Laserfiche WebLink
LMCU UOAKO OF DIKIiCTOKS <br />•( <br />t- i <br />sa <br />• N <br />* .1 <br />*f _yl <br />' ^ <br />> 1i <br />1 <br />Fcl)ruarv 24. <br />The cxeciilive director saiil part of tlie pi'ol>leiii in reaching <br />a conclusion is that there are many different ideas. I'he DNK has <br />consensus to move on the test program on a 4 year basis. The <br />Corps ol Fn.eineers and other groups say 4 years is a minimum. <br />Th ere is a I s o a n e e d t o k n o \v what the e f f e c * of r e mo v i n e <br />significant are.as of milfoil and (possibly native platits will have <br />on fish. N'ew information on Libbs Lake's flui'idorie treatment in <br />1991 show's tliat in 1992 a substantial re-growth of milfoil oc­ <br />curred. Tlie cause of this regrowth is being assessed. Fluridcne <br />treatment in three lakes DNR tested in 1992 also raised questions <br />on the treatment effectiveness on milfoil and possible damaee to <br />native plants. <br />The DNR received full support from the scientific commun ly <br />to proceed with the 4 year |)lan. There is concern about the t ine <br />it will ta'<e . <br />The r,.ecutive director said Dr. Neuman. University of Minne­ <br />sota. and 5. cientists from Vermont, are working on bioloaical <br />controls, namely the weevi I . There is a new grant ci>ming to <br />continue the University of Minnesota study. The District has <br />been asked to help with funding that grant. <br />Hurr said she would not want to put any money into the <br />biological study unless theie is assurance of a return. <br />Grathwol said there is a growing impatience among the public <br />with inaction on fimling long term cures for control line milfoil. <br />The con..,.^ he hears is why the District spends money for har­ <br />vesting the use of a chemical will do the job. This reac­ <br />tion goes along with the people not wanting adilitional taxing. <br />Babcock iesponded that, /is of now. harvesting is the only viable <br />option. The executive director said the milfoil budget will I.e <br />presented at the March Board meeting. <br />Fos'er said the District must address the concerns of the <br />fishing community who contend milfoil should not be chemically <br />treated. The executive director said that the DNR does allow b> <br />permit limited chemical control. <br />Reese said it is his opinion there is nothing we can do to <br />control what is going to hapi>en. The LMCD is not structured and <br />financed to run a major milfoil control effort. The l.MCD should <br />be an observer of the efforts of others and not a |>a r t i c i (lan t . <br />Babcock said the focus should be on what can be done f<»r <br />Lake Minnetonka. He believes t'le Board’s time would be better <br />spent on Lake Minnetonka rather than s t a t e-wid e p i n g r a m s. It <br />appears to him that the activity is ii. :v'ing on a state-wide level. <br />Johnstone observed th.it we do not have very much to he I f» the <br />scientific community. LMCD should be a voice to be heard on <br />public policy and work to keep Lake Minnetonka clean for lecrea- <br />tiona1 use . <br />Babcock added the LMCD funds should be used for the local <br />benefit. He mentioned the efforts being considered to keep Zebra <br />Mussel from entering the St. Croi.x River and resultant compcti- <br />t i on f o I i‘ u 'ids . <br />I < t <br />i <br />■Mill