2011-09-22_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

101 Thank you for your efforts with this activity. Please let me know how I can assist as we move 102 this process forward. 103 104 Very best regards, 105 Len Ferrington" 106 107 In his verbal conclusion, Mr. Ferrington opined that the GLWMO was setting a fine example for other 108 WMO's; and thanked the GLWMO Board for its efforts; and encouraged them as they continued to move 109 forward. I10 111 Mr. Petersen suggested that Mr. Ferrington provide his other comments at this time, noting that the 112 meeting schedule was not flexible and may conflict with Mr. Ferrington's schedule and plan to return. 113 114 Member Steve Barrett arrived at this time, approximately 3:10 p.m. 115 116 While not having his written notes for these next comments, Mr. Ferrington advised that his basic intent 117 was to address one issue that had come up at last month's GLWMO Board meeting, specifically to 118 include a proposed option for a "No Wake" in the Third Generation Water Management Plan. 119 120 Mr. Ferrington noted that it was not his intent to make an issue of no phosphorus in the dynamics of Lake 121 Owasso; and addressed Option 14 in the 2009 Owasso Lake UAA BARR Report that he had previously 122 endorsed. However, Mr. Ferrington noted that phosphorus management strategies had advanced since 123 that report. Mr. Ferrington noted that, based on the identified capital improvements proposed within the 124 Draft 3`d Generation Plan, they would take a period of time to achieve and require additional, and often, 125 significant funding; and if achieved would require some time to assess their effectiveness. In simple 126 forecasting, Mr. Ferrington opined that it would require up to two (2) years to accomplish capital 127 improvements of any significant nature, followed by an additional two (2) years to assess their 128 effectiveness. Mr. Ferrington noted that Option 14 included the possibility of additions to sediment of 129 alum to cut down on re- suspension of phosphorus from lake sediments. This process has been applied 130 with reasonable success to other metropolitan area lakes, and suggested that such a strategy could be the 131 second level for Lake Owasso. Mr. Ferrington noted that with planning for its cost, application, and 132 subsequent analysis of its effectiveness sequentially would take a minimum of 5 -7 years. 133 134 Another option and achievable best management practice (BMP) suggested by Mr. Ferrington was to 135 attempt whole lake eradication of Curly Leaf Pond Weed and control of Eurasian Milfoil: a 3 -4 year 136 program, followed by 2 -3 years for analysis, recognizing that that full assessment and analysis could 137 realistically take 5 years; and if done sequentially, that longer period would probably allow for a more 138 realistic and scientific approach for assessing its effectiveness. 139 140 Mr. Ferrington noted that, with either option, it would require a long time to achieve the objectives of 141 Option 14 as recommended in the UAA. 142 143 Mr. Ferrington observed that, given the nature and quantity of comments to the DRAFT Third Generation 144 Water Management Plan, and the proposed "No Wake" suggestion, there existed some obvious and 145 passionate, as well as well- thought out responses to the DRAFT Plan. From a practical standpoint, Mr. 146 Ferrington opined that the "No Wake" option ranked among the four (4) options that could be tried; and 147 in many respects, further opined that such an option was the least tested and most controversial one, and 148 likely to yield the least results for phosphorus suspension. 149 150 Mr. Ferrington suggested that the GLWMO Board consider pursuit of other options and perform an after - 151 the -fact assessment to measure their effectiveness before moving on to another strategy. However, Mr.