Laserfiche WebLink
, � <br /> file:///P�/pern�it/PERM1"(�%20URi V�/DlS'I'RICf'0i620TECHNICIAN/Rule%...ule%2UF_Comments/Comments°/a2(hegarding%?ODraft%20Rule%20F.hmi <br /> From: Mike Molitor [mikemolitor@msn.com] <br /> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:26 PM <br /> To: James Wisker <br /> Subject: Comments regarding Draft Rule F <br /> I would like to state my objections to the proposed Draft Rufe F, for the fallowing reasons: <br /> 1) While vegetative pfantings may work in some situations for erosion control, especially in <br /> smaller water bodies with less wave action, Lake Minnetonka is subject to use by very large <br /> boats, that create very large wakes (commonly in excess of 3 feet). Rip-rap sharelines are <br /> aften the only type of effective erosion pratection from these of waves. The repeated abuse <br /> From these wakes will destroy vegetative type shorelines. As a result, the move to <br /> �egetative shorelines will likely have the oppasite effect of what is intended - more erosion <br /> rather than less. <br /> As a result, this rule should be more cansiderate of these conditions on high traffi� <br /> waterways with large boats, such as Lake Minnetonka. <br /> 2) The cost of any type of shoreline changes will be borne entirely by the shoreline property <br /> owners, while the source of the erosion (large boats, aften not owned by those with <br /> shoreline property) are not responsible for the damage they create. <br /> As a result, rather than putting the entire burden of erosion control on the shoreline owners, <br /> a difFerent rule approach should be developed that limits the source of the erosian, namely <br /> large boats. This will result in a more fair burden of the costs of erosion reduction. <br /> Thank you, <br /> Mike Molitor <br /> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protectian. Siqn up now. <br /> fc(e:///P�/pern�it/PERMIT%20DRIVEtDISTRICT%2Q7"ECHNI...mments/Comments%24regardino/a2�Draft%ZORuIc%20F.htm[1/271201Q9:23;54 AM] <br />