|
Strategy for
Protecting Caddo Lake |
|
Concerns Identified at February 3rd Meeting and
Prioritized at April 26th Meeting |
|
May 2, 2006 |
|
|
|
Votes by
Stakeholder Interest |
|
ISSUE OF CONCERN |
TOTAL VOTES |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Physical
Concerns (38 votes) |
|
Trash |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Illegal dumping |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obstructions in boat lanes |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Destabilized stream banks |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Invasive plants |
13 |
|
5 |
|
3 |
1 |
|
|
2 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
Grass Carp Feasability Study |
9 |
2 |
1 |
|
2 |
1 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
Economic
Concerns in Upper Watershed (re: nutrient controls?) |
13 |
9 |
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
Hydrological
Concerns (12 votes) |
|
Control
of Caddo Lake levels [1] |
6 |
|
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
Ecosystem flows |
3 |
|
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Groundwater-Surface Water
interaction |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flood protection and mapping |
2 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
Drought |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity
of Big Cypress Creek to handle releases from Lake O’the Pines |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water
Quality Concerns (36 votes) |
|
Low DO |
3 |
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decomposing vegetation |
4 |
|
2 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Nutrients |
5 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
Low pH |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
Metals in sediment |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mercury in fish tissue |
4 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
Bacteria |
7 |
|
|
1 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excessive sedimentation |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water
quality standards |
8 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
|
Health and
economic impacts of contaminants |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL- ALL ISSUES |
86 |
13 |
16 |
6 |
19 |
8 |
0 |
2 |
10 |
9 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
NOTES |
|
|
(1)
Lost one dot (vote) on "Control of Caddo Lake Levels" in transit
from Karnack to Austin. Total was 6. |
|
|
(2) Some attendees did not vote
(e.g., at least one reporter) and some left before the voting. |
|
|
(3) As a
general rule, state and federal agencies, and universities located outside
the watershed, did not vote. The exception was for state and federal agency
employees who lived in the watershed and identified and voted one of the ten
interest areas (i.e, NOT their agency interest). |
|
|
|
(4)
"Grass Carp Feasibility Study" and "Economic Concerns of Upper
Watershed" were added to list at April 26 meeting. The economic concerns
appeared to be linked to possible upper watershed controls for aquatic plants
in the lake. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|