roots efforts begin 1997: Fish kill 2001: RFP, low water 2002: Costs study 2004: Fish kill 2005: Phase 1 and evaluation begin 2006: Phase 2 begins 2007: Low water ends Phase : Low water 2009: Phase 3, re-vegetation 2010: Stocking and re-vegetation expected 2011: Phase 3 completion expected

36 Attachment 2 Meeting Notes August 24, 2009 TAG Meeting held at: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Eustis Laboratory Harris Chain of Lakes Restoration Council Technical Advisory Group August 2009

37 Harris Chain of Lakes Restoration Council Technical Advisory Group Meeting Notes August 24, 2009 Meeting Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Eustis Laboratory Purpose: The Council has received authority to spend the remaining money appropriated by the Legislature on projects the Council believes shall positively impact the chain of lakes. The Council requested that TAG consider a range of projects for consideration by the Council for endorsement and price out projects for consideration with the understanding available funds are about $150,000. Projects Council members suggested as important: Item 1. Fish Attractors using limerock; and establishment of lime-rock reefs for protection of plants and fish. Item 2. Fish Habitat at Hickory Point (SIMILAR TO ATTRACTORS AT LAKE EUSTIS FISHING PIER) Item 3: New Earth Industries Watergoat Trash Collectors Attending meeting: Bill Johnson (Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission - FFWC Eustis) Jason Dotson (FFWC - Eustis) Dr. Dan Canfield (Florida LAKEWATCH - Gainesville) Erika Thompson (Florida LAKEWATCH -Gainesville) Marty Hale (FFWC - Ocala) Kalina Warren (FDEP - Orlando) Crystal Cook (FDEP - Orlando) Walt Godwin (St. Johns Water Management District - Palatka) John Benton (FFWC -Eustis) Mike Perry (Lake County Water Authority LCWA) Barbara Bess (Concerned citizen, previously of FDEP)

38 SUMMARY If the Council decides to initiate new projects, TAG concluded the best use of available funds would be the construction of: 1) Fish habitat at Hickory Point and other potential bank fishing areas (SIMILAR TO ATTRACTORS AT LAKE EUSTIS FISHING PIER), 2) fish attractors using limerock and trees, 3) lime-rock reefs for protection of plants and fish, and 4) Nuphar macrophyte beds in conjunction with the construction of fish habitat, attractors and reefs. This type of project received support from all TAG members and visitors. FFWC further suggested that this project is important enough that they would be willing to contribute the $34,000 the Council previously allocated to FFWC. Florida LAKEWATCH agreed to direct the effort and with the assistance offered by FWCC, LWCA (boats and labor) and other TAG members it would be possible to optimize the amount of material placed in the lakes. TAG also found out that New Earth Industries would rent for one year Watergoat Trash Collectors. The price was $220/month for trash alone and $245/month if the oil absorbent sock was included. TAG felt this approach could be important, but a future funding source could not be readily identified. TAG, therefore, concluded the best return on the investment would be the habitat construction. Other projects such as dredging were discussed, but rejected because of insufficient funds. Cypress tree planting in the marshes around Lake Griffin was discussed, but SJRWMD indicated a source of funds was already tapped into so no new money was required. Meeting called to order 9:02 am by Dr. Canfield. DC: The Council called for projects to be proposal by Sept. 11, 2009 ~$180,000 left to appropriate (after bass stocking program and return of allocation to FWCC). Topics of interest in April 2009 TEAM public meeting (related by Dr. Canfield): 1. Creating artificial habitat 2. Reconnection of marsh 3. Bass stocking 4. Dredging (particularly system with genesis dewatering to get rid of muck). Also discussion concerning Water Gulp ($220/month), using one at the boat ramp at Lake Dora. JB: All storm-water lakes have been surveyed. DC: Representing public request to put money toward creating artificial habitat 1. At the dock at Hickory Point 2. Random reef areas 3. Around the shoreline at Hickory Point

39 DC: Is artificial habitat valuable to the lakes of concern? JB: What does encumbered mean? MP: Encumbered means under contract. The monies for the restoration do not have to be encumbered because monies are in LCWA account. JD: FFWC has proposed the use of brush pile attractors (5 acres) for artificial habitat on the Harris Chain of Lakes. However, FFWC can t put in attractors over ¼ acre, by law, without a dredge and fill permit from FDEP. Because fish attractors must be 100 ft apart, a diamond shaped patter of 20 total attractors clustered in 4 s per ¼ acre is proposed. Brush attractors are primarily to provide habitat for crappie and large mouth bass. As of last year, the Lake County landfill offered to donate brush and transport the brush to the lake. The brush will have had to go to Hickory Point because it s close to landfill. Contract barges can be used to move brush. Dotson s proposal was written and submitted to Jim Estes (under the restoration budget) last year but it was tabled. Entire cost of the project was 110,000 (last year) using all private firms (low end cost). Monitoring and evaluation success can be performed by individually creels (independently funded) of each attractor vs. the rest of the lake. DC: Where is the creel this year? JB: Creel this year is on Apopka and Dora DC: What do we need to do to make the brush project happen? JB: Must follow up to see if the landfill can still provide and transport the brush. If they can t then it will increase the cost of the project and the project probably won t be feasible. DC: (to JB) What kind of artificial habitat did Steve Crawford create? JB: Steve Crawford built treated wood frames 2x6/2x8, lined with mesh on one side, filled with pea gravel and sunk around the lake walk. Provided gravel beds for spawning. Found to be fairly cheap and easy to deploy. BB: Would you eventually get any sedimentation to establish aquatic vegetation? BJ: Yes, eventually they ll fill and can support plant growth. MP: Have evaluated viable sites for artificial reefs at Hickory Point and determined Leesburg to be too mucky. DC: (to JD) where have you determined to put brush attractors at Hickory Point?

40 JD: Top of brush must be at least 3 ft below water at driest conditions so they are looking for deeper areas. DC: Would you be willing to use the brush attractors (to the group)? MP: Yes, they (the Harris Chain of Lakes Restoration Council) are willing to use/look at any viable options. JD: Important point is to determine whom you are improving the fishing for? Pea gravel would give fishermen better fishing along the shoreline. Brush attractors would improve fishing for those in boats. DC: Suggests a lake-by-lake basis to determine which artificial habitat would be best. Also suggests that a Harvester or pontoon boats could be used to drop Lime-rock off to make a reef structure. MH: Pontoon boats could be used to deploy brush attractors (1,000 lb payload). Anglers were getting a lot of hang-ups on the mesh (pea gravel beds) in artificial habitat in the past (things to consider when determining type of artificial habitat). BB: How often do you get complaints when you choose one fish demographic over another (boat vs. bank fishermen)? JB: Very little. bank fisherman are not well organized so they have little voice. Brush attractors serve both groups fairly well. MH: Those fishing on the banks are normally concerned with access. DC: Suggests using larger rocks (lime-rock boulders) than pea gravel for spawning substrate. Suggests that pea gravel would be fine around docks, as long as bottom is coated to provide attractive substrate for fish. JD: The initial artificial habitat proposal for Hickory Point initially proposed to add artificial habitat to 50 acre, but suggests that the area does not have to be that big. You could use 4 ¼ acres and see how it works. DC: Suggests using a sweep of things (artificial habitats) across the board to please the public and focus on getting funding for bigger projects in the future. Stop talking about production because most of the fishing is catch and release. BB: Does anyone catch fish to eat anymore? General Consensus: No JD: Varies by region and lake.

41 DC: Most mortality is from handling when fish are caught. WG: Has anyone done any mortality studies? JD: Yes, the mortality is variable lake to lake. BB: How much money is available to spend on this artificial restoration project? DC: $149,000 and fish and game is putting in $34,000 (FFWC) = approx. $183,000 MP: Mentions that one council member has pointed out that everything that the council has done appears to be fish/fishing related. DC: There has also been a proposal to remove hydrocarbons in the chain as well. BB: What does the legislation for the council say? Is it largely fishing oriented? DC: The legislation for the council states that it s mission is to restore the lake(s) to the original condition, which was fishable. WG: There is also a five -year plan to reconnect area 3 (of lake Apopka). BJ: Money can be more easily found for project like that (DC agrees). DC: Council may be prepared to send out a legislative request for reconnection of area 3 (to WG). WG: There must be a gradual change to flood out marsh and change plants to marsh plants (cattail). BJ: States that FWC would be likely to fund such projects. MP: Council put money out for effort for cypress tree planting but there doesn t appear to be a lot of interest. WG: $150,000 of mitigation funding (to reestablish cypress and herbaceous marsh) for area 4 (Lowry Brown). Budgeting in land management budget to clear with machinery and herbicides. Want to reestablish nesting trees. DC: Council originally gave 5,000. Walt: Wetland emergence and trees budget = $180,000 (DOT mitigation funding) and FWC is putting in $30,000. DC: Why are we talking about cypress trees (to MP)?

42 MP: Because council was concerned about reestablishing cypress marsh habitat. JB: Cypress marsh doesn t really improve fish habitat. JD: Unless water is deep it does not if it s too shallow the water becomes too hot. WG: Notes that volunteer tree planting just doesn t tend to work well. JB: We really want to recover Nuphar fields, but can t find a way to get it established. DC: If you were using clam-bags to establish vegetation, couldn t you use lime-rock boulders to protect the bags from upheaval until plants are established? JD: Wouldn t you have to place the rocks so that they are greater than three feet under water to protect bags (violating FDEP rules)? DC: I don t think so. JD: It would be nice to get Nuphar reestablished. WG: We have close to 800 acres in area 3 that they d like to reestablish with Nuphar. DC: Yes, but you have to clear it 1 st, so it ll be in 5 years or so. BJ: Yes, but you could work to get it established now. WG: Have to control water levels to get it established. It s going to take a while. BJ: It does take a while: BB: Why is it so hard to establish? W: It s a huge rhizome and it s very buoyant. BB: Is there no way to bind it down? BJ: We ve used roofing nails with some success. WG: You have to have fluctuations in water level for it to establish. We ve used big socks as well in the past. DC: It might be possible to do some experimental reestablishment with the council funds. WG: I think the reestablishment of Nuphar is the future of these lakes.

43 DC: At Hickory Point, would it cause a problem with your fish area if you put down rock habitat and along with Nuphar? MP: Don t think it d be an issue but signs can be posted to keep boaters off of the vegetation until it is established. BJ: Nuphar can easily be knocked back if it does become a problem. MP: Should I recommend that we abandon planting of cypress? DC: Yes, because 1) Does not serve their need for water quality 2) Mitigation funding is coming in for marsh area 3) It is too long term a project to use for these monies (not worth effort) WG: Need a fast growing, larger tree for nesting. BJ: You are going to plant cypress for the long term (to WG)? WG: Yes BB: You will get more bang for your buck if you plant something herbaceous. WG agrees BB: You have to consider public perception. Use this as a potential marketing event don t put money into so many projects that you are diluting the effectiveness of them. Choose projects so that it is immediate, something that the public will see. DC: Yes but it also has to be something that we ll learn from. This can also be a research demonstration. MH: From a management prospective, I d like to see some brush attractors go in. DC: Believes that this can be done by pooling resources (barges/harvester/pontoon boat and labor). JD: On a small scale, this project wouldn t spend a lot of money on evaluation. DC: Hard bottom is the key if you get the plants established then you show improvement. MP: Is sand more desirable than rock from a fishing perspective?

44 DC: Fish like sand because they spawn on it. Fish clear away much to spawn on sand (Nuphar roots, rock, etc.). Sand moves with waves so I suggest some rock bottom. You don t see plants on pure sand. MP: So, what we re trying to do is harden the bottom and anchor vegetation? DC: I think so. This is the direction that we want to go with the council. WG: Implementing long-term improvements in habitat. BB: There are people who enjoy the aesthetics of the water. Can we present this project as an attempt to recreate habitat, fishery and scenery to please public? Is this an opportunity to make a kiosk to educate public? DC: The council has a separate budget for educational kiosks. BB: Thinks the public is more receptive to man made habitat if they are giving an explanation, such as a simple graphic of how the artificial habitat is created and all of the critters associated. DC: What about Water Goat proposal for muck removal and trash removal? It s cost is approximately $220/month. BB: Are there any outfalls that are particularly problematic? JB: Lake Co. has done an evaluation of all of the Harris Chain lakes. Lake Harris does not meet its TMDL s. DC: The Water Goat works so that any trash that comes in the lake gets trapped and removed with water piped into the lake. And it s got an oil removal mechanism in the back. WG: How often is the oil removal changed out? DC: I m not sure. You can tell by hand when it needs to be changed. Put one down around the mall in Tampa and it filled within 1 week. WG: It picks up all petroleum-based products? DC: All hydrocarbons. MP: Do we have any evidence that there is a big hydrocarbon load? Perhaps we could use money in a better way. Walt: We ve measured ph and the only problem we ve had is at Herlong.

45 DC: The main thing with the Watergoat is the flotsam. We don t want to necessarily focus on the hydrocarbons flushed into the system as much as the trash that s washed into it. BB: Is installation free? DC: As far as he understands, yes. MP: What is cost? DC: $220/month and trash is picked up monthly. WG: How fast are counties putting in cyclonic separators? MP: Slowly because they don t get a nutrient reduction, per say. DC: The public wants to see where tax money is going so the county is all for it to boost public opinion. BB: One or two Watergoats should be put in obvious locations so public can see them work. MP: Suggests that we check to see what is actually in the ones that are already existing before moving forward. DC: Flotsam is a big issue in the ocean (gets a lot of public attention). Asks FDEP if they have any good ideas today? KW: Asks about budget for Watergoat from previous council meetings. DC: Price has increased since company went from not profit to private. DC: Are there any other issues? Dredging has issues because of the cost. MP: How about plant harvesting? DC: Problem with harvesting is that it comes in spurts and there aren t enough machines to deal with it when it s harvest time. DC: Big issues at Lake Beauclair plants in the back needs to be removed and muck in the front needs to be dredged. Genesis thing was supposed to be used for little canals. MP: The city of Tavares is concerned about the narrows on Lake Dora. We want to remove sediment out of the bottom of the lake for navigation. JB: At the end of deer point (to MP)?

46 MP: Yes. Does the council want to get involved with navigation issues? DC: Thinks the council does but the issue is how are you going do it? He believes the dewatering process could be used. Sites that dredging at Lake Panasofkee was a great success. MP: The muck used in Lake Panasofkee was really calcium carbonate. St. johns won t be involved with navigation issues. DC: Dredging of lake was sold because, biologically, lake flux is needed and boaters needed access when water was down. MP: The district has already made it clear that dredging the canal is not going to be of much interest to them DC: Thinks that it will have to be sold, legislatively, to be done. BB: What is in the canal? MP: Sand and some roots. We also need to determine if it s doable to dredge canal without undermining trees lining the bank. Sounds like council should not be involved? DC: The legislature may be more willing to designate money to get rid of muck and do some dredging. He doesn t know which way the council will go on this. KW: Is there a deadline to submit the proposal to the council? DC: We have to deliver proposal to council on September 11 th, KW: Questions about looking at the removal of nutrients with floating islands. DC: Knows a little about the process. Floats are made out of recycled plastic and they are a little expensive. Would be aesthetically appealing and fish like to hang out under them. DC: Thinks that it s reasonable to try it out in certain spots to see how it works. WG: You d want them moored. DC: Yes, very securely KW: Offer to gather more information on the subject DC: Agrees that the council may be interested in looking at this.

47 DC: Any other ideas on the floor? BB: Should suggestions as to artificial habitat be given in priority order? MH: Should we prioritize x amount of brush attractors, x amount of rock piles, etc.? BB: Suggests that we give the council a list with what we believe would be the best way to spend money and why. DC: All of this should be wrapped into one thing, artificial habitat at Hickory Point (shoreline oriented), brush attractors. #1 objective; start with plant establishment then begin to identify where you want to push brush attractors. JD: Do you have any idea with how much area we d need to put rock down to reestablish Nuphar beds? Would you have grad students, volunteers, etc for the work? DC: He thinks there are ways to do it where the costs are reasonable. You have to do it in ¼ acres, maybe even smaller than that. The main thing would be getting a coating done in front of the peers. Nuphar would have to be found that could be ripped up to use for reestablishment. BB: It will cost $220/month for installation and maintenance for water goat? One on 5 lakes is $13,200/ year. DC: Yes. MP: If there really is a benefit where public can see it maybe we can defer some of the cost to the storm water folks. WG: How may attractors could you build for that? DC: The cost is labor for the attractors you could put up quite a few if you can reduce cost for labor/and installing attractors. We can propose to council to take x amount off for water goat, we can have more artificial habitat added. BB: Maybe tell the council that the Watergoat is not a bad idea, but suggest that the money is spent now. DC: The council needs to make a recommendation to the legislature. MP: Does the council have an obligation to put money into the hatchery? BJ: They were going to give FFWC money for stocking, but we have since determined that they have grants and other monies for hatchery purposes.

48 JB: would rather have council monies go to habitat work (DC agrees). DC: If the council approves this, can you identify sites for artificial habitat (to MH) and FDEP won t interfere if sites stay less than ¼ acre in size. MH: Yes (on both accounts). DC: Any other suggestions? Everyone agree to focus on near shore habitat and planning? Group shows agreement. JB: I will check with Bill Caton s group to check with off shore reef placement. JD: Should you fence off lily pads until they are established so that boaters don t tear up plants? DC: Boats do tear up plants, but maybe we could play the odds. In other words, put out attractors to get fishermen around them and then establish the plants away from the attractors. JD: I will contact landfill to determine if county will provide brush and transport. BB: If the landfill won t cooperate, will they trash project or reduce the size? JD and BJ: Significantly reduce the size. DC: What size trees are you after (for brush attractors)? JB: Oak tops. JD: We re looking for complex habitats. BB: How long do they last? JD: At least 5 years, and that is on the lower limit. WG: What tree species do you use? JD: Oak scrubs. Some use Christmas trees, but that has the most short-term (5 years) effect. DC: There is nothing to say that we can t have rock structure and oaks in there too.we can put out scrub and see what happens. Call for any other issues, suggestions, thoughts. Meeting adjourned 11:10 am.