2011-09-22_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

908 regulating motorized use as being a priority action for improving water quality in Lake Owasso; 909 and 910 911 WHEREAS, there is currently a "No Wake" restriction within 150 feet of the lake shore on Lake 912 Owasso, covering a portion of the shallow part of the lake where sediments could be re- 913 suspended: 914 915 THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 916 The GLWMO Board has determined that its interest in protecting the water quality of lakes 917 within its jurisdiction can be balanced with the protection of recreational resources of the lakes by 918 pursuing better enforcement of existing wake and boating regulations, and by engaging the public 919 in educational discussions about the interactions of recreational lake uses and water quality. 920 921 The GLWMO Board revises its DRAFT Third Generation Water Management Plan as follows: 922 1) Remove Implementation Activity 1.9.f — implementation activity proposing establishing 923 a "No Wake Zone" for study purposes for Lake Owasso; and 924 2) Change Implementation Activity 1.2.b to read: "Work with member communities to 925 develop options for protecting shallow areas of sensitive lakes, and promote enforcement 926 of and education about existing wake and boating regulations on all watershed lakes." 927 NOTE: Changes shall be made consistent throughout the DRAFT Plan including Page 15 928 of the Executive Summary and Implementation Table 33. 929 930 Member Barrett sought Member Miller's rationale for his recommendation to not proceed with the "No- 931 wake" study, as proposed in the FOR memorandum and their recommendation. 932 933 Member Miller opined that Mr. Ferrington had made a valid point at the start of tonight's meeting during 934 public comments, noting that this item was not listed as a high priority in the BARR UAA Report; and 935 even if the Board were to follow the progression proposed in the UAA, it would take a potential of ten 936 (10) years to complete and analyze such a study. In addition to that point, Member Miller opined that, as 937 noted at the previous GLWMO Board meeting, the recreational use of a lake needed to be taken into 938 account in addition to science; further opining that the science itself appeared to be definitely debatable. 939 If the recommendation from one of those reports was taken for potential turbulence problems in eight feet 940 (8') of water, Member Miller noted that this could potentially affect 60% of Lake Owasso; opining that 941 this was a large segment of the lake to close down to common motorized recreational uses. 942 943 Member Westerberg opined that, if the study was conducted within a defined period of time, it would 944 certainly help to prioritize that component of phosphorus input; and questioned how that could be a 945 problem. Member Westerberg questioned whether or not the GLWMO Board should continue with the 946 FOR recommendation; opining that by postponing it another ten (10) years, a major component was 947 missing for addressing internal loading; and further opined that such a result was hardly defensible. 948 949 In response, Member Miller opined that, even if a study were done and a recommendation made, the 950 GLWMO Board may not have any standing to enforce any sort of ordinance; and it would be dependent 951 on the assumption that the member cities would be willing to enact and enforce such an ordinance. 952 Member Miller questioned if this proposal resulted in a dead end, there was little reason for the GLWMO 953 Board to focus attention, resources, and energy on it. 954 955 Member Westerberg opined that either the Board follow the science or run from it; and stated that he was 956 not in favor of running from it, citing the example of global warming problems that politicians were 957 running from; and further opinion that running would be a dereliction of the GLWMO Board's duties. 958 Member Westerberg questioned the harm in conducting a study, suggesting that Mr. Ferrington could lut