2011-09-22_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Master This Comment Date Who Made Comment List # Tables # We are a large family and continually use the lake for boating and fishing. I understand that the GLWMO has come up with 12 other methods of improving water clarity in Lake Owasso — all of which will not restrict boating. This I applaud and support. However I am vehemently opposed to the non - boating clause and ask you to remove it from the proposal. I also understand that the fundamental reason for this clause is the phosphorus in the sediment that gets stirred up by boats. The Lake Owasso Association has had Barr Engineering report on this and they clearly indicate that the Central Park wetlands is the source and it drains into Lake Owasso. So why isn't the effort being directed at the source of the problem? I am requesting that the GLWMO revise the proposal to remove the no- boating clause and replace it with a study of the Central Park wetlands and proposed solutions to reduce the Phosphorus levels there. Lastly — I want to bring to your attention that if this clause passes — home values will plummet and tax revenue will do likewise. Which affects everyone in Roseville and Shoreview in the forms of less dollars for roads, schools, public safety etc... EVERYONE loses. So please keep doing what you've been doing— protecting the waters in our area —but be judicious and sensible in your decisions. 67 57 1 am a regular user of lake Owasso for recreational boating. I have been boating on the lake since 1967. The boating culture on lake Owasso runs deep. I remember the hot August 23, 2011 Nancy Krona and Mike summer days when the public beach looked like a mall parking lot on black Friday, there were boats lined up from the launch to the swimming area. The lake supports a wide Lucas variety of boating activities from sailing to cannoeing, from personal water craft to inboard water ski enthusiasts. I'm concerned about the proposal to "test the impacts of establishing a no boating area or no -wake zone on certain portions of the lake (e.g. shallow areas) for a defined time period; the goal being to make it a permanent ordinance if the results are positive." There are many factors that contribute to the phosphorus levels on the lake as pointed out by the Barr study: Annual water and phosphorus budgets were developed, based on monitoring from 2007 and 2008, that identified the following phosphorus sources to the lake: watershed runoff, internal loading from ponds and wetlands within the watershed, direct precipitation, groundwater, and internal loading from curly -leaf pondweed, wind mixing, rough fish activity, and sediment release. Loads from motorboat activity is also a likely phosphorus source but was not quantified. My concern is that the no -wake study would not be able to control the other sources of phosphorus loads and could return a false positive; the study shows reduction of phosphorus which may be a result of some other factor. It would be valuable to understand the impact boating has on the phosphorus levels such that the impact can be prioritized correctly relative to the other phosphorus sources. Can the proposal be re- written as follows? ...test the impacts of establishing a no boating area or no -wake zone on certain portions of the lake (e.g. shallow areas) for a defined time period; the goal being to correctly prioritize phosphorus loading due to motorboat traffic. It is interesting to note that "phosphorus is released from the sediments under anoxic conditions that occur when the lake stratifies and oxygen is depleted from the lower layer." htto: / /www.dnr. state. wi.us /or¢ /water /fho /oaoers /alum brochure.odf. This happens in lake Owasso as pointed out by the Barr study "The deep parts of the lake thermally stratify during the growing season, which leads to low oxygen concentrations in the bottom waters and internal phosphorus release from the sediments." It seems to me that the no -wake shallow areas would have little impact on phosphorus levels since the anoxic conditions would not be present in the shallow areas. I would like to see the following added to the plan. • A more detailed study of how the high levels of phosphorus in ponds and wetlands 'upstream' of Owasso impact the phosphorus levels in the lake. • How ditch 19 impacts the phosphorus levels. • The phosphorus levels in 3 central park ponds /wetlands • Consider barley straw and /or alum treatment of lake Owasso I think we can improve the lake water quality without impacting the lakes current use profile. Thank for your service in GLWMO and your consideration of my comments. I hope we can have clean water and still be able to use it. 68 58 1 am writing to express my strong disagreement with the proposed no boating /no wake zone on Lake Owasso found in GLWMO 2011 Watershed Management Plan, Lake August 24, 2011 Douglas S. Wolgamot, Owasso Implementation Activity 1.9.f, pg. 114. This proposal addresses a single concern and clearly ignores all other interests. For example, boater and skier safety, Winthrop & Weinstine, recreational enjoyment, homeowner's property values, and property tax revenues to the county and city must be considered when analyzing such a radical measure. P.A. Grass Lake Watershed Management Organization — 2011 Watershed Management Plan Response to Comments: 60 -dav review period 9/19/2011 Page 8