1997-05-01_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

rules is an option. Choice of regulations and weed control depends on ~~-hat is desired: channels.' s~+imming'' (JSch). Erosion would increase with a I50' buffer. Response is not linear and varies with lake level. DNR rules affect Lakeshore management of riparian and in-lake vegetation (EM). Also see 6. Boats cannot go through weeds closer than I50' from shore. Traffic will disrupt and cut up plant beds at any speed. It is legal to boat through water lilies; species on Owasso are not protected. However, removal of lilies by mechanical harvest or herbicide (less effective) requires a permit. With regard to a potential 2nd slalom in the SW end, opposition likely reflects nearby owners' preference, but higher traffic in shallow areas would degrade water qualit}' (DZ). Turbidity. sediment resuspension, nutrient release, and plant fragmentation would also increase (JSch). "Swimmable water" and fishing are MPCA goals for Owasso; this defines the desired maximum algae level. Increased turbidit}' and algae would detract from this qualit}' goal. A11 potential sources should. be addressed. If we accept the fact that boating causes sediment resuspension, destroys vegetation and releases P, this affects the MPCA goal. Two pertinent issues are, (i) what is the cost to maintain every recreational use? and (ii) how fast will the lake change? The task force could utilize Asplund's results (cited in 3) and. restrict use based on morphometry (JSch). The lake Hill benefit if (i) the SW end is not heavily used, (ii) there is additional control of the watershed, and (iii) herbicide treatment is reduced. This is a "total package", "pie-in-the-sk}~" goal and probabl}' not realistic. It is difficult to recommend practices to reduce the nutrient load if other factors are not addressed, but it is a political problem (JSch). if some items are not addressed. there is an environmental cost. Improvement takes time and attention to all factors, but we must start somewhere (DZ). Extensive herbicide use is likely worse for Owasso than is SW-end boating, but the impact of boating has not been well studied. The % contribution of boating to internal P load is unknown (JSch). The effect of increased weeds on propert}' Value is hard to predict since buyer's desires var)• (DZ, JSch). 1 0. is there an official L.al:e Owasso map that describes lake bottom composition and obstructions or hazards [c, navigation? We alread}• have the 1981 DNR map, available from the MN Bookstore. The older DNR map ma}' have more bottom composition information. A "shoal waters map" contains bottom information (DZ). 1 1 . if you are a~~are of am materials that would be helpful to the Task Force in dc~ eloping its recommendation. please le[ us know. These materials were distributed to the LOTF: Ramse}' Lake Management program - 1994 epilimnetic means and Carlson TS1 indices for count}' lakes (Noonan] "A Guide to Aquatic Plants -Identification and Management", MN DNR (Zapetillo) "Aquascaping - a Guide to Shoreline Landscaping", CJ Dindorf, Hennepin Consen~ation Dist.. 1993 (Zappetillo) Overlay of Lake Owasso maps showing submerged, emergent, and floating vegetation (hatches) and 150' proposed no-wake buffer zone (shaded) (Egli) Lake Owasso Wake Setbacks -map showing properties to which letter publicizing 1/24 public input meeting will be sent (North). Gary Wood thanked for the panel for an informative discussion and informed them of the ..public input meeting on 1/29/97. 3. Confirm January 1997 meeting dates. Jan. 8 -planning for public input meeting; set agenda, reach some preliminary consensus. Decide on guests/experts to invite for 1/29, e.g. Mitch Converse, Lt. Bergeron, other lake association representatives (e.g. Bill Costello, Lake Josephine). Decide on rules for public participation. 4