2011-09-22_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Master This Comment Date Who Made Comment List # Tables # vs. what is released from the Lake that might already be in the Lake. 27 22 If a no -wake zone is proposed on Lake Owasso as a means to minimize sediment disturbance, then any and all anchoring should also be banned as dropping and raising August 15, 2011 John Ledy anchors disturbs sediment. Many fishing enthusiasts and pontoon users would object to this. 28 23 The Barr Engineering report from a few years back clearly indicates that Central Park is a source for high level phosphorus loading that drains into Lake Owasso. Why is this August 15, 2011 John Ledy not the top priority instead of a no wake zone? 29 24 A majority of watercraft activity on Lake Owasso is a form of family recreation. A no wake zone would impede on family activity. August 15, 2011 John Ledy 30 25 A no -wake zone would make it more difficult to effectively run the all- volunteer Courage Center program, which provides disabled individuals an opportunity to take part in a August 15, 2011 John Ledy challenging yet safe water experience. 31 26 Bass fishing people like to fish in all nooks and crannies in Lake Owasso, where they commonly travel rapidly from one fishing spot to another. A no wake zone would diminish August 15, 2011 John Ledy the value of Lake Owasso for Bass fishing enthusiasts. 35 27 There are several erroneous conclusions arrived at in the draft, such as specifying that waterskiing is responsible for sediment disturbance and associated phosphorus release August 16, 2011 Jane Ullmann (p.9 and p.132). If the GLWMO really feels that watercraft are responsible for the degrading water quality, why specify waterskiiing? What about wakeboarding (which creates much larger wakes), inner tubing, and jet- skiing? 36 28 The reference to "educating the Lake Owasso Association" on using motorized watercraft on the impacts of operating motorized watercraft on water quality" (p. 115) again August 16, 2011 Jane Ullmann assumes that boat wakes are responsible for decreasing water quality. As a results of these faulty assumptions, the proposal to initiate a no -wake zone on Lake Owasso is made. 37 29 There are several reasons why the no -wake zone proposal does not make sense: August 16, 2011 Jane Ullmann First, a few practical reasons: 1. A no -wake zone will end up concentrating boats into a smaller area. This increases safely concerns. And how would this be enforced? I think our sheriff patrolling the lake at large is more important than guarding an invisible entrance to a "no- wake" area. What about all the families who own boats in the proposed no -wake zone? Can they really not run their boats in front of their own homes? 2. Did you know that fishing anchors churn up a lot of bottom sediment? What will be the consequences to anglers? Should fishing be banned? 3. Lake Owasso has long been known for being a popular recreational lake. Families have enjoyed boating and fishing on Lake Owasso for many years. A no -wake zone will affect the public's ability to enjoy the entire lake. There already is a no -wake zone 150 ft from the shoreline. Lake Owasso isn't that big. A larger no -wake zone would be stifling. 4.The Courage Center has a program whereby disabled persons can enjoy waterskiing with specially designed adaptive equipment. A no -wake zone may eliminate that program if it results in decreased safely for those skiers due to higher concentration of boats in a smaller area. 38 30 Second, a little science and observation: August 16, 2011 Jane Ullmann 1. Studies show that improperly filtered run -off (NOT boat traffic) is the greatest contributor to phosphorus loading. RUN -OFF- -lawn fertilizers, improperly maintained storm sewers, drainage from Central Park, etc. Putting more energy on controlling unfiltered RUN -OFF and maintaining the storm sewers will produce the greatest results. 2. Studies have implicated carp in water clarity issues. Carp are bottom feeders, and stir up a lot of sediment. 3. There are other lakes in the area (Lake Emily and Lake Bennett) that have poor water clarity. There is no boat traffic on those lakes. Many rural lakes near farms have poor water clarity. RUN -OFF is the most likely cause. 39 31 In summary, the notion that the water quality on Lake Owasso will improve as a result of mandating a no -wake zone is flawed. These conclusions are based on ignorance, and August 16, 2011 Jane Ullmann should not have been published as a public document. Whoever suggested the no -wake zone proposal should either become more familiar with current studies and research, Grass Lake Watershed Management Organization — 2011 Watershed Management Plan Response to Comments: 60 -dav review period 9/19/2011 Page 3