My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-23-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
07-23-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2024 2:17:32 PM
Creation date
11/19/2024 2:14:31 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
303
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
use. That power is shared with the DNR. <br />The Metropolitan Access Committee obtains its authority over <br />setting policy for access points in the metropolitan area through <br />an interagency agreement between the DNR, Metropolitan Council <br />and the Department of Trade and Economic Development. That <br />Committee is not subject to LMCD review. It has independent <br />authority to implement its policies. <br />Again, Orono is in error. The LMCD clearly has jurisdiction <br />in each of these areas. It is unfortunate that the City chose <br />not to be better involved in the development of the Management <br />Program. <br />P <br />V, <br />Page 2, paragraph 3, b. "While implementation of those plans <br />will have an effect on the environment, an environmental plan is <br />needed now, not afterwards;" <br />RESPONSE; We have indeed analyzed the environmental <br />consequences of our actions, including increased use of the lake, <br />additional access points and creation of destinations. Within <br />the context of the entire Management Program, the conclusion is <br />that there are no significant environmental effects. <br />If the City of Orono has data to support their case, we <br />request that they provide it to the Advisory Committee. <br />r;- <br />\ <br />Page 2, paragraph 3, c. "The environmental question is not who <br />should have access or pay for it, but how many and what types of <br />watercraft are being or will be used, and how this affects the <br />RESPONSE: All of these issues were considered by the <br />subcommittees dealing with Lake Use and Lake Access. It is <br />unfortunate that the City of Orono did not better participate <br />since they would be better informed at this time. <br />We spent six months discussing who should have access to the <br />lake, whether there should be a density standard, and what types <br />of watercraft that should be allowed on the lake. <br />In brief, the subcommittees determined: <br />1. That the lake should remain open to all citizens of the <br />state. ■ <br />2. No limits would be placed on boat density, but that as <br />density increased, increasingly strict regulation will <br />be imposed. <br />3. No growth in access in any form will be allowed once <br />density reaches 7.0 unless the water patrol hours are <br />effectively doubled during peak hours in the summer. <br />4. That there will be no limits placed on the types of <br />boats that will use the lake, instead, the emphasis will <br />be on more patrol hours, better boater education and <br />improved licensing requirements.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.