Laserfiche WebLink
LMCD Board of Directors December 4, 1991 <br />Hurr asked how the concept would be funded. Reese said the <br />City of Mound has asked the same question when giving concept <br />approval. Markus suggested a user fee for that type of program. <br />Foster presented the DNR position on the Draft Concept which <br />was introduced at the MN Lake Management Federation (MLMF) <br />Exotics Steering Committee meeting of 11/23/91. The DMR listed 11 <br />issues and their position on each They cannot support: <br />1) Closing accesses on infested or uninfested water bodies. <br />2) Fees at public water accesses for EWM inspection, but <br />are open to other revenue sources to support them, such <br />as the watercraft surcharge. <br />3) Restricting transport of water from water bodies due to <br />logistics prohibiting enforcability and effectiveness. <br />Boswinkel stated the people who will be responsible for <br />allowing Zebra Mussel into the Lake will be everyone who owns a <br />boat and puts it in the Lake and out. An educational plan that <br />stresses the potential disaster is necessary. Boswinkel believes <br />people who have boats, people who sell boats, and people who <br />service the boating public will be greatly affected by this <br />nuisance and it will affect their livelihood. <br />Penn asked about a central committee working on the problem. <br />Reese said that Gary Montz, DNR, is responsible for the Zebra <br />Hussel on a state-wide basis. The LMCD’s responsibility is Lake <br />Minnetonka. The Draft Concept will not work on 10.000 lakes, <br />Reese added. <br />Penn responded that the LMCD should be working with the DNR <br />and support them as much as possible. <br />Hurr stated that a greater concern than the effect of Zebra <br />Mussels on boat usage is the effect on water intakes. <br />LeFevere cautioned about proceeding with the items which <br />would be unlawful or without DNR approval. If the DNR were to <br />litigate any action it would be costly and time consuming, <br />delaying any plan. Some of the seven items would require a great <br />deal of staff time to implement. They would be worthless to <br />prepare without working with the DNR. <br />Boswinkel suggested Board members take Reese’s outline and <br />convert it to their own words. There has not been enough time to <br />think it through and it requires the support of everyone in the <br />State of Minnesota. <br />Reese / said he is not opposed to working with the DNR. <br />Rascop suggested having the LMCD attorney draft an ordinance. <br />Penn asked for a review by LeFevere of the items which would <br />raise legal issues. Hurr mentioned that even if the cities <br />agreed, Hennepin County would not allow such controls at their <br />Cochran offered a Resolution as a substitute for the Zebra <br />Mussel pio action plan introduced by Reese. The Resolution <br />incorporates a Eurasian water milfoil containment program, also <br />recognised as a priority for State action.