Laserfiche WebLink
wm •i ‘*iyfe- <br />*r I <br />fe-v <br />fm.: <br />:'V»,' ,. ■ N'. » ; V <br />S8fr- <br />. ' ■- <br />&>rMK <br />psaj- :■; <br />-'. rf*.‘ <br />U$¥0y <br />'KW: tii'v;-: <br />: :• 'V <br />ir <br />^yym- <br />'i W '•»;' 4t-^- V- <br />mm- <br />iffc'’: <br />ftei:-'i#"''M.y T' <br />•i.iCi'* c- '-V' <br />m\j: V <br />-•V” <br />mM <br />" M <br />LMCD Board of directors March 25, 1992 <br />tests with product. <br />(5 gals) to use as <br />r t <br />i t <br />data gat lie ring stage <br />b y the nature of the <br />residents about the <br />life. He wouId not <br />Wendy Jrowell, University ol Minnesota, has submitted an <br />estimate of $7,160 to do an aquatic plant inventory in St. Al­ <br />ban’s Bay. The cost of a SONAR application on St. Alban’s Bay as <br />an example, is between $20,000 and $25,000. The cost is expected <br />to be shared by the city. Bay lakeshore owners and LMCD. Dow <br />Elanco is not supporting individual lake <br />is providing DNR $5,000 worth of SONAR <br />determines. <br />Penn said the Task Force is still in <br />and not ready to make a proposal to the Board. <br />Foster said some residents of St. Louis Day and the City of <br />Deephaven are willing to contribute some treatment money. <br />Foster would like the District to consider the St. Louis Bay as a <br />test area this year. He acknowledged that there would not be <br />time for a scientific aquatic plant inventory, but it would <br />demonstrate the potential for cost sharing. SONAR has to be <br />applied shortly after ice out. He would not like to delay treat­ <br />ment . <br />Penn said he is concerned that, just <br />word "chemical", there will be concern by- <br />effect on the Lake, fishing and other plant <br />want to start treatment without the data and communication with <br />affected interested parties. <br />Howard Bennis. Deephaven City Council, said two parties <br />have been treating St. Louis Bay with 2,4-D. Bennis believes the <br />residents and the city would be willing to use SONAR in its <br />place. Penn said that if this could be arranged by the residents <br />through the DNR he would not object, but he would not support the <br />LMCD doing it. The District must be conservative and do it <br />scientifica11y. <br />Grathwol said he does not bel ieve the District would have <br />any basis for objecting fo the city and their residents using <br />SONAR at their expense. He would not endorse it on behalf of the <br />District. <br />The executive director said the purpose ol the program, <br />initiated by the District. is to find a bay in which to do an <br />evaluation of SONAR, it would then determine if it could be used <br />over all of Lake Minnetonka. The cost of treating the whole Lake <br />has been suggested to be $2 million. <br />Boswinkel wondered if there is some way the people on Crys­ <br />tal Bay could participate by shore treatment and keep track of <br />what happens. Penn responded that SONAR is not good lor spot <br />shore treatment. <br />Carlson spoke in favor of doing the complete study. If <br />there is the possibility of obtaining outside funding it is <br />important to have complete documentation. He said this is a good <br />year to do the preliminary study while the Lake is high and low <br />Milfoil growth is expected. <br />Foster said he is not <br />study. In his opinion the <br />proposal is an opportunity <br />through cooperation. <br />opposed to the complete scientific <br />.St. Louis Bay/City of Ueephaven/LMCD <br />to demonstrate that it can be done <br />- con tinued <br />ii..ic. di2«ta&v