07-20-1992 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.'.•t;>c- '"V '• ’W' .M, m '•■ f •.•.■■•' ' :v V- ';. «?IS ■■ >+'Memo July 15, 1992 Page 2 7^ 1^ The breakdown of the foam into individual beads apparently occurs either through ice action in the spring or wildlife activities such as geese, ducks and muskrats which like to chew on the styrofoam. The MPCA end the DNR have not concluded that ingestion of the beads a'^d subsequent elimination causes any problems for the wildlife. To remedy the problem, a number of choices might include: Replace the bead styrofoam with some other form of flotation. Coat or encase the styrofoam blocks in a protective covering which eliminates their introduction to the water. This might include some sort of protective spray coating, placement of the blocks within some type of bin or barrel structure, or even reuse of the existing styrofoam in bead or chunk form within some watertight barrel or case. The following comments from various parties, including Orono marina operators, are offered for Planning Commission's consideration; There are various grades of bead styrofoam, and use of the higher grades might reduce the magnitude of the problem. Replacement of an entire marina dockage system is an expensive proposition, and the January 1995 ".imeframe proposed is not realistic for the two marinas (Lakeside and Minnetonka Boat Works) which have recently constructed new docks supported by bead styrofoam. The 3 year phase-out is unrealistic, in that at the time a dock owner chooses to replace the flotation, entire dock sections must be done at once due to the high probability that any replacement product will have different flotation characteristics (the docks will have hills and valleys) As currently drafted, all private and commercial docks would be subject to the ordinance. Various parties have suggested that in addition to docks, the ban should also include any other floating structures such as swim platforms, walkways, etc. * •-k The 3 year phase—out language was constructed such that^ the City does not need to do an inventory up front. Rather, at any time after each incremental deadline a dock was found to exceed the maximum allowable proportion of styrofoam bead flotation, such dock would not be in compliance. In the event that a dock had multiple fingers or slips, for instance say 6 fingers, it would be reasonable to expect that 2 of the 6 fingers would be replaced each year, rather than 1/3 of each finger each year. (This question came up at a Lake Use Committee meeting.) Wm zjsm*