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.
Monday, June 25, 2007
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 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)
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)
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
