Laserfiche WebLink
Information collected included fishing and cther surface use pressure on <br />the lake in terms of man-hours. The data was collected by persons in a <br />boat doing interviews and instantaneous counts of boating activity in 30 <br />specific sections of the lake. Standard analysis mrthods have been <br />developed for this type of work. <br />The DNR also conducted an evaluation of surface use in Lake Minnetonka in <br />1984 as part of a larger similar study of several Metropolitan Area lakes. <br />This study used a variety of methods to portray use of the water surface, <br />public accesses, private access and riparian shoreline access. Surface use <br />data was collected by airplane flyovers on nine summer days, at varying <br />times during the day. Public and private access interviews were conducted <br />on a minimum )f 10 days distributed before, during and after the summer <br />season. Resident lakeshore owner data was collected in July, September and <br />October. Access users we,-! interviewed immediately following their boating <br />trip. Residents were asked to recall their most recent boating occasion on <br />the lake. <br />The access interview:; collected a wide variety of data including time of <br />use; parking location; primary activity while on the lake; motor size; <br />miles driven to ti,,.; launch site; ooating •y experience, training and <br />opinion; access preferences; opinion on us_ trictions; income; and use <br />of and opinion about alcoholic beverages whine boating. The surface use <br />flyovers collected data on number and type of boats. The interviews and <br />surface use data were combined to estimate the proportion of surface use <br />resulting from public accesses, private accesses and riparian landowners. <br />The study was done under contract by Biocentric, Inc. <br />3. Metropolitan Council (MC) <br />Metropolitan Council parks and open space staff have interviewed public <br />access users at North Arm and Spring Park (1978, 1982) and Gray's Bay Dam <br />(1982). Each access was covered for a minimum of eight four-hour sampling <br />periods Qn summer weekends and 12 periods on summer weekdays. Boaters were <br />interviewed as they were taking their boats out of the lake. Information <br />collected include: <br />a. Time boat launching occurred. <br />b. Type(s) of activities done by boaters. <br />C. Reasons why that particular boat access was used. <br />d. Number of people in the boat and their ages. <br />e. Perceptions the boater had of lake water quality <br />reasons for choosing this lake. <br />f. Size of boat motor (if applicable). <br />problems and boater's <br />g. Whether the boater parked in the access parking lot <br />h. Boater's perception of whether the lake was crowded <br />number of boats on the lake increased, decreased or <br />the boater's enjoyment of the lake. <br />4. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol <br />or elsewhere. <br />i2nd whether the <br />had no effect on <br />The water patrol has compiled extensive statistics on ',oating ectivity as <br />part of its law enforcement duties on Lake M;-)netonka. Each reported or <br />detected incident of theft, ordinance violat.on, accident, drowning, etc., <br />is recorded by location, date and time. The data goes back for several <br />years, and a summary report is presented to the LMCn r cach year. <br />21 <br />