Laserfiche WebLink
To: GLWMO Board and Staff <br />From: Karen Chandler <br />Subject: Discussion Topics for May 4"'Board Meeting <br />Date: Apri126, 2000 <br />Paae: 4 <br />observed that the Secchi disc readings are better than we would expect, given the total phosphorus <br />concentrations in the lake. We believe this may be due to aquatic plant growth in the lakes, brought about <br />by lower water levels in the past few years. The plants tie up some of the phosphorus that would otherwise <br />go to algae growth and they serve as substrate for attached algae, which consume nutrients that would <br />otherwise contribute to increased algal abundance and decreased transparencies. This places aquatic plants <br />in a different context than previously considered. <br />Questions for the Board: <br />] . Should the plan recommend alum treatment when the earlier studies did not find that to be cost <br />effective? Is alum treatment a prudent activity given the current good water quality? <br />2. Based on the possible importance of aquatic plants in improving water clarity, should a policy be <br />added to the plan that discourages the cutring of aquatic plants (this will not be popular with the lake <br />associations)? <br />Schedule/Timeline <br />I will bring a revised schedule/timeline to the May 4t"Board meeting. At the March 23rd meeting, the <br />Board discussed holding two open house meetings in each city sometime during May. Because of <br />schedule slippage since that meeting, we will need to discuss in more detail when those meetings can be <br />held and what information should be presented. <br />Questions for the Board: <br />1. When should the open house meetings be held? <br />2. What message do we want to give and how do we want to present the message? <br />3. Who should present the information (GLWMO board members, staff, and/or Barr)? <br />