: Carol Paddock (representing Travis Johnson), Gary Johnson, Andy Bryant, Dave Breneman, Bob Long, Stan Hill, Kathi Futornick.
Non-members present
: Phil Lieberman (City Administrator), Walter Forster.
Presentation by Jeff Jenkins, OSU Extension Service. Jeff was asked to present information on chemical management. He stated that the major objective of being cautious with use of chemicals to control vegetation in the watershed is that the watershed serves as the City’s water supply. If this were strictly a "forest management" site chemicals would be used to (a) reduce competing vegetation in order to shorten the period to harvest; (b) improve the survivability of seedlings. Currently the seedlings in the Lafayette watershed appear to be well established. The next steps would be to determine if chemicals are needed to take the trees to the next distance. From his observations in the watershed, it is highly likely that trees will survive without further chemicals. Where blackberries are thickest, you wouldn’t want to use chemicals next to the Henry Creek or at the springs. For these areas you would remove the vegetation manually and need to make a decision regarding native restoration. If the decision is to use chemicals in the watershed, that is what people will remember.
Gary Johnson commented that the area surrounding the City’s watershed has been and is continuing to have chemicals applied such as roundup and this area is tilled regularly.
Jeff commented that there is a difference in public perception with City application (public) vs. private, landowner application. This is perception not necessarily reality.
Stan Hill asked the committee members to be sure that by the end of the discussion to be able to ask the question whether we will have a healthy forest without chemicals.
Phil commented that in harvesting for revenues vs. no harvest and no chemicals the City needs to proceed with moderation. If we are only losing 7 years on harvest without chemicals then it may be best to not use chemicals.
Jeff commented that the City should also be monitoring water quality regularly.
Bob Long commented that by the time you detect water quality degradation, it is then too late.
Phil asked if there are those who use chemicals in the recharge area, should the City be concerned? Bob stated that the scope of work he is preparing would cover some of those questions.
Jeff continued with a comment that concern in application of chemical application to land has to do with persistence and mobility. Glyphosate binds tightly to the soil and is not long-lived. It is not toxic. If the topsoil is thin, with basalt fractures, the fractures can act as a conduit and enter ground water.
Phil asked if there is a close connection between rainwater and the spring water.
Jeff responded that it depends on how thick the soil is and how much basalt is fractured.
Andy commented that chainsaws can be a problem in that they drip/leak and oils are persistent.
Jeff continued with his discussion describing the 2 biggest threats to tree survivability (a) grasses and (b) maples. Andy mentioned the used of zinc phosphate on voles. Jeff commented that we would address that as time goes on.
Andy commented that we need to have "tools in our toolbox" and that voles can wipe out up to 3 inch trees. Gary commented that voles cycle. Carol reminded the Committee that we have a survival rate of 360 trees per acre and the FPA requires 160 trees. Andy suggested that we continue to monitor survival.
Jeff continued that if the City uses chemicals, considerations need to be taken into account: (a) how much chemical applied and at what time; (b) how is chemical handled; (c) how much hazardous material can be taken into watershed without concern for accidental spill; (d) can we help prevent contamination by limiting chemical use; (e) establish protocols for how chemicals are handled. For example, 50 gallon level is more concern that 1 gallon of GARLON; (f) amount of chemical needed e.g. maple "hack and squirt" requires precise application to cut in tree. Another issue is how precisely the chemical is being applied. Jeff commented that Glyphosate is not a problem in the perimeter. With respect to Glyphosate there was pressure from the environmentalists several years ago when they singled out this chemical. They did this primarily because of Monsanto’s very large profits coming from sales of Glyphosate. They engineered the plants to be resistant and came under additional scrutiny. Glyphosate binds tightly to soils. Jeff stated that there was a total break down of the chemical leading to mineralization (a) chemical breaks completely into carbon dioxide, water and minerals; (b) the chemical can also be incorporated into plants, animals, and soils; (c) breaks down in to AMP (amino-ethyl-phosphoric acid). This is less toxic than glyphosate. The question is how fast does this happen? What is the chance that this will end up in the recharge area?
Gary commented that the quarry on the hill may be an issue. Bob responded that there is concern regarding a direct pathway. There should be a ranking as to relative risk of areas such as High, Medium, and Low. Andy stated that gasoline stored in an above ground tank (AST) can be uphill from the watershed. Bob mentioned the volunteer program with DEQ to protect wellheads and water sources may help. The discussion continued on Glyphosate with respect to what constituted a small amount. Over the next 50 – 60 years, you might use the chemical one to two times. Gary mentioned that maybe one pt/acre would be used. Stan asked if there are areas that are not appropriate. In areas that (a) have shallow soils; (b) close to the spring, surface water; (c) steep slopes. NOTE: these are the areas that were not logged. Stan asked if there were any places that were logged that would pose a risk? Jeff stated that the area logged closest to the spring. To be cautious we should consider a 500 foot buffer. Okay to use Glyphosate, OUST, and GARLON. Doing spot treatments is okay (same with ARSENAL for maples).
Jeff provided handouts from OSU. His main message was that if we were to use chemicals, minimize the amount.
Phil commented that the City is trying to eliminate undesirable materials from entering the spring and creek such as defecating animals. If the groundwater is closely connected to the surface then probably not a good idea to have animals in the watershed. There would be E.Coli danger and would need a buffer.
There was a discussion as to the amount of chemical needed for a three foot radius around a tree: 27 sq ft per tree. 1.6X .3 would result in .48 pints/acre. Scotch broom was noted to be a problem.
Gary noted that there is a fire hazard without trees.
Andy commented that the City would lose 50% of the trees if nothing was done.
Stan stated that we needed to take a look at the entire recharge area and chemical application. We need to know where we are.
Bob Long presented a scope of work that addressed the question raised by Stan. The basalt wells appear to not be connected. Dennis Nelson’s mapping appears as a good guide. Bob’s proposal would: (a) further refine the recharge area. We need a conceptual hydro model and also look at USGS, Water Resources for information as to where the recharge area is located; (b) review water rights; (c) look at the water budget and carrying capacity of the land. There has been an historical decrease in water (gpm); (d) there has been considerable reduction in spring flow. The City has had to run wells all winter; (e) determine 10 year time of travel to well; (f) conduct a contaminant source inventory (usually in rural areas there are very few sites); (g) go back to aerials from ACOE, Farm Services, every 10-20 years and review how land has changed. Potential impacts. Zoning ordinances might need to be prepared to protect the recharge area. Expected to cost between $30 – 40K. The City to receive State certification will need to bring together landowners, agencies, and other municipalities, develop a plan and then send it to the State for certification. Gary asked if the 10/10 plan might help. Bob responded that it would.
Kathi will contact Dennis Nelson and Chris Blakeman regarding the status of the reports.
New members - Phil discussed the potential for introducing new members to the WCAB. Gary stated that adding people has both plus and minuses. We can get bogged down. Because there is a lot of information there is a lot of catch-up that would be required. Carol commented that we have not responded to people who took the time to reply. Stan commented that there is an imbalance with people who do not live within City limits. Invite everyone to the next meeting and decide who to bring on. Walter commented that at the inception of the WCAB there was controversy. Bringing on new people would add legitimacy to the WCAB.
Minutes from the previous meeting: Review and changes included page 2, last line, replace standard with forest. Stan motioned to accept the minutes, Dave seconded the motion and the minutes were adopted unanimously.
Carol provided a handout.
There was a brief note after the meeting to extend the WCAB through September 1, 2001.