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.