These are the unofficial results from the water sampling conducted on 8/24/2005 between 11 am and noon by Judy Leinbach, Nina, & Chuck Henage: These results should be official by about Sept. 1, and I don’t plan to update this notice unless something changes

#1 Dock 5 cfu
#2 Cedar Fork Creek 13 cfu
#3 Booker Creek 73 cfu

Caution level is individual reading above 400 cfu, or average above 200 cfu.

0″ in rain gauge. It was damp, but no accumulation

Lake water temp:
28 C (Dock)
29 C (Cedar Fork Creek forebay)
27 C (Booker Creek inlet arm)

I was delighted to have Judy Leinbach participate in this sample taking. She is a regular user of the lake and had already been to the lake twice on the morning of the testing. She observed the brown algae mentioned below. Judy asks who will be supervising the fisheries?

The lake is now cooling off. It was hot at the surface in the week preceding the test, and mats of a brown algae had begun to accumulate in places along the shore in the long arm of the lake that extends from the main bay toward the swamp at the Booker Creek inlet. We didn’t see any of that when we took the samples. It is a hot-water phenomenon. Hopefully our grass carp and the normal weather cycle will keep it under control.

There are a variety of possible reasons why the Booker Creek inlet has a higher bacterial count and is also cooler. The forebay slows the water, so it should be warmer unless there is a lot of flow. With no rain in the gauge, I’m not sure what to make of this.

The bacteria we test does not multiply in the water, it comes from the gut of warm-blooded creatures. Bird and animal poop, and sewage are the likely sources. Too much exposure can cause diarrhea, skin and eye irritation, and other problems. All lakes have some of this present, and our test thresholds are conservative, comparable to drinking water reservoir standards. Our tests do not look at all the possible nasties that could be in the water, but the fecal coliform is considered an “indicator” organism for water that has no known specific sources of upstream contamination.

A good coliform test does not always mean the water is safe. You have to use your own judgement. If it looks bad, stay out of it. The tests we do ARE useful. The highest counts we ever got came from water that was cold and sparkling clear (realtively speaking….)

Our watershed is about 4 square miles, less than half of which is LFA property. We can do our part to avoid contributing polution to our lake, but we also need to keep a watchful eye in contiguous neighborhoods. We are vey lucky to have an urban lake that is clean enough to swim and fish in. Some of the water comes from ground that is not under our control. Environmental regulations are our only legal lever. As neigborhoods develop (the UNC “North Campus” is in our watershed) the ground becomes more “impervious”. That means we get more water from farther away flowing into and through our “system”.

Right now we have the first real equilibrium in the lake since it was restored. If the anticipated rain from tropical storms and hurricanes dumps a lot of water in the lake, that does not necessarily imply that we will have contamination, but we will probably get a lot of mud, silt, and debris. If there is any reason to suspect contamination, we will either conduct a test or request OWASA to do that, depending on the suspected source.

I am considering recommending that we extend our annual testing from 3 (Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day) to 5, with an additional test a month before Memorial Day and one a month after Labor Day. We do not staff the lake park then, but a lot of people use the lake during those months. I would lke to hear from others about this. There is a nominal expense to the LFA in addition to the volunteer effort required to collect the samples and get them analyzed.

Chuck Henage
919-967-4656 Home
919-967-6965 Office
919-819-5483 Mobile
chenagemht@aol.com