Um.....
Why in the world is this thread in the "Off Topic" section when it is clearly about Lake Stevens and it's Kokanee population?
...Just a thought.
Lake Stevens Alum Treatments
Forum rules
Forum Post Guidelines: This Forum is rated “Family Friendly”. Civil discussions are encouraged and welcomed. Name calling, negative, harassing, or threatening comments will be removed and may result in suspension or IP Ban without notice. Please refer to the Terms of Service and Forum Guidelines post for more information. Thank you
Forum Post Guidelines: This Forum is rated “Family Friendly”. Civil discussions are encouraged and welcomed. Name calling, negative, harassing, or threatening comments will be removed and may result in suspension or IP Ban without notice. Please refer to the Terms of Service and Forum Guidelines post for more information. Thank you
-
Steelheadin360
- Commodore
- Posts: 1028
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:52 pm
- Location: Snohomish, WA
Re: Lake Stevens Alum Treatments
I didn't drop it there cause its not really about "fishing".
-
Steelheadin360
- Commodore
- Posts: 1028
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:52 pm
- Location: Snohomish, WA
Re: Lake Stevens Alum Treatments
When fishermen take a stand, we can make progress! After repeated emailing's with the Lake Stevens City Council, I finally got them to re-evaluate the Alum Program and make a few changes. The first big change was moving the treatment date into March like is recommended by the treating company as well as WDFW biologists. This is huge as it will not effect the fishing once the bite starts coming on strong in April and will allow for algae and plankton production to be very strong throughout the Spring months, resulting in bigger fish! I also got the Mayor to agree that Tetra Tech (the treating company), Lake Stevens Council, WDFW, and all the biologists (myself included). Need to bring all of our studies and info around one table and hash this thing out. I do believe when this happens Lake Stevens will no longer look into doing the Alum Treatments after the 5 year contract is up with Tetra Tech and will hopefully look into other means of controlling the Phosphorus in the Lake. I also got everyone on the Council talking about the HUGE external loading problem of the Phos and what the need to do about it, which was great! As it is a huge reason as to why these ALUM treatments have to take place. I also made the Public Works guy (who strongly argues in favor of the treatments) look like he had no idea what he was talking about in front of everyone. The Mayor was very intrigued to hear scientific facts and evidence that over-ruled the studies done by Tetra Tech. I do believe this was the start of something I wanna spend more time on. By helping make Washington a better place to fish. Even if it is only one Lake at a time. Thanks to everyone who showed up last night! Your support was very much appreciated and now we get to enjoy a better fishery because of it!
Re: Lake Stevens Alum Treatments
Great stuff.
Re: Lake Stevens Alum Treatments
Nice work!Steelheadin360 wrote:When fishermen take a stand, we can make progress! After repeated emailing's with the Lake Stevens City Council, I finally got them to re-evaluate the Alum Program and make a few changes. The first big change was moving the treatment date into March like is recommended by the treating company as well as WDFW biologists. This is huge as it will not effect the fishing once the bite starts coming on strong in April and will allow for algae and plankton production to be very strong throughout the Spring months, resulting in bigger fish! I also got the Mayor to agree that Tetra Tech (the treating company), Lake Stevens Council, WDFW, and all the biologists (myself included). Need to bring all of our studies and info around one table and hash this thing out. I do believe when this happens Lake Stevens will no longer look into doing the Alum Treatments after the 5 year contract is up with Tetra Tech and will hopefully look into other means of controlling the Phosphorus in the Lake. I also got everyone on the Council talking about the HUGE external loading problem of the Phos and what the need to do about it, which was great! As it is a huge reason as to why these ALUM treatments have to take place. I also made the Public Works guy (who strongly argues in favor of the treatments) look like he had no idea what he was talking about in front of everyone. The Mayor was very intrigued to hear scientific facts and evidence that over-ruled the studies done by Tetra Tech. I do believe this was the start of something I wanna spend more time on. By helping make Washington a better place to fish. Even if it is only one Lake at a time. Thanks to everyone who showed up last night! Your support was very much appreciated and now we get to enjoy a better fishery because of it!
-
Mike Carey
- Owner/Editor
- Posts: 7765
- Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:56 am
- Location: Redmond, WA
- Contact:
Re: Lake Stevens Alum Treatments
Pretty good that we had a group of guys there last night, thanks all that turned out in support of Zack and Lake Stevens kokanee.
Zack knows to spread the word if/when there is a follow up council meeting and we'll represent again.
I'm moving this to the kokanee forum...
Zack knows to spread the word if/when there is a follow up council meeting and we'll represent again.
I'm moving this to the kokanee forum...
"Takers get the honey, Givers sing the blues".
-
kodacachers
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 274
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:18 pm
- Location: Bellevue
Re: Lake Stevens Alum Treatments
Nice!!! Thanks Zack! Maybe some of those state bills will pass too!
-
Steelheadin360
- Commodore
- Posts: 1028
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:52 pm
- Location: Snohomish, WA
Re: Lake Stevens Alum Treatments
I have already been in touch with the Mayor this morning. What we are planning is a meeting with the Mayor, Public works, WDFW, all the biologist that have input on this, and with Tetra Tech (the alum company). People would be allowed to attend and watch and I will recommend it. The Mayor was also quite alarmed by how Mis-informed the Public works was about the fish stockings and the insane amount of Phos in the upper water columns.
The have already began talks about addressing the massive amount of external loading of the Phos and how to combat it.
Seems two years of work finally paid off :D
The have already began talks about addressing the massive amount of external loading of the Phos and how to combat it.
Seems two years of work finally paid off :D
Re: Lake Stevens Alum Treatments
That is Awesome! Im very happy that I was able to be there to show my support as well as keep informed and try to help any way I can. I know you will keep us posted when the next meeting happens and Im looking forward to attending. I have also been keeping others informed that dont have face book or do much on the internet. There were 4 others that would have been there but had prior engagement so hopefully they will be able to the next ones in the future. It wasnt just the Mayor that was alarmed as I was reading the faces of other council members. The council seemed in the dark of what was going on until you shed some real light on the subject. So we will get them to stop the alum treatments and fix the aerator, educate the residents and remove the bad fertilizer. Then maybe get the boat launch fixed the right way and straight with the dock. Right way every day and Dream Big. Great job! 
Re: Lake Stevens Alum Treatments
Just learned about this discussion via a PM from another forum (thanks Toni). Without her help I would have never found this thread (it is a bit hidden). I would have like to have contributed earlier.
While hardly an expert I do enjoy fishing for the Lake Stevens kokanee and they have provided me with many hours of enjoyment and some delicious meals. That said I do have some history on Stevens and it fishery management history.
The blue green algae blooms on the lake has been a long term problem (going back more than 25 years). Understanding the lake dynamics help understand the driving forces behind the problem. As all of us the fish the lake know the lake basin is quite large with significant amounts of deep water. This means there is a large volume of water in the lake. The lake itself lies in a relatively small watershed with only limited inflows. The inflows are such that on the average it takes something like 7 years to replace the lake volume. This is low rate of exchange which in return allows the nutrient input to the lake to concentrate compounding the nutrient loading problem.
Decades ago there was significant inputs of nutrients for up basin activities (reporting include nutrient input from some chicken ranch up Lundeen Creek. This heavy nutrient loading settled into the lake sediment and accumulated over the years. The result was heavy blue green algae blooms during the summer and fall which were not only unsightly there was also a strong stench associated with the bloom and as the algae broke down. It was that strong "fishy" smell that was so unattractive to the lake shore residents. Through a complex chemical process those accumulated nutrients in the lake sediments would be released when during the summer a strong thermocline would form and the dissolved oxygen levels would drop to near zero. That was the reason for the aerator; by pumping air below the thermocline oxygen levels would remain above levels need to sustain the fish and to keep the accumulating nutrients safely in the lake bed sediments. As long as the aerator was in position to operate when that strong thermocline formed the blue green algae blooms were controlled.
However it is important to remember that the aerator and even the alum treatments are only treating the symptoms caused by the accumulated nutrients and not the source of the problem. Over the decades there has been a constant increase in the accumulated nutrients in the lake sediments and with the continue development of the watershed additional sources of nutrients have been added to the mix. The problem is not being corrected only controlled with the problem and any potential solution being past on to future generations of land owners and Lake Steven citizens.
In addition to some of the fish impacts discussed by Zack there or other concerns. The timing of the treatment last was such that when the fry (fish of only an inch or two in length) were placed in the lake there is a real potential that they would find little food (zooplankton/daphnia) and at their small size they have little reserve to carry them through tough times. The result is a risk of poor survival of those fry (whether from the plants or the natural production)- fewer fish in the years those fish would have been expected to have reach maturity.
Kokanee can present difficult problems for fishery managers. The relationship between the kokanee and the biotic and physical parameters of the lake are complex resulting in unpredictability in how the kokanee will preform in the future. Small changes can make significant differences in population abundances, age structure and growth rates.
Don't know if any of the above helps or not but I probably can expand if there is additional interest.
curt
While hardly an expert I do enjoy fishing for the Lake Stevens kokanee and they have provided me with many hours of enjoyment and some delicious meals. That said I do have some history on Stevens and it fishery management history.
The blue green algae blooms on the lake has been a long term problem (going back more than 25 years). Understanding the lake dynamics help understand the driving forces behind the problem. As all of us the fish the lake know the lake basin is quite large with significant amounts of deep water. This means there is a large volume of water in the lake. The lake itself lies in a relatively small watershed with only limited inflows. The inflows are such that on the average it takes something like 7 years to replace the lake volume. This is low rate of exchange which in return allows the nutrient input to the lake to concentrate compounding the nutrient loading problem.
Decades ago there was significant inputs of nutrients for up basin activities (reporting include nutrient input from some chicken ranch up Lundeen Creek. This heavy nutrient loading settled into the lake sediment and accumulated over the years. The result was heavy blue green algae blooms during the summer and fall which were not only unsightly there was also a strong stench associated with the bloom and as the algae broke down. It was that strong "fishy" smell that was so unattractive to the lake shore residents. Through a complex chemical process those accumulated nutrients in the lake sediments would be released when during the summer a strong thermocline would form and the dissolved oxygen levels would drop to near zero. That was the reason for the aerator; by pumping air below the thermocline oxygen levels would remain above levels need to sustain the fish and to keep the accumulating nutrients safely in the lake bed sediments. As long as the aerator was in position to operate when that strong thermocline formed the blue green algae blooms were controlled.
However it is important to remember that the aerator and even the alum treatments are only treating the symptoms caused by the accumulated nutrients and not the source of the problem. Over the decades there has been a constant increase in the accumulated nutrients in the lake sediments and with the continue development of the watershed additional sources of nutrients have been added to the mix. The problem is not being corrected only controlled with the problem and any potential solution being past on to future generations of land owners and Lake Steven citizens.
In addition to some of the fish impacts discussed by Zack there or other concerns. The timing of the treatment last was such that when the fry (fish of only an inch or two in length) were placed in the lake there is a real potential that they would find little food (zooplankton/daphnia) and at their small size they have little reserve to carry them through tough times. The result is a risk of poor survival of those fry (whether from the plants or the natural production)- fewer fish in the years those fish would have been expected to have reach maturity.
Kokanee can present difficult problems for fishery managers. The relationship between the kokanee and the biotic and physical parameters of the lake are complex resulting in unpredictability in how the kokanee will preform in the future. Small changes can make significant differences in population abundances, age structure and growth rates.
Don't know if any of the above helps or not but I probably can expand if there is additional interest.
curt
Re: Lake Stevens Alum Treatments
Zack -
A huge thank your for bring this to our collective attention and starting a dialogue with the City!
I read your email to Mr. Monken with interest. I have a couple of pieces of additional information that maybe of interest in future discussions with the City and WDFW.
Kokanee are depend on zooplankton for much of their diet. In lake Stevens (and many other waters) the most important species of zooplankton for the kokanee is daphnia. Those daphnia graze on the algae and typically we see heavy "blooms" of daphnia 10 days to 2 weeks after the start of the significant algae "blooms". This usually occurs during the spring and results in a 2 to 3 months of heavy feeding by the kokanee where they gorge on the daphnia achieve significant growth during that period; not unusual to see 2 inches or more of growth on Stevens kokanee between late April and the first of May and even a more significant weight gain. This not only produces the nice sized kokanee Stevens is noted for it also sets the fish up for the spawning season.
Stevens is currently planted with rainbow trout every spring. WDFW's stocking plan calls for a release 62,000 fry. That plan calls for release in April though I seem to recall seeing the newly released fry in May. Those fish at time of release are in the 2 to 3 inch range. Those small rainbows rely on zooplankton and small insects for the diet at that size. They too prefer the daphnia (though usually larger individuals than what the kokanee may target).
The lake also has a number of other species that are of value to the angler and the local economy. Those species are all spring spawners and the newly hatched fry also dependent on zooplankton for their early diet. The most significant warm water fish are the smallmouth bass and yellow perch to the anglers.
To focus on the kokanee and assuming that the treatment is going to continue in some fashion I believe that priorities is preserving as much of the spring daphnia "bloom" as possible to support that key spring growth of the kokanee. In that vein a treatment as late as possible in the "treatment window" of March to June. I believe that approach would produce the best quality fishery over the course of the entire spring and summer. Obviously the other key issue for sustaining a quality kokanee fishery in Stevens is the survival of the fry releases. A dialogue with WDFW is needed to better understand release strategies that might give those fish the best opportunity to contribute to the fishery two years down the road. Currently June is targeted as the release period; it will be key to know whether zooplankton numbers have rebounded enough to provide decent survival. Other potential strategies include summer releases (temperatures may be an issue and mid lake release might be needed) or fall release after temperatures drop (more expensive to hold those fish for an additional time those kinds of release have been used with success in some situations). Again having "food" for those fish will be key for the future.
Curt
A huge thank your for bring this to our collective attention and starting a dialogue with the City!
I read your email to Mr. Monken with interest. I have a couple of pieces of additional information that maybe of interest in future discussions with the City and WDFW.
Kokanee are depend on zooplankton for much of their diet. In lake Stevens (and many other waters) the most important species of zooplankton for the kokanee is daphnia. Those daphnia graze on the algae and typically we see heavy "blooms" of daphnia 10 days to 2 weeks after the start of the significant algae "blooms". This usually occurs during the spring and results in a 2 to 3 months of heavy feeding by the kokanee where they gorge on the daphnia achieve significant growth during that period; not unusual to see 2 inches or more of growth on Stevens kokanee between late April and the first of May and even a more significant weight gain. This not only produces the nice sized kokanee Stevens is noted for it also sets the fish up for the spawning season.
Stevens is currently planted with rainbow trout every spring. WDFW's stocking plan calls for a release 62,000 fry. That plan calls for release in April though I seem to recall seeing the newly released fry in May. Those fish at time of release are in the 2 to 3 inch range. Those small rainbows rely on zooplankton and small insects for the diet at that size. They too prefer the daphnia (though usually larger individuals than what the kokanee may target).
The lake also has a number of other species that are of value to the angler and the local economy. Those species are all spring spawners and the newly hatched fry also dependent on zooplankton for their early diet. The most significant warm water fish are the smallmouth bass and yellow perch to the anglers.
To focus on the kokanee and assuming that the treatment is going to continue in some fashion I believe that priorities is preserving as much of the spring daphnia "bloom" as possible to support that key spring growth of the kokanee. In that vein a treatment as late as possible in the "treatment window" of March to June. I believe that approach would produce the best quality fishery over the course of the entire spring and summer. Obviously the other key issue for sustaining a quality kokanee fishery in Stevens is the survival of the fry releases. A dialogue with WDFW is needed to better understand release strategies that might give those fish the best opportunity to contribute to the fishery two years down the road. Currently June is targeted as the release period; it will be key to know whether zooplankton numbers have rebounded enough to provide decent survival. Other potential strategies include summer releases (temperatures may be an issue and mid lake release might be needed) or fall release after temperatures drop (more expensive to hold those fish for an additional time those kinds of release have been used with success in some situations). Again having "food" for those fish will be key for the future.
Curt
-
Steelheadin360
- Commodore
- Posts: 1028
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:52 pm
- Location: Snohomish, WA
Re: Lake Stevens Alum Treatments
Curt. I am in the process of preparing a research study packet for the City and WDFW. Breaking down not only what I have come up with but also some other studies done on similar lakes. Any input you have on the subject would be awesome considering you have a history with the lake!
-
Steelheadin360
- Commodore
- Posts: 1028
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:52 pm
- Location: Snohomish, WA
Re: Lake Stevens Alum Treatments
Smalma wrote:To focus on the kokanee and assuming that the treatment is going to continue in some fashion I believe that priorities is preserving as much of the spring daphnia "bloom" as possible to support that key spring growth of the kokanee. In that vein a treatment as late as possible in the "treatment window" of March to June. I believe that approach would produce the best quality fishery over the course of the entire spring and summer.
This is one point I spent a ton of time researching and quite frankly being confused on. I came to a conclusion that treating the lake very early in the year, before algae blooms started to occur was the best. This year they are going to do the treatment in early March as soon as water temperature allows. The water must be 45* F. I will be making sure this treatment happens as early as possible. Then the lake would be able to have the Spring bloom and mantain healthy food populations throughout the summer. Here is water my water testing uncovered last year
As you can see the treatments had little to no effect on the amount of Phos in the water column. It also caused a major reduction in Cholorphyll in the top 15' of the water. Which is were most of the food production and feeding goes on during 53-57* water temps. You can see that Phos levels dont begin to drop again until the summer months when algae begins to bloom again. This lead me to believe two things. The dose is too low to do anything about the Phos and maybe there is something that they arent telling us (like just using the alum to clean the lake). In an early email from Mick he stated "The doses are very low in Lake Stevens" With such a high amount of Phos I don't see why they are using a low dose. Hey also stated "That low of a dose shouldnt have any dramatic effect on clearing of the water column" The testing above blows that out of the water. Even with the Alum treatments there has been blooms in the lake the last three years. And I think a lot of that has to do with very high amount of external loading of Phos into the lake. I am very afraid to see what will happen in 10-15 years with the now very high amount of Phos that is trapped in the lake sediment. That Alum doesn't last forever!
I also hope you don't mind that I added some of you words into my report
Re: Lake Stevens Alum Treatments
Zack -
Getting our information together might be a good idea. I would suggest that we meet face to face to look at the information you have gathered and discuss what might be a good way to proceed forward. Wonder if have a local WDFW bio joining us.
Clearly the more information we have at our disposal the better understanding of the complex processes involved we can achieve. With that understanding we might be able to shape the treatment program to minimize impacts on the resources that we care about. The water quality information for 2014 that you present in the previous post is interesting and wonder if there is more information from previous years. Having information from a number of years will be more insightful than a single year given the number of potential variables that influence various water quality parameters and how the kokanee react to those parameters. In addition to the water quality information it would be nice to have some information on the daphnia abundance over time and different conditions. Not sure that information is currently available but it certainly be a good item to include on any "wish list".
While it would seem obvious that targeting any lake treatments at either of the two extreme ends of the treatment window which extreme would be better for the kokanee and the fishing for them seems to be unclear. The more I look at the data collected by Central for Urban Waters the more I think late in the treatment period is the best. But again more detailed discussion would be helpful and my view can be modified.
I current am thinking the critical parameter is the chlorophyll levels as the best measure of what kokanee forage opportunities maybe. From the 2014 data (does the 2013 show a similar pattern) it looks like there was a significant drop in chlorophyll levels post treatment and those lower levels lasted for up to 6 weeks. If the treatment were to take place earlier in the spring at cooler temperatures I wonder if that lower chlorophyll levels might last even longer than 6 weeks. If so any early season treatment could significantly delay and shorten that critical spring foraging period. If so I would expect more inconsistent fishing and smaller fish. With the information I currently have at hand I think I agree with the City that a June treatment might provide the most relief for the kokanee (leaving the fry planting strategy unanswered for the moment).
If meeting face to face appeals to you just let me know.
Curt
Getting our information together might be a good idea. I would suggest that we meet face to face to look at the information you have gathered and discuss what might be a good way to proceed forward. Wonder if have a local WDFW bio joining us.
Clearly the more information we have at our disposal the better understanding of the complex processes involved we can achieve. With that understanding we might be able to shape the treatment program to minimize impacts on the resources that we care about. The water quality information for 2014 that you present in the previous post is interesting and wonder if there is more information from previous years. Having information from a number of years will be more insightful than a single year given the number of potential variables that influence various water quality parameters and how the kokanee react to those parameters. In addition to the water quality information it would be nice to have some information on the daphnia abundance over time and different conditions. Not sure that information is currently available but it certainly be a good item to include on any "wish list".
While it would seem obvious that targeting any lake treatments at either of the two extreme ends of the treatment window which extreme would be better for the kokanee and the fishing for them seems to be unclear. The more I look at the data collected by Central for Urban Waters the more I think late in the treatment period is the best. But again more detailed discussion would be helpful and my view can be modified.
I current am thinking the critical parameter is the chlorophyll levels as the best measure of what kokanee forage opportunities maybe. From the 2014 data (does the 2013 show a similar pattern) it looks like there was a significant drop in chlorophyll levels post treatment and those lower levels lasted for up to 6 weeks. If the treatment were to take place earlier in the spring at cooler temperatures I wonder if that lower chlorophyll levels might last even longer than 6 weeks. If so any early season treatment could significantly delay and shorten that critical spring foraging period. If so I would expect more inconsistent fishing and smaller fish. With the information I currently have at hand I think I agree with the City that a June treatment might provide the most relief for the kokanee (leaving the fry planting strategy unanswered for the moment).
If meeting face to face appeals to you just let me know.
Curt
-
Steelheadin360
- Commodore
- Posts: 1028
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:52 pm
- Location: Snohomish, WA
Re: Lake Stevens Alum Treatments
I think a meet up is a great idea!
Re: Lake Stevens Alum Treatments
Thanks for all the information guys, been an interesting read. Is there a viable long term solution to the phos already in the sediment, say like dredging? Or is that cost prohibitive and/or just not feasible for a variety of reasons? Working with the surrounding communities to reduce the inflow of nutrients/phos, while not easy by any means (at least that is my assumption), is a little more clear cut but only one end of the problem long term. Curious what you guys think the long term solution is for the sediment if Alum treatments are not it.
Re: Lake Stevens Alum Treatments
Zack -
PM sent!
Curt
PM sent!
Curt
-
Steelheadin360
- Commodore
- Posts: 1028
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:52 pm
- Location: Snohomish, WA
Re: Lake Stevens Alum Treatments
The problem with dredging is that it would stir up the Lake bottom and cause a massive amount of Phos to enter the water column. The only way it can get broke down is naturally by bacteria and other critters, which takes a while, and takes oxygen. One thing Lake Stevens doesn't have a lot of and that the reason this whole mess started.jd39 wrote:Thanks for all the information guys, been an interesting read. Is there a viable long term solution to the phos already in the sediment, say like dredging? Or is that cost prohibitive and/or just not feasible for a variety of reasons? Working with the surrounding communities to reduce the inflow of nutrients/phos, while not easy by any means (at least that is my assumption), is a little more clear cut but only one end of the problem long term. Curious what you guys think the long term solution is for the sediment if Alum treatments are not it.
I am working with Lake Stevens to help bring awareness to the community. Gonna do kind of a door to door thing with an information flyer and maybe help some people see that their nice green lawns are murdering the lake. Also helping get some of the 1500 septic systems in the drainage basin hooked up to the City sewer.
With the massive amount of external loading the only clear treatment right now is the Alum. Nothing else can remove Phos high in the water column and keep the Algae blooms down. Even though water samples show that the Alum isn't doing its job. Once the Phos coming into the lake is addressed it has been recommended that a newer, more researched, aeration system be installed with multiple aeration points throughout the lake. Oxygenated water would help the lake cope with the problem naturally and several companies have "good" bacteria that they add to the lake to speed up the process. This would translate into a healthy lake that wouldn't need any chemicals.
-
fear_no_fish
- Captain
- Posts: 718
- Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 12:10 pm
- Location: Lake stevens
Re: Lake Stevens Alum Treatments
Has anyone looked into setting up an aquatic plant filtration system? I don't know if one could be used for this kind of situation or not. I do know there are people who set them up for pools or ponds and its supposed to keep the water really clean if done right. Obviously there're some big differences between a little pond/pool and stevens but any body of water can benefit from a little plant life.
Re: Lake Stevens Alum Treatments
Zach my thoughts exactly, as i'm sure not everyone that lives in the area is more interested in their lawns than the lake.Steelheadin360 wrote:jd39 wrote:
I am working with Lake Stevens to help bring awareness to the community. Gonna do kind of a door to door thing with an information flyer and maybe help some people see that their nice green lawns are murdering the lake. Also helping get some of the 1500 septic systems in the drainage basin hooked up to the City sewer.
I have a link here for you to look at from the DOE https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publication ... /97307.pdf if you haven't done so already, of a water quality assessment done on the lake back in the 90's, (pages 336-341). I don't know if this will help you in any way, possibly could be used as a baseline for later tests that you come across?
As an ardent Lake Stevens Kokanee angler, I myself will be keeping a close eye on this topic, and like Curt, would like to thank you for the effort you are putting in to this.
Richard
Let's go fishing!
Let's go fishing!
