Saratoga Lake Watershed Advisory Committee

Meeting Notes 11/1/01

1.      Dean Long introduced the proposed format of the Executive Summary.  The consensus was that is was an appropriate, well-designed format for the final draft.

2.      Dean summarized a recent meeting of the Saratoga Lake Public Safety committee.  Some of the issued discussed at the meeting were:

-         Congestion between the State Boat Launch and Route 9p Bridge.  **It was noted that recreation strategies in the Watershed Plan addresses that issue.
-         An increase of 1000+ boats can be expected next year
-         The Sheriff reported on safety, including the number of tickets and warnings that were made.
-         The next safety committee meeting is November 28 to discuss winter recreational use of Saratoga Lake; at that point a recommendation will be made to Spa State Park on whether or not snowmobiles should be launched from the State Boat Launch.

3.      Dean discussed new information that is expected before the watershed report can be completed. 

-         Adirondack Research Service observed that the southern 100-acre milfoil bed appears to be under better control that the northern bed, and in both cases there appeared to be little damage to native species.
-         Results could be due to reasonable levels local control or perhaps it was just a dry year that impacted the milfoil.

4.      Dean discussed what the final report would look like the revised June report will be the background document.  From that document will be the executive summary.  There may be three executive summaries or 1 executive summary plus two support documents for the three target audiences (decision-makers, shoreline owners, and planning boards).

5.      Discussion of how to sell the document ensued.  So far there has been “selling” at the bi-monthly meetings, outreach to planning boards, and newsletters.  Planning boards have been an avenue due to their purported influence with Town Boards.  One planning board member mentioned the difficulties of having the Town in which he resides change the local regulations.  It was decided that presentations to Town Boards and the County Board of Supervisors might be necessary. 

6.      Discussion and support for ongoing implementation committee. 

7.      General discussions ensued about specific language of the recommendations.

8.      All recommendations should have an implementation strategy, costs and responsibilities. 

9.      Next steps: SLPID adopts the plan, follow up committee established. 

Questions:

Questions on lack of dock use regulation recommendation—after additional research it was found that long docks were generally a means for people with lake rights to access the water; the safety issue of parking can be addressed by town regulations; and if someone is using a private dock for commercial means, the town can step in under other authorities. 

Question on weed flow to shore-after some discussion, it couldn’t be established whether weeds floating to the shoreline are due to ineffective harvesting or chopping by boat propellers; a shoreline harvester was suggested.

Question on liquid SONAR—there was discussion on whether the delay of waiting for plants to “top out” was better than risking spring rains; it depends on how late the milfoil tops out, but the SONAR met Lynn & Joe’s expectations; the applicator reported disappointing results with the north end SONAR treatment; it was decided to keep the recommendation for the chemical comprising SONAR with additional study to learn more about dilutional impact.  Integrate flourindone into annual SLPID aquatic plant management strategy.  

Question on water supply and the wording of safe yield—first sentence of section 5 agreed to add disclaimer that purpose of the project is not to address what determines a safe yield.  DEC requires a safe yield for the taking and distribution of public waters. 

On pg. 8, second paragraph of “Overall Lake Management” needs to be clarified. 

On access and recreation—recommend that an agency or group take on responsibility for buoys; remove specifics on mph and times.

Lake Lonely Association coming out with own management plan.

Question on state boat launch—expansion of boat launch not possible at this time; improvements to site could be made if funding was available. Recommended that the toll keeper be moved to oversee boat activity; recommended that a permanent park ranger be available. 

It was also recommend that for each section a timeline for implementation be provided. 

An acknowledgement of participants be included

Specific state regulations should be highlighted.  “Provide assistance to towns to aid in complying with…”

Model marina standards should be recommended as part of this report.