Laserfiche WebLink
memo <br />9of14 <br />Table 5. Number of Individual Comments made under each Main Comment <br />Main Comment <br /># of Individual Comments Made <br />on this Particular Issue <br />1. <br />Monitoring Protocol <br />1 <br />2. <br />Scientific Evidence Demonstrating Impacts of Motorized Watercraft <br />18 <br />3. <br />Findings of UAA and Address Other Sources First <br />28 <br />4. <br />Why Emily and Bennett of Poor Water Quality <br />5 <br />5. <br />Safety Concerns of No -Wake Zone <br />10 <br />6. <br />Impact on Property Values <br />12 <br />7. <br />Enforcement of No -Wake Zone <br />2 <br />8. <br />Impacts to Recreational Value <br />22 <br />E. Response to Summary of Comments <br />The following is a response to the eight main comments received on the Implementation Activity to <br />evaluate options to address internal loading in Lake Owasso by protecting the shallow portions of the <br />lake. <br />Is there a monitoring protocol for measuring phosphorus release from sediment due to <br />motorized watercraft? <br />A review of the literature found two types of monitoring protocol to measure the impacts of <br />motor boat activity on lake sediment phosphorus release. Also included is a monitoring protocol <br />for assessing impact of motor boat activity on aquatic plant growth and abundance (see references <br />below). These protocols, along with local expertise, could be used by the GLWMO in the event <br />that it decides to conduct the Implementation Activity in question. <br />Beachler and Hill 2003 — Buoys were placed 6 feet apart along a 20 meter course to guide boat <br />activity. Fluid velocity measurements were made with a Somek Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter <br />(ADV) mounted horizontally 10 cm above the lake bed. Turbidity measurements were made with <br />a Downing & Associates Optical Backscatter Sensor (OBS -3) mounted 2.5 cm above the lake <br />bed. <br />Yousef et al. 1980 — Water samples were collected in the morning before motor boat activity <br />began and immediately following motor boat activity from water depths of 0.5 m from the surface <br />and 0.5 m from the bottom and composited prior to analysis of phosphorus, chlorophyll and <br />turbidity <br />Asplund and Cook 1997 — Four enclosures were built in two areas, characterized by light and <br />heavy macrophyte growth, in water depths of 3 feet near high boat traffic areas. The enclosures <br />were of two types, solid plastic (to exclude sediment resuspension from nearby areas) and plastic <br />meshing as a control. Water quality and plant growth were measure weekly in each enclosure and <br />at a station away from the enclosures towards the middle of the lake. <br />2. What scientific evidence exists demonstrating that motorized watercraft compromises water <br />quality? <br />A large body of literature exists on the effects of motor boat activity on a wide -range of lake <br />variables, such as aquatic plant growth, shoreline erosion, and wildlife habitat. Several literature <br />Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. <br />651 Hale Ave N, Oakdale, MN 55128 p: 651.770.8448 f: 651.770.2552 www.eorinc.com <br />