2011-09-22_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

807 obvious (e.g. jet ski model, not necessarily related to propellers and their movement), but that the model 808 used was based on a model dispersed in a lab; and the translation based on poly dispersed numbers, all 809 very technical considerations. After nine (9) years of work by those researchers, Mr. Bester opined that 810 they still could not accurately predict; but that they had used completely different sciences and test 811 applications in their research. 812 813 Mr. Bester opined that, based on a quote directly from that Beachler and Hill 2003 study, the biggest 814 impact appeared to be the speed of boats. Mr. Bester suggested that all experienced boaters were aware 815 that a boat speed of between 8 -10 mph would have the greatest impact on the bottom of a lake, as 816 indicated by the graphs used by FOR for bottom sediment; and further suggested that this could serve as a 817 great educational opportunity for the GLWMO for its residents. Mr. Bester provided additional examples 818 of horsepower, propeller design and location, and their individual impacts to lake bottom sediment. 819 820 Mr. Bester asked that the GLWMO Board and its paid consultants be cautious in its interpretations and 821 not simply cite worst case scenarios beyond the normal realm of most recreational lake uses. Mr. Bester 822 asked that the GLWMO Board not resort to orchestrating interpretations, opining that the Yousef study 823 done in 1980 was a good example of looking at an issue from one perspective rather than as a whole. 824 825 In conclusion, Mr. Bester advised that he had no disagreement in the FOR Report (page 10 of 14) that 826 motor boat activity impacted lake water quality; however, he suggested that since it was a pretty big 827 statement, care was needed in making absolute conclusions. 828 829 Mr. Bester cited several additional studies related to water quality: Green Valley Lake in IA; a case in FL; 830 a Maryland study, and others; and opined that he was not convinced that enough evidence was introduced 831 to support a "No Boat," "No Wake Zone;" and felt that the evidence supported quite the obvious from his 832 observations. 833 834 Edward Roberts, Lake Owasso Resident (Roseville) 835 Based on his review of the FOR memorandum, Mr. Roberts stated the following: 836 • Page%, point C 837 In reviewing the "No Wake" study, it failed to complete the review of the Roseville City Ordinance, 838 other than by reference and thus misrepresented that ordinance 839 • Errors were made in summarizing the comments provided and identified with numbers; noting that in 840 one instance addressing an individual's comments, part of another person's comment had been 841 incorporated in that response; and questioned the validity of those comments that were actually in 842 favor or opposed to a "No Wake Zone." 843 • Page 2, point 8 844 Not complete with references in the Plan document; additional references were not captured, such as 845 in the Executive Summary 846 847 Chair Eckman summarized the public comments as follows: multiple issues around the interpretation of 848 reports on the effect of motorized recreation on sediments and subsequent phosphorus release; and 849 specific technical errors in FOR comment responses. 850 851 At the request of Chair Eckman for EOR's response to the studies referenced, Mr. Conrad advised that, 852 other than adjusting the characterization of references made by Mr. Roberts, FOR stood by its report as it 853 stands. 854 855 Ms. Correll concurred; advising that, during the "cut and paste" process, there probably were some 856 technical errors in responses to comments; however, she noted that some of the comments were split 857 intentionally. 17