Thursday, December 20, 2007

Shoreland Buffers

As reported in this paper and elsewhere, the City of Minnetonka recently pulled back on their proposed shorland buffer proposal. I, representing the Lake Minnetonka Association, attended the November 27th City Council listening session and spoke against that provision of the proposed shoreland ordinance. Here is why.

The proposed vegetated buffer in the shoreland zone was intended to improve water quality because vegetated buffers can reduce pollution in runoff compared to “unbuffered” areas. While this is technically true, closer examination reveals this concept was not well-conceived.

Simply, as proposed, the ordinance was a solution in search of a problem.

First of all, vegetated buffers remove certain kinds of pollution differently. For example, suspended sediments can be removed very effectively, but phosphorus is not removed effectively. Suspended sediments are not normally an issue in residential lakeshore properties and suspended sediments are not an issue in Lake Minnetonka, so there is no general need to mitigate these. Phosphorus can be a problem in Lake Minnetonka; however, Minnesota now restricts phosphates in lawn fertilizers, so phosphorus is not a big problem (even if the buffers could reduce it).

Second, what is the water quality problem? Gray’s Bay, the portion of Lake Minnetonka in the City of Minnetonka, has very good water quality. In fact, it has one of the highest water quality grades on the entire lake. Indeed, the overall quality and condition of Lake Minnetonka is actually very good. Water quality has been improving in many bays for the past 20 or 30 years – due in large part to diverting wastewater discharges to the lake. What water quality problems that do exist, occur in the shallow, Western bays. There, the water quality problems are due to runoff from large tributaries and not from lakeshore lawns. Also, Lake Minnetonka has one of the healthiest, most productive fisheries in the state.

Third, the proposed buffer requirement was negotiated as a trade-off to allow increased hard surface coverage in the shoreland zone. This is a bad trade-off for water quality. Hard or impervious surfaces do not allow rainfall to penetrate so it instead runs off. As more water runs off, its energy and erosive capacity increases and it tends to pick up and carry more pollution. This is especially critical in the shoreland zone.

Finally, the proposed buffers required the planting of “required” vegetation and certain maintenance prohibitions, such as no mowing or fertilizer use. However, this is a simplistic approach that is more for show than for function. We can do better.

The Lake Minnetonka Association recommends that lakeshore owners consider lakescaping as a way to protect their lakeshore. Specifically, we recommend:

“Lakescaping is simple landscaping on the lakeshore, providing a more natural alternative to structural or artificial shore landscaping and erosion control. Lakescaping can benefit Lake Minnetonka by improving fish and wildlife habitat, providing shoreline protection and enhancing the lake's aesthetics.”

There are important differences between this approach and the City of Minnetonka’s proposed vegetated buffer requirement. First, it should be voluntary. Second, notice that we do not cite water quality benefits because they are not usually a significant part of lakescaping. Third, lakescaping when done well, is an intensive, long-term project that involves planting, engineering, and restoration in the upland areas and in the lake. Typical lakescaping projects are often costly (tens of thousands of dollars) and can take two or three years to mature.

We feel, for those who value and appreciate this lakeshore experience, the costs and effort are worthwhile. But, we also feel this is an enhancement, and not a requirement.

The City of Minnetonka has a well-deserved reputation for being forward-looking and proactive with respect to environmental protection and we are grateful for that. In this case, while the City’s intentions are clearly well placed, their proposed buffer requirement was not. The Lake Minnetonka Association is grateful the City of Minnetonka has reconsidered their approach and would welcome the opportunity to work with them in the future.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Keeping Exotic Plants and Animals at Bay

Exotic plants and animals in lakes are bad. We know about milfoil and the headaches it causes, but there are other aquatic invasive species that are as bad – even worse. We certainly don’t want them in Lake Minnetonka, or if they get here, we would like to know how to manage them.

So, what do we do?

There are five legs to the invasive species management stool. They are education, regulation & enforcement, prevention, early detection & rapid response and control. By looking at invasive plants and animals – either those already in the lake or those we hope to keep out – we can focus on the areas demanding most attention and action.

Education refers to raising the level of awareness among those who are likely to move invasive species. This awareness should then result in changes in behavior that reduce the risk of infestation. This leg is already strong. State and local agencies have done a good job in raising awareness and should continue to do that. This can become a problem when this leg is all that is relied upon, which to a certain degree is the current situation.

Regulations and enforcement are inadequate. There are regulations prohibiting moving aquatic vegetation attached to boats and trailers on public roads and into lakes. Unfortunately, these regulations are poorly enforced. If done well, enforcement should not be punitive; rather it should reinforce changes in behavior, as with speeding tickets.

Prevention means intercepting known vectors, most often boats and trailers, before they have a chance to infest a lake. In most cases, prevention requires inspections and monitoring. This is critical because even though the level of awareness and voluntary action is high, the mantra – “it only takes one” – is true. Thus, this becomes a numbers game. Resources must be devoted to preventing a low probability event, much like the inspections we now expect at airports.

Early detection and rapid response requires advanced, systematic monitoring (detection) and a plan (with funding) to act quickly if an invader is discovered. For some species in Lake Minnetonka, this step is too late. Eurasian watermilfoil, curlyleaf pondweed and largemouth bass virus are already in the lake. For other species, like hydrilla, early detection is critical. Hydrilla is particularly scary because it is more aggressive than milfoil. There are no early detection plans in place for hydrilla. For other species, like zebra and quagga mussels, spiny waterflea and viral hemorrhagic septicemia (and many others), early detection is moot because there are no know ways to eliminate or control these invasive species.

Finally, control refers to managing the invasive species to mitigate its nuisance and minimize its ecological damage. For Eurasian watermilfoil and curlyleaf pondweed, controls have been in place for some time. The harvesting program plus cutting, pulling or herbicide treatments done by individual lakeshore owners have been the only options. Following the 2006 demonstration project, the Lake Minnetonka Association and the LMCD are engaged in preparing a lake vegetation management plan to provide wider control of these pesky weeds. We hope to be able to implement that plan this coming season in three bays – Carman’s Gray’s and Phelp’s. Except for hydrilla and several other invasive plants, which will likely be more difficult to control than milfoil, most other invasive species coming our way cannot be effectively controlled. Therefore to protect our lake, we should put all of our eggs in the prevention basket as well are relying on state and other agencies to continue their education programs and beef up the enforcement programs.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

I Told You So

Zebra mussels in Ramsey County lakes. Hydrilla now in Wisconsin. Brazilian elodea in Powderhorn Lake. Asian carp in Lake Pepin. These and several other invasive plants, animals and killer viruses are moving our way – and when they get into Lake Minnetonka, you will not hear me say, “I told you so.”

A wise businessman taught me a lesson about ten years ago. When confronted with a frustrating situation, at a point when several of us on his management team wanted to say, “I told you so,” he said, “I have never made a nickel on an I-told-you-so.” His point was simple: once something irreversible happens, it is a waste of time, energy and resources going down that path; it is better to make those investments up front.

The time to address these threats to Lake Minnetonka is now.

I suppose it is normal to look away from challenging problems. And make no mistake, addressing the threat of these exotic species invasions is a huge challenge. However, avoidance, rationalization, minimization and fate, which underlie the collective prevention action of legislators and agencies is wrong-minded.

However challenging, we must confront these problems.

Later this month, in my address to the delegates at the international symposium of the North American Lake Management Society as incoming President, I will cite two large threats facing North America’s lakes – aquatic invasive species and adapting to climate change. Aquatic invasive species, when they get into lakes, alter ecosystems irreversibly and represent one of the greatest threats to our lakes. Climate change, is another large stressor and will accelerate and intensify the impacts of aquatic invasive species.

For Lake Minnetonka, there are proactive steps that can be taken now with minimal costs:

  • The surveillance and inspections at boat ramps should continue and include an enforcement element.
  • All participants in special events – events that bring boats from faraway places - should abide by the LMCD rules which prohibit boats coming from infested waters.
  • Our community – lakeshore residents, public officials and businesses should demand and expect an effective and sufficiently funded state-wide program.

Not implementing these steps now demonstrates an apathy or unwillingness to confront this problem.

Additional steps are also needed. The exotic species issue is larger than Lake Minnetonka. It is tempting to fault the MN DNR for inaction; however, I think the real responsibility lies at higher levels. Our state and local public officials must enact clear and decisive policy directions and statutes, and empower natural resource agencies by demanding the enforcement of state laws and adequately funding protection actions. It is unreasonable to expect our agencies to be fully proactive, unless they have broad and clear political support.

Lake Minnetonka lakeshore owners and business must also step up to support protection initiatives. In addition to demanding that our leaders and representatives take these threats seriously, we must stop looking to others and start providing significant financial support. Local efforts have made Lake Minnetonka a model, but much, much more effort is needed to protect our beautiful lake.

Now is the time to protect our lake.

Friday, September 21, 2007

If We Want to Protect Our Lake - Our Members Must Step Up

Lake Minnetonka faces serious threats and management challenges. The likely introduction of more harmful exotic plants, animals and viruses, pose serious, even deadly threats. More effective and comprehensive control of milfoil is possible and desirable. Attending to either, or both, of these is critical and will require significant financial underwriting.

Lake Minnetonka Association members must provide financial support to protect Lake Minnetonka because no one else will.

In my position, I often hear lakeshore owners frustrated, sometimes angry, with lack of government or agency initiative or investment. I also hear strong suggestions that boaters should pay for management and prevention efforts, because they are the ones bringing exotic species into the lake.

The problem is this – neither government nor users can be looked upon for significant financial support to protect our lake.

Why do I say this?

Governmental attention at the federal, state, and even local levels is focused elsewhere. At all levels, we have serious deficiencies in funding and policy support for failed and failing systems that include: energy, transportation infrastructure, public works infrastructure, health care, social security and Medicare, and education. This means that environmental programs come very low on the priority list. Even with these obvious critical priorities, there is gridlock. Bottom line – critical and essential support for protecting Lake Minnetonka will not likely to garner significant attention any time soon.

In an almost perverse way, tax reduction initiatives are also a priority. This means that local governments – cities and counties – are being forced to confront reductions to non-essential services. Again, this leaves Lake Minnetonka on the back burner.

What about user fees? While we have advocated for user fees as a fair and proportional way to help pay for management and protection actions, especially for those involving exotic species, the political hurdles are formidable. Is this fair? No. Is this realistic? Yes, I believe it is.

A criticism often leveled at Lake Minnetonka protection initiatives is “Why should the state or local government or users pay to protect Lake Minnetonka when the residents are so wealthy?” Certainly, looking at the demographics and real estate around the lakeshore, there is obviously wealth here. But this misses the point. It is disingenuous when agencies and others point out the lake is really a public resource, then use arguments likes these to support inaction.

In fact, we are lucky to have this wonderful lake. Lakeshore owners, businesses, and the greater community enjoy the great wealth Lake Minnetonka provides. Lakeshore owners and businesses should have the motivation to voluntarily support protection efforts as being in their best interest. Local communities, especially the cities, have given the clear message they cannot afford significant protection efforts. However, I think they should demand and expect vigilance and enforcement of laws and ordinances that are already in place – something that can occur with minimum financial outlays.

So, Lake Minnetonka faces serious threats. Our governmental agencies and their elected leaders may not have the stomach to do what is really needed, and they clearly have other critical priorities that, as a practical matter, have precluded their support to protect Lake Minnetonka. And, while this may be wrong-minded, it is unfortunately where we are.

We should continue to demand our lakes get the protection they deserve, but in the meantime Lake Minnetonka will not be protected unless we step up.

What Can Members Do?

Mostly get involved. This is civics-101. Contact your state and local representatives and tell them protecting Lake Minnetonka is a priority. Also tell your Lake Minnetonka Conservation District representative. State and local leaders can affect significant differences with little or not additional money by critically looking at policies and priorities – does the size of dock platforms matter if zebra mussel gets into the lake? Can we implement fees to offset the costs of a credible protection program?

Effective programs for protection and control of exotic species require funding. Lake Minnetonka lakeshore owners and businesses should voluntarily step up to fund the advocacy, protection and control efforts. Without this voluntary support – the value of Lake Minnetonka to our community is at risk.

The Lake Minnetonka Association has a demonstrated track record of catalyzing positive action to protect Lake Minnetonka, but without additional funding, our efforts can go only so far. Lakeshore owners and businesses must step up and support the Lake Minnetonka Association so we can redouble our efforts to protect Lake Minnetonka. If you don’t – nobody else will!

Thursday, August 23, 2007

A Call to Action

I have found a copy of the Lake Minnetonka Association’s (then called the Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Association) first newsletter from the Spring of 1989. There were two presenting issues for the fledgling organization – property taxes (too high) and milfoil (too much). In the meantime, some relief has been provided for the issue of property taxes, but we still have too much milfoil.

What I find interesting is with this initial call to action, the LMLOA quickly engendered the support of lakeshore owners and businesses. The “From the Editor” column in the first newsletter said, “We have the opportunity to join with our friends and neighbors and make ourselves heard.”

The early LMLOA was effective because their call to action was heeded.

What I find interesting, is that the one issue they could not get on top of – milfoil – is still with us today. In the Association’s second newsletter (Fall 1989), there was already agency positioning reported with respect to milfoil control. JoEllen Hurr, then chair of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, along with Gene Strommen, LMCD Executive Director, provided an update on the new harvesting program, but were cautious regarding expectations. Dick Gray of the Freshwater Foundation urged against using chemicals to control milfoil because they would cause water quality problems, then recommended harvesting because it removed nutrients. Clarkson Lindley of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, explained the jurisdiction of the District and their responsibilities – basically, that milfoil is not their problem.

We now know the limits of harvesting and the fact that harvesting does not remove critical nutrients, and following last year’s milfoil demonstration project, that herbicides can safely control milfoil.

But really, even at that time, it was too late. The milfoil horse was out of the barn.

Here is my point – much of the LMLOA’s early success was a reaction to milfoil and their call to action was more a result of frustration than a realistic hope to eradicate milfoil. We were blind-sided by milfoil and a reactive response was all that was left.

But, were we blind-sided?

Milfoil had been in Wisconsin for 25 years at that time. Were we thinking it could not come here? The Freshwater Foundation hosted a milfoil forum in 1990 that brought in experts from around North America. Unfortunately, many of the eradication and containment strategies recommended by the experts were not embraced, poorly enforced or not adequately funded. The result – we now have milfoil in 200 Minnesota Lakes, which represents a rate of spread five-times greater than in Wisconsin in the early years.

So, what about now?

“On the Lake” editor Chris Lindstrom began her editor’s comments in the first newsletter: “The slow insidious process of political indifference …”

We have no excuse for being blind-sided with zebra mussel, viral hemorrhagic septicemia, hydrilla, spiny waterflea, incredible jumping (Asian) carp, blah, blah, blah (the list continues to grow). Our agencies and leaders charged with protecting our lakes also appear to have no stomach for the tough measures needed to assure permanent damage to our lake does not occur.

Our lakeshore is porous to the one known way these invades get into the lake – through boats and trailers. Our state-wide program relies almost exclusively on education and voluntary compliance, but we know that alone is not enough. At Lake Minnetonka, we have some inspectors and automatic monitors at some accesses at some times. There are no inspections at special events – events that often draw boats from out of state.

So, when we know ugly and harmful plants and animals are coming, we know how they get here, we know that once in the lake the damage will be substantial and irreversible, and we know that once in the lake there is no remedy – what should we do? Compare that with what we are doing.

Indifference?

Now is the time to be proactive. The Lake Minnetonka Association, in advocating for lakeshore owners and businesses has been and will continue to lead the charge. Please contact us to help.

** This was published as a Guest Editorial in Lakeshore Weekly News (August 2007)

Thursday, August 2, 2007

A Plan to Manage Milfoil

Good news for milfoil management in Lake Minnetonka – we have taken another positive step to provide more comprehensive control of Eurasian watermilfoil.

As many already know, milfoil has been in Lake Minnetonka for 20 years. As well, we all know what problems milfoil has caused – dense mats impeding recreation, diminished fish and wildlife habitat, fragments washing up on shore and even safety hazards. This summer milfoil is particularly bad.

Now, another critical step to better control milfoil has begun. Following the success of the 2006 milfoil demonstration project, the Lake Minnetonka Association and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District have begun the process of developing a Lake Vegetation Management Plan, or LVMP, for three bays – Carman’s, Gray’s and Phelp’s. This plan is a formal document recognized by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as a way to control milfoil outside of the normal permit restrictions.

Rules and restrictions for controlling nuisance plants were developed at a time when exotic plants, like milfoil, were not in Minnesota lakes. Because native plants are beneficial to lake health, controlling or removing these plants was allowed, but only in small areas and only to facilitate access or recreation. These restrictions were reasonable and most people easily worked within them.

The game changed with the introduction of exotic plants. Now, exotic plants not only create greater nuisances in larger areas, they also cause harm to lake ecosystems by displacing native plants and the fish and wildlife that need these good plants. So, the existing restrictions are sometimes impediments to the sound management of the lake.

Two recent developments allow better, more comprehensive plant management of milfoil and other exotic plants – the development of management tools that target the exotic plants while protecting native plants, plus the LVMP process which can allow variance to the existing plant management rules and restrictions.

The 2006 milfoil demonstration project is an example of a management tool that was used to target milfoil and protect native plants. In that project, three herbicides were applied to three areas in Lake Minnetonka which resulted in effective milfoil control without harming native plants. Tools like this can now be considered for wider application.

Developing an LVMP is the next logical step to consider the use of these tools in a comprehensive manner.

The LVMP will contain three key elements. The first element is a physical inventory of the plants in the three bays. The Army Corps of Engineers, recognized nationally for their expertise in aquatic plant management, have agreed to conduct the plant inventory at no cost to the local agencies. The second element is a stakeholder analysis. Here, a cross section of stakeholders will be involved by giving input regarding what they see as problematic about milfoil or other plants, helping to define appropriate management goals and objectives and supporting future control programs. The third element is developing a plan that meets the needs of the stakeholders.

The planning process will be completed in time for implementation in 2008.

Successfully completing the LVMP for the three bays will put the Lake Minnetonka Association and other agencies and interest groups in a strong position to continue this effort for the entire lake.

Why not prepare a plan for the whole lake? The main reason we could not consider developing a plan for the entire lake is a lack of funding. The Lake Minnetonka Association believes a thoughtful, comprehensive plan will be beneficial for lake health as well as leading to better, more effective milfoil control. Interested people can help pave the way for more planning and management attention by urging our elected leaders and contributing financial support.

Public participation and input is critical to the success of developing the LVMP. Please contact me if you would like more information.



** This was published as a Guest Editorial in Lakeshore Weekly News (July 2007)

Monday, June 25, 2007

Curlyleaf Pondweed in Lake Minnetonka

Curlyleaf pondweed is the ‘other’ exotic weed in Lake Minnetonka. Curlyleaf pondweed has been in Minnesota for about 100 years, and probably in Lake Minnetonka for that long. This weed can also become a nuisance, but in Lake Minnetonka is more often overshadowed by milfoil. By the time you read this, curlyleaf pondweed will have died back naturally.

Curlyleaf pondweed has been in the news recently because several area lakes have problems with it and are attempting to control it. In Lake Minnetonka, as milfoil control becomes more comprehensive, we will need to be careful to also pay attention to curlyleaf pondweed. The Lake Vegetation Management Plan, now under development, will address this potential nuisance.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

New Thinking About Milfoil Control

Eurasian watermilfoil has been in Minnesota and in Lake Minnetonka for 20 years. We have been lulled into thinking that there is no solution and that this is as good as it gets. We were fortunate last year that it was a low milfoil year, but in most years milfoil has been worse.

We have, individually and collectively, managed milfoil through a) harvesting, b) individual control in front of lakeshore properties or c) tolerance – or at least a benign resignation. Some have suggested that milfoil has been good for fishing. But really, there is nothing good about milfoil. In addition to being a nuisance for recreation and a safety hazard, milfoil causes ecological damage by displacing native plants and diminishing fish habitat.

The Lake Minnetonka Association has been a leader in advocating a more comprehensive approach to controlling milfoil in Lake Minnetonka. The Lake Minnetonka Association sponsored the Milfoil Forum in August of 2005, which led to the 2006 milfoil demonstration project in three bays. The Lake Minnetonka Association and the LMCD partnered to treat small areas in three bays of the lake to control milfoil and enhance native plants. The demonstration project, supported by lakeshore residents, was a success. There was a 99% reduction in milfoil and the native plants increased in the treatment areas.

Based on these positive results as well as sound science, we recommended late last summer that the demonstration project be expanded to include whole bays, beginning in 2007. Unfortunately, that will not happen this year.

Two main obstacles have been identified – the lack of a comprehensive plan and funding. A comprehensive plan, referred to as a Lake Vegetation Management Plan, would take a broad view of the milfoil problem in Lake Minnetonka. The Plan would involve detailed inventories of where milfoil as well as other vegetation grows, the nature of its impacts to lake ecology and recreation and would involve all stakeholders. The outcome of the Plan would be a prescription for the best way to manage milfoil in Lake Minnetonka. It makes sense to approach managing milfoil in Lake Minnetonka as guided by a vegetation management plan.

I have estimated that developing this plan would cost about $100,000 and take about a year.

The other obstacle, funding, I think is highly surmountable. Because we do not yet have a plan, we do not know how much the comprehensive management would cost. However, I have done some preliminary estimates on scenarios that would involve enclosed bays, such as Gray’s Bay or St. Alban’s Bay. Expanding the demonstration treatments to either of these Bays may cost approximately $20,000 per bay and the treatment is expected to last about three years. I have asked several of our members if they and their lakeshore neighbors would be willing to pay these costs and they would. So, I think private funding is a viable option in Lake Minnetonka.

The cost of the plan however, ought to be paid by a public agency. The LMCD Exotic Species Committee is coordinating several agencies in an attempt to piece together a plan for 2007. At this point, it appears plant inventories in three bays may be conducted this year. Unfortunately, unless the other elements of the plan as also conducted this year, this information will not be used in a comprehensive plan.

The Lake Minnetonka Association recommends a comprehensive lake vegetation management plan be conducted this year to allow for expanded treatment in 2008. But, time is short. Unless decisions are made very soon, another field season will pass and another year delay will occur before we can even consider following up on the successful demonstration project.

** This appeared as a Guest Column in Lakeshore Weekly News (April 2007)

We Need New Thinking to Stop Zebra Mussels

What if we could turn back the clock and prevent milfoil from entering Lake Minnetonka? Knowing what a problem it has caused, wouldn't we have taken the necessary steps? We are now faced with something equally as harmful and troublesome.

Zebra mussels, if they get into Lake Minnetonka, would be a disaster. Zebra mussel would do lots of damage – to the economy, to recreation, to lake health, to the fishery – and once in the lake, there is no remedy. So, we must put all our eggs in the prevention basket.

But this is not happening – at least not to an adequate degree.

There are inspectors at some accesses at some times, there are automatic video devices and the state has a broad education campaign. But these are not enough and Lake Minnetonka remains highly exposed.

The problem is this – we are not set up for funding or even approaching the prevention of zebra mussel (and soon many other nasty exotic plants and animals) due to archaic policy framework that encourages unfettered access to our public waters. These policies were developed at times when aquatic invasive species were not an issue, but they sure are now.

We cannot solve this problem within the same framework that created it.

We must have new thinking to have a real chance at preventing zebra mussels from getting into Lake Minnetonka. The Lake Minnetonka Association believes that prevention of zebra mussels must come from two levels. There must be a comprehensive state-wide imperative to keep zebra mussels from moving around. This should involve more aggressive enforcement and containment – neither of which are occurring now.

There must also be a comprehensive protection plan for Lake Minnetonka. Right now, the level of inspectors and automatic monitoring devices covers some accesses at peak times, but we remain highly exposed. Thousands of boats bypass these measures. As well, no boats at special events are inspected, and many of these come from out of state. More inspectors or more monitors are not feasible because there are too many access points on Lake Minnetonka.

The Lake Minnetonka Association has developed a plan that proposes closing some accesses at some times to facilitate inspections. We have also proposed fees for boaters to offset the costs of protecting our lake. We believe that these are fair and appropriate for addressing the problem and can (and should) be done in a way to assure access to the lake. We believe the Cities, through the LMCD, have a responsibility to provide resources to protect the lake. To their credit, the LMCD has provided some protection by stretching their budget.

Unfortunately, as I write this, neither the Cities nor the LMCD appear willing to provide the needed funds. We applauded LMCD Chair Tom Skramstad’s leadership when he challenged the LMCD to increase funding for protecting the lake when preparing their 2008 budget. Unfortunately, no increase has been proposed. To make matters worse, the LMCD discussed perhaps developing a budget in 2008 to develop a plan in 2009. We do not need another plan – we need action, leadership and new thinking.

We need those who live on and use the lake to demand the agencies charged with protecting our lake to make that a priority.

The Lake Minnetonka Association believes Lake Minnetonka is a public resource for all to use and enjoy. Unfortunately, aquatic invasive species have changed the game. Meaningful and effective protection measures will require additional cost and inconvenience. We know that some access closures or the imposition of fees are controversial. We are open to other ideas for the protection of Lake Minnetonka, but we think what we have proposed must be on the table if we are serious about keeping zebra mussels out of the lake.

If we continue to approach this issue by just doing what we can rather than what needs to be done, we are not taking this seriously and we will soon have zebra mussels. We do not want that.

** This appeared as a Guest Column in Lakeshore Weekly News (May 2007)

Conservation

… the act of preserving, guarding or protecting to keep healthy, preservation.

According to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District’s 1991 management plan, “The first major focus of the LMCD was on environmental problems, reflecting deteriorating water quality…” At the time of the LMCD’s formation (1967), Lake Minnetonka water quality was foul – the lake had legendary algae blooms and stank. Fortunately, the main causes – sewage discharges to the lake – have been eliminated and lake quality today is markedly improved. Indeed, most of the lake has “A” or “B” grades. Some of the shallow western bays with poorer quality will no longer improve due to nutrients trapped in the lake bottom.

Today, the most significant conservation need for Lake Minnetonka is the control and prevention of exotic species. We know that milfoil control is now possible and zebra mussel, if it gets to the lake, would be a disaster.

The 1991 management plan provided for the control and prevention of exotic species. Indeed, these policies were articulated:

“Manage the growth of Eurasian watermilfoil in Lake Minnetonka to allow reasonable recreational use of the lake until a means can be found to eradicate it, while preventing its spread from Lake Minnetonka to other area lakes.”

“Develop a vigorous prevention and eradication program for other exotic marine plant and animal species (such as zebra mussels) in Minnesota.”

Today, milfoil control in Lake Minnetonka is not occurring. The LMCD’s harvesting program, which does a good job of providing recreational access in some areas, is not a control program in the sense of the management plan’s objectives. The 2006 milfoil demonstration project showed that bay-wide milfoil control is possible. And preventing the spread from Lake Minnetonka, the state’s job, has never been seriously attempted. In fact, the rate of spread from Lake Minnetonka to other Minnesota lakes, about 10 new lakes per year, is about five times greater than Wisconsin’s rate in their first 20 years with milfoil.

As far as prevention of new species, the access inspection program and video surveillance system is a good start. The Lake Minnetonka Association recognizes the LMCD has stretched its resources to provide this. Unfortunately, much more is needed and our lake remains highly vulnerable.

Again, the 1991 management plan recognized the LMCD’s funding limitations and recommended user fees to provide the additional funding: “User fees will be used to the maximum possible extent.” In fact, the plan called for boat stickers or permits and a permit fee at boat ramps.

The Lake Minnetonka Association has advocated for milfoil control and zebra mussel prevention. We now know that bay-wide, perhaps even lake-wide milfoil control is possible. I am happy to report the Lake Minnetonka Association and the LMCD have agreed to prepare a lake vegetation management plan as the first step to more comprehensive milfoil control. We also know that comprehensive protection must occur. We are ready to confront these conservation challenges, but we need our agencies and cities to step up.

So what next? Right now, we challenge the LMCD and the 14 member cities to include these conservation priorities in their 2008 budget, which as drafted contains no increases for milfoil control or zebra mussel prevention. There has been debate about budget priorities among the LMCD board members and the cities they represent. And there appears to be some immediate shifts that can occur within a reasonable overall budget increase. Specifically, a) there is no need to add a ½-time staff position for code enforcement, b) funds could be shifted from the budget reserve and c) the accumulated funds for the state’s boat user surveys should be used, as this data is not used by the LMCD. The LMCD also has about a quarter of a million dollar fund balance in their “Save-the-Lake” fund – a fund dedicated to lake conservation. Finally, user fees must be considered as a supplemental funding source to fund milfoil control and comprehensive protection.

The Lake Minnetonka Association also recommends the 1991 management plan be revisited. The plan, now out of date, called for the LMCD to be the lead agency and advocate for implementing the plan and assuring the plan’s objectives were met. Until the management plan is revised, the need for controlling and preventing exotic species is urgent. We must all be dedicated to the conservation of our beautiful lake.

** This appeared as a Guest Colum in Lakeshore Weekly News (June 2007)