Changing the Game

This month, I will talk about the regulatory and cultural framework that has allowed aquatic invasive species (AIS) to move to and from lakes in Minnesota and elsewhere.  Simply, Minnesotans have enjoyed our bountiful lakes and rivers and have had the ability to move among them unfettered.  Unfortunately, AIS are exploiting these vectors by hitchhiking on boats and trailers – this is the main way AIS are moved from lake to lake.  There is certainly a long tradition of and appreciation for this ability to enjoy our lakes, but it is time to re-examine this in light of these unwanted hitchhikers and the permanent damage they cause.

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

The Lake Minnetonka Association has developed a plan and vision embodied in our Milfoil-Free Minnetonka campaign.  This plan contains recommendations for re-organizing agencies’ roles and specific funding mechanisms that ‘change the game’ in a way that we believe can keep unwanted AIS at bay and therefore protect our beautiful lake.

We have identified a need for an AIS management budget for Lake Minnetonka of at least $600,000 per year.  This compares with current spending of about one third that amount.  While $600,000 may seem high, our analysis shows this amount is appropriate for the need.  Further, there are many examples of lake management efforts around the country that spend 10- and 20-times this amount on a per acre basis.

Where should we seek this additional money?

We recommend this money should come from or through the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the agency specifically empowered to protect Lake Minnetonka.  The majority of new funding (75%) should come from an increased levy, access fees and the private Save-the Lake fund and remainder (25%) the Lake Minnetonka Association (25%).

Here is our rationale.  The LMCD is charged with managing Lake Minnetonka for many things, including AIS.  However, they have a cap on their funding levy, which critically impairs their ability to protect the lake.  We have also heard from many member Cities that they should not be called upon to provide funding directly from their budgets; rather this is better managed by the LMCD.  Thus, we are recommending a statute amendment that would raise the LMCD’s levy limit to provide for additional AIS funding. We also recommend a system of charging fees at accesses to supplement the LMCD’s AIS budget, believing this to be a fair and proportionate method for protecting the lake.  This is done elsewhere and can be done in a way that does not unreasonably restrict public access.  We also know from the Three Bay project that lakeshore residents will step up and voluntarily fund this important work.  So, the Lake Minnetonka Association should also contribute funds.  There may be other agencies or entities better suited to implementing this ambitious plan and these should be considered to assure Lake Minnetonka is best protected.

Our specific recommendations and complete plan will be available on our website soon.

While the AIS problem pervades many levels – local, state, regional, national - we believe the responsibility for protecting Lake Minnetonka must arise and be supported locally.  As a practical matter, there is no really other alternative.  Right now, the Minnesota’s state grant program for AIS control and protection is less than the $600,000 per year we have identified as the need for just Lake Minnetonka.

If we do not change the game, we cannot protect Lake Minnetonka.

Lake Minnetonka in 500 Years

At the Minnesota Invasive Species Conference last month, I was chatting with a colleague from Wisconsin about aquatic invasive species (AIS) concerns in Lake Minnetonka.  We were talking about immediate concerns – many of which I have illustrated in this column – and he asked me “what do you think Lake Minnetonka will be like in 500 years?”  His point was, we sometimes get too close to our topic, so taking a longer perspective can be useful.

Here I will give my thoughts about what Lake Minnetonka will look like in 5, 50 and 500 years – in other words the near future, over a career or about two generations and a long time from now.

With respect to AIS concern in Lake Minnetonka, I have argued that we have two immediate concerns – we can and should do more to control AIS now in the lake and we are woefully underprepared and under-protected to keep new AIS from getting into the lake.  I have focused on a very short planning horizon, which arguably makes sense since many AIS are at our doorstep.

I have reasonably well covered the 5-year horizon already in this column.  Briefly, through our Three Bay milfoil control project and our Milfoil-Free Minnetonka campaign, we have developed plans, and have begun to implement some of them.  We have also pointed out where there are deficiencies in our actions and have identified plans, program, policies or practices to address these.  Simply, the vision of the Lake Minnetonka Association is to make Lake Minnetonka milfoil (and AIS) free.

I see that in 50 years, Lake Minnetonka could go in one of two directions.  If we take the AIS threat seriously and make investments in protection and control efforts, I think we can keep many potential new AIS out of the lake, we can keep milfoil and curlyleaf pondweed in check and keep Lake Minnetonka healthy.  This squares with the vision of the Lake Minnetonka Association.

If do not take the threat of AIS seriously and do not make concomitant investments and policy changes, I think there will be dozens of new AIS in the lake, which singly and in combination, will have serious adverse impacts on the lake’s fishery, water quality and overall health.  This will profoundly affect the beauty and recreational enjoyment of the lake.

It is a stretch to think out to 500 years.  Yikes, it has been 500 years since Columbus’ voyage.  Given that the nature and magnitude of changes has been and will continue to accelerate, this is an incredible time span to contemplate.  I think regardless of what we do today or even in 50 years, AIS will become a cosmopolitan issue that will have likely played itself to some logical endpoint.  As well, technologies for controlling or mitigating adverse effects will likely be developed so we can better manage and cope.  History shows there is indeed a rational basis to expect optimism – life spans continue to increase, health is better, we are more productive, etc.  There are certainly problems, but as a society we are much better off on most ways compared to 500 years ago – although I am not sure being tethered to my cell phone is always a good thing.

What we really ought to be concerned about and focused on then, should be a planning horizon spanning to at least the next 50 years.  In that context, we have immediate and mid-range concerns that, in the view of the Lake Minnetonka Association, require serious attention and investment – the sooner the better.  Lacking this attention, we fear Lake Minnetonka’s value to the community will be diminished for the foreseeable future.

Lake Minnetonka - The Real Jewel

Lake Tahoe is a jewel.  The community around Lake Tahoe is so concerned about zebra mussels they have recently enacted strict measures to assure Lake Tahoe remains a jewel.

According to a September 26, 2008 press release from the Tahoe Regional Planning Commission, new boat rules will take effect on November 1^st (Tahoe does not get ice in the winter).  These rules “… require boats be launched at facilities where qualified aquatic invasive species inspectors are present …” and also require “… that vessels launching at the lake be decontaminated …”.  The goal is to “inspect every boat that enters the lakes of the Tahoe Basin.”  The Commission is discussing fees at the boat ramps to pay for this program.

When a community believes a resource like Lake Tahoe is a jewel, they will take actions, even draconian actions, to protect that resource.

There are no comparable requirements for Lake Minnetonka even though zebra mussels (and several other damaging aquatic invasive species or AIS) are threatening.

I believe Lake Minnetonka is a jewel for our community, indeed for the entire state.  Why have we not taken the necessary actions to assure its protection?

It is time we take the threat of zebra mussels and other aquatic invasive species that threaten our lake seriously.  I have spent the past couple months visiting with mayors, city councils and other elected representatives around the lake to discuss the institutional framework for providing appropriate protection from zebra mussel and other AIS.  All agree that AIS, both in the lake and coming to the lake, ought to be taken seriously because they do or will cause damage.  However, when it comes to the question of who should implement or pay for protection and control programs, the conversations break down.

Make no mistake – adequate and appropriate protection and control measures will require changes in attitudes and culture and will be costly.  However, inaction or apathy are also costly and are not a rational game plan.

The Lake Minnetonka Association has proposed and recommended comprehensive inspections around the lake and in tributary lakes.  We have recommended closing some accesses at some times to facilitate inspections and we have proposed assessing fees as a fair and appropriate way to fund protection activities specific to Lake Minnetonka.  To get traction on real protection actions, we must have leadership and new thinking as well as a willingness to coordinate these activities.  All agencies are rightfully aware of and concerned about being fiscally responsible, especially in this weak economy.  However, substantially all of the funding for the actions we are recommending could actually come from user fees.  We know that user fees and access inspections will be unpopular, but we believe these are fair and proportionate with respect to the nature of the threat.

If we rely on existing funding sources and authorities, we will fall short.  The state of Minnesota collects a boat license surcharge ($5 for a three year license).  This plus some money from the general fund gives the DNR AIS program $3.9 million per year.  Of that, only $100,000 (less than 3%) comes back to local communities for AIS prevention grants across the state.  Similarly, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District directs a portion of its funding to AIS programs, the harvesting program and the inspection program, which represent about $110,000 and $45,000 per year (respectively) and they receive money from the DNR (for harvesting) and from their private Save-the-Lake Fund (for inspections) to offset these costs.

Some have suggested the constitutional amendment that would dedicate 3/8 percent of sales tax toward environmental and arts programs offers a new source of funding for AIS.  However, the language authorizing the amendment would not provide for AIS-related, rather of other water programs.

AIS prevention programs to adequately protect Lake Minnetonka will cost much more than is now available.  Both the DNR and LMCD funds are effectively capped unless significant changes in statute or funding occur outside their respective internal controls.  Again, we think that user fees are an appropriate source of new funding.

Lake Minnetonka is a jewel and our leaders’ actions should demonstrate that by supporting creative and appropriate protections and getting together to address this large problem.

Three Bay Milfoil Treatment - What Next?

With the summer season nearly over, we have had a chance to evaluate the results of the Three Bay milfoil treatments (Carmans, Grays and Phelps), take what we have learned and consider continued treatments in 2009.

While the treatments did not have the results we expected, there were positive results.  Recall the objectives of these treatments were to control milfoil, preemptively control curlyleaf pondweed (another exotic plant), protect and restore native plants and minimize lakeshore clean up of milfoil fragments that wash ashore.  However, the objective at the forefront of most people’s minds is to control milfoil.

The results varied.  The results on Grays Bay were the best.  Milfoil did not form mats and the bay was open for water recreation all summer.  In fact, I even saw people swimming by the highway 101 causeway this summer. – something that had been impossible in past years  Milfoil has grown back late in the season.  Carmans Bay results were the poorest, as there was little milfoil control throughout the bay.  However, except for a few areas, milfoil did not mat in Carmans Bay and residents reported higher recreational activities compared to past years.  Phelps Bay results were mixed – good milfoil control on the north end of the bay and poor control near Enchanted Island.  However, the applicator and manufacturer of the herbicide provided warranty treatments in nine acres (at no cost to the project) and this provided good control in those areas.

Curlyleaf pondweed has not become a problem, we have no evidence of damage to native plants and we have had residents report greatly diminished shoreline cleanup chores this season.

The Lake Minnetonka Association invited manufacturer’s representatives to help the technical committee evaluate the results and assist in recommending modifications to the treatment approaches in 2009.  We have learned there was significant dilution of the liquid product in 2008, which led to inadequate contact time of the herbicide and therefore less milfoil control than expected.  Based on similar treatments in other lakes, this was not expected.  The manufacture and applicators will be working with the technical committee to adjust the treatment protocol and they have agreed to provide assurances the modified protocols will provide long-term milfoil control as well as meet the other program objectives.

The Lake Minnetonka Association and the project team has learned a lot during this first year and we believe the refinements that will be proposed for 2009 will be significantly more effective.  The Lake Minnetonka Association remains unwavering in our view that using selective herbicides will ultimately be the most effective tool for lake-wide milfoil control and an important element in our Milfoil-Free Minnetonka vision.

Representatives from the Three Bays are now working with the Lake Minnetonka Association in fundraising efforts to support the 2009 treatments.

In related developments, we have recommended these treatments be expanded to other bays.  Because this year’s results were not what we expected, the technical committee has recommended that expansions beyond the Three Bays not occur in 2009.  The Lake Minnetonka Association agrees this is the proper approach.  We have had interest in future expansions from representatives of several other bays, including Gideons, St. Albans, Libbs Lake and Carsons Bays, and we will continue to work with these bays.

The Lake Minnetonka Association also sponsored a forum of other Minnesota lake associations who are dealing with milfoil management.  These associations are experiencing similar challenges and frustrations as Lake Minnetonka and we had a productive meeting.  I am gratified the Lake Minnetonka Association and our members support our leadership in the area of milfoil control and we are looking forward to continued progress in 2009 and beyond.

Confronting the Monster

In the past several months, I have taken readers through a step-wise process of articulating the Lake Minnetonka Association’s vision, strategy and plan for ridding Lake Minnetonka of milfoil and keeping additional unwanted plants, animals and viruses out of the lake – summed up in or “Milfoil-Free Minnetonka” campaign.

Our role is to be advocates for the interests of lakeshore owners and businesses, consistent with our mission to assure the health of Lake Minnetonka. The Lake Minnetonka Association is devoted to thought-leadership and in this role we have invested in bringing sound science and credible policy to the fore to address the threats of aquatic invasive species, or AIS.

So, while we can go to great lengths to develop and articulate action plans, it is not our role to implement those plans. With respect to AIS management, various agencies are charged with protecting and managing Lake Minnetonka. As advocates, we see our role to move the ball forward by holding public and private entities accountable and responsible. We provide constructive criticism where appropriate, but also offer workable solutions. We are boldly confronting the AIS monster.

Our Milfoil-Free Minnetonka campaign offers a vision, comprehensive strategy and detailed plan. We go into this with the sincere belief that the health and integrity of Lake Minnetonka is important to our community and therefore investments in protecting and restoring the lake are appropriate. With community support, we sincerely believe we can rid Lake Minnetonka of milfoil and keep other AIS out.

Without this support, here is where we stand:

- We have developed a lake vegetation management plan that allows for comprehensive milfoil control, but have not received broad community buy-in, although Lake Minnetonka lakeshore residents have demonstrated they will shoulder their share. While there has been support for the first year (see below), future support is not certain. Where are the cities, the LMCD and the state with their proportionate shares?

- The LMCD has contracted video monitors at two of the dozen or so launches on the lake, and their board was recently shown videos by these monitors of two cases that I believe are violations of state law and of the LMCD ordinance. To my knowledge, no follow up or enforcement action has been taken or is being contemplated. Where is enforcement?

- If hydrilla gets into Lake Minnetonka, the harvesting program would be forced to be suspended indefinitely to prevent spreading this nasty plant. What are the contingency plans for hydrilla (and zebra mussel, VHS, spiny waterflea, etc.)?

- Lake Minnetonka lacks a comprehensive prevention plan, an early detection & rapid response plan, adequate funding, adequate enforcement, and (apparently) the will to confront AIS. The Lake Minnetonka Association’s Milfoil-Free Minnetonka plan provides for all of this and we offer it as a way road map to address these concerns. The opposite of planning is fate. Without community support, we are tempting fate.

Community support is needed. Further, financing the Milfoil-Free Minnetonka plan ought to be spread among lake residents, the cities around the lake, state and regional sources and lake users.

Lake residents have already demonstrated their willingness through the first year of the three bay milfoil treatments. The Cities of Mound, Shorewood and Minnetrista supported the first year of the Phelps Bay treatment and we hope they will continue that support. The LMCD, through the Save-the-Lake fund, supported the first year of the three bay treatment and we hope they will continue that support. The Minnesota DNR provided a grant, and we have argued, based on the size of the lake and overall usage, that Lake Minnetonka should demand even higher levels of support in the future. Finally, lake users ought to shoulder some of the support. Right now, boaters pay a boat license surcharge and only a small portion of that comes back to Lake Minnetonka. We believe fees based on use are appropriate and should be implemented.

While confronting the AIS monster is a serious challenge, we believe we can slay this monster by brood community support and spreading the financing equitably.

“A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.” Winston Churchill.

Weeds

Weeds are plants out of place. In lakes, rooted plants may become weeds when they interfere with swimming, boating, fishing and other recreational activities. Native plants, those plants native to the lake, are for the most part beneficial. Native plants provide stability for the lake bottom, are habitat for various bugs and invertebrate animals, improve water quality and provide cover and habitat for fish. Prior to milfoil, an exotic plant, native plants sometimes posed a nuisance.

The nuisances posed by milfoil are greater than those posed by native plants simply because it grows earlier, faster, denser, higher, blah, blah, blah. In addition, milfoil also causes harm to the ecology of the lake because it harms native plants (the good ones). So the imperative for controlling milfoil is much greater.

I also hear that anglers like milfoil, so they argue it is also beneficial. It is true, in some areas game fish may congregate in milfoil and some anglers have learned to fish there. In this sense, milfoil is good for fishing. However, milfoil is not good for fish – for all the reasons I mentioned above – milfoil is not good for lake health. All that said, most anglers actually do not like milfoil. DNR’s regional fishery manager has told me he gets many complaints from anglers that milfoil interferes with fishing.

So in Lake Minnetonka we have two kinds of weeds – good weeds and bad weeds. The Lake Minnetonka Association believes that our attention and focus should be on milfoil (the bad weed). Indeed, since I have been in this position (about 10 years), milfoil complaints have been and remain the number one concern. This does not mean that native plant nuisances have disappeared, rather they have been shadowed by milfoil.

It gets even more interesting. There is some evidence that in some areas, milfoil or milfoil harvesting may have actually increased the overall abundance of plants! As milfoil beds become established, they tend to increase the accumulation of underwater soils, making that area more hospitable to any kind of rooted plant growth. Unfortunately this has also resulted in less diversity of plants, so many of the increased native plants tend to be those with “weedier” characteristics. In addition, research done on Lake Minnetonka and other lakes around the country demonstrates that milfoil grows back more quickly in harvested areas compared to un-harvested areas. Milfoil in Lake Minnetonka exploits both natural and artificial advantages making Lake Minnetonka weedier as a result.

Controlling milfoil to restore Lake Minnetonka to a condition of having to deal only with “normal” weeds is a huge challenge because milfoil is tough and Lake Minnetonka is large. Last month, I wrote about the Lake Minnetonka Association’s Milfoil-Free Minnetonka campaign to highlight our plan to rid the lake of milfoil. This plan will require broad support, but it is technically do-able.

So, let’s tackle the milfoil mess so we can get to a point where we only have to deal with native plant “weeds.”

Let us not forget there are other exotic plants nearing Lake Minnetonka. Hydrilla is more aggressive than milfoil, indeed it has been known to displace milfoil. Hydrilla is in Wisconsin. The Milfoil-Free Minnetonka campaign also has a strong prevention element because we do not want to add to the list lake problems.

Milfoil-Free Minnetonka

For the past several months, I have been articulating the Lake Minnetonka Association’s vision for Lake Minnetonka. Those columns have described the various elements of our vision and here I want to put them all together. I have made the case that 1) milfoil remains the number one problem in Lake Minnetonka, 2) there are new restorative technologies available for lake-wide milfoil control, 3) zebra mussels and several additional exotic plants, animals and viruses are nearing Lake Minnetonka, and 4) we lack a comprehensive protection plan.

Added to this list is the fact that our investment in protection and control for aquatic invasive species (AIS) is woefully insufficient.

The Lake Minnetonka Association’s “Milfoil-Free Minnetonka” campaign aims to provide a mechanism for protecting and managing Lake Minnetonka – arguably the most significant recreational lake in the state and certainly the economic engine for the communities surrounding the lake.

Milfoil-Free Minnetonka is about ridding Lake Minnetonka of milfoil and preventing new AIS from gaining a foothold in the lake. We now know we can accomplish the former, albeit at a cost, and we believe we can accomplish the latter, but only if we change the game.

There are two significant hurdles – funding and attitudes.

I have done an analysis of the funding needs for accomplishing our vision based on a program analysis and comparing to what other lakes spend for these activities. Simply, the funding needed to adequately protect and manage Lake Minnetonka for AIS concerns is about ten- to twenty-times what is now being spent. For example, Lake Manitou, Indiana, spends about $500,000 per year for their hydrilla control program. Lake Manitou is 700 acres, so by comparison this lake spends about 5-times more than Lake Minnetonka and is 20-times smaller.

This funding gap should not be a surprise as Lake Minnetonka is really of a size and complexity to be more like two dozen lakes. The LMCD has a statutory funding cap which means it cannot adequately address these needs. Also, other agencies, such as the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the MN DNR, defer much of the AIS program activities to the LMCD, so in effect the LMCD is left high and dry to manage these concerns without sufficient resources.

The Lake Minnetonka Association has recommended new ways of funding to address this shortfall. We have recommended fees for boats using Lake Minnetonka, but there may be other mechanisms as well. Mayor Chris Lizee of Shorewood has shown leadership in proposing to establish an environmental fund that would support these kinds of activities. This fund would be established by investing the proceeds from the sale of the City’s liquor stores. As well, Lake Minnetonka is a regional asset and therefore some kind of regional funding is also appropriate.

It is easy to be complacent in the face of the AIS challenge. As Pete Nelson, former Director of the LMCD said, “the only thing harder than zebra mussels to eradicate is the notion that their introduction is inevitable.” And, even if zebra mussels get into the lake, we must not let up because each new AIS diminishes the integrity of the lake ecosystem. As well, unlike milfoil, which can be controlled, most new AIS have no remedies – none!

So, if zebra mussels get in, they will change the way milfoil grows, most likely more aggressively. Then if rusty crayfish (or spiny waterflea or hydrilla or VHS or ???) get in they will arrive in a system that is already stressed and their impacts will become synergistic – and not in a good way.

Milfoil-Free Minnetonka is an aggressive and ambitious plan that includes six key elements:

1. Expand the milfoil treatments
2. Monitoring and surveillance
3. Prevention
4. Early detection and rapid response
5. Research
6. Education

Each of these action steps has a more detailed plan, some of which have already been described in previous columns.

Three and four decades ago, Lake Minnetonka was a pea soup of algae. The community took action and now Lake Minnetonka is markedly improved. In that case the pollution causing the stinky algae was diverted and the lake responded. I believe the impacts of AIS to Lake Minnetonka can be more severe than sewage pollution. Unfortunately, we cannot ‘turn off’ or divert AIS introductions. However, the model of community action and investment has succeeded in the past and will succeed again. Let’s make Lake Minnetonka milfoil-free.

Aquatic Invasive Species - What is the Risk?

Previously, I articulated the Lake Minnetonka Association’s position and vision on aquatic invasive species, or AIS, prevention programs. There I cited six specific elements of a protection plan and ended with a recommendation that the overall protection efforts should reduce the risk of AIS introductions by 90%.

Here, I will provide a rationale and objective basis for evaluating the risk as well as the reduction of risk that is needed. While some of this is technical, I can (hopefully) convey the message without it sounding like an insurance seminar.

AIS are introduced into lakes by contaminated boats and trailers. Therefore, sources of entry for boats and trailers are the obvious mode of introduction. I have prepared a detailed risk analysis that examines various sources of entry and weighs this against risk of carrying AIS. The detailed analysis document is available on our web site. Here, I will give the highlights and discuss Lake Minnetonka’s vulnerabilities.

Boats enter Lake Minnetonka from these categorical sources:

• Public Access – Boat ramps owned and operated by public agencies
• Commercial Access – Commercial facilities, such as marinas
• Municipal Docks – Municipal docking facilities
• Riparian (lakeshore) – Individual lakeshore owners
• Special Events – Events, such as fishing tournaments and sailing regatta that require permits
• Tributary Lakes – Lakes that flow into Lake Minnetonka

I have developed metrics that provide an indication of the risk of AIS introductions from each of these sources. The details of my analysis are contained in a technical document (available on our web site). The risks from each source are:

Public Access 84%

Commercial Access 3%

Municipal Docks (rented from cities) 0

Riparian 0

Special Events 3%

Tributary Lakes 9%

This clearly points to public accesses as the primary point of a prevention program; although the others should not be ignored. The zero risk from municipal and riparian docks are due to the fact that these boats do not leave the lake.

The good news is the protection programs now in place do indeed emphasize public accesses. The bad news is there is not enough coverage.

With the above-referenced risk analysis as a basis, it is possible to evaluate the degree of risk reduction now in place. For example, the LMCD’s program of inspectors and automatic video monitors covers four of the most heavily-used public accesses during the summer. Assuming these accesses traffic 50% of the boat use volume and that the period of inspections and monitoring covers two thirds of the boat use season, the overall risk reduction would be 28%, which is short of what we have recommended. Also note that this reduction assumes the inspections or monitoring are 100% effective at stopping AIS, which is probably unrealistic.

This makes the case for additional protection. This can happen by increasing the scope of current programs or restricting access points (but not access) to funnel more boats through protected accesses.

This risk analysis provides an objective framework to plan an effective AIS protection plan. Clearly, Lake Minnetonka is now highly exposed to an AIS introduction. While additional solutions will be challenging, we should approach the protection of our lake with open eyes to provide the greatest protection.

A Vision for Aquatic Invasive Species Protection

This is the second in a series of article articulating the Lake Minnetonka Association’s vision for Lake Minnetonka.

The Lake Minnetonka Association’s vision for better protection against aquatic invasive species, or AIS, is that aggressive and comprehensive protection is needed, some of these measures will require new thinking and we are now largely unprotected.

AIS not yet in Lake Minnetonka include zebra mussel, spiny waterflea, hydrilla and viral hemorrhagic septicemia – and there are many more as well. All of these invasive plants, animals and viruses are brought into lakes by boats and trailers, which makes the focus of prevention actions easy, at least in concept. The challenge will be to implement meaningful and effective protections while at the same time minimizing inconvenience and maintaining rights to use this public resource.

The Lake Minnetonka Association believes that a) the level of protection is not currently adequate and b) because for most of the new AIS there are no remedies, protection is the only practical strategy.

Our prevention plan includes six elements:

1. Comprehensive Physical Inspections using human or automated approaches are critical. Currently, human inspectors or automated devices cover about 1/3 of the total boat activity at public launches. Inspections should also require assurances that incoming boats and trailers are dry inside and out. The Lake Minnetonka Association recommends all public, private and municipal access have inspectors or automatic surveillance and current LMCD ordinances be enforced.

2. Closure of Some Accesses

Because there are many public and private accesses on Lake Minnetonka, the prospect of comprehensive coverage with inspectors is costly and inefficient. To better facilitate effective inspections, some access should be closed at some times. Because Lake Minnetonka is a public resource, assurances should be provided to permit access to the lake with a minimum disruption and inconvenience. The Lake Minnetonka Association recommends some accesses be closed at some times to facilitate the comprehensive inspections recommended above, but assurances should be provided to not restrict public access overall.

3. Fees

Because AIS are transported via boats and trailers, a fee based on boat/trailer usage is proportional to the risk of introducing AIS. There will be costs for implementing many of the protection elements in this plan, so assessing fees based on boat/trailer usage is reasonable. There are historical, cultural and policy hurdles to overcome for this proposal. The Lake Minnetonka Association recommends fees be assessed to boats and trailers using Lake Minnetonka to support AIS prevention programs.

4. Tributary Lakes

AIS introductions in lakes that are tributary to Lake Minnetonka will have a ready access to Lake Minnetonka via their surface water connections. Therefore the protection activities we propose should be applied to tributary lakes as well as to Lake Minnetonka. The Lake Minnetonka Association recommends prevention activities, such as inspections, restrictions and fees, should be implemented on lakes that are tributary to Lake Minnetonka.

5. Inspections at Special Events

The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District should enforce its AIS provisions for Special Event participants. To our knowledge, the inspections or washings as required in the ordinance are not occurring. The Lake Minnetonka Association recommends that inspections and/or washing of all watercraft participating in Special Events be required. Further, because participants in Special Events include out-of-state watercraft, we recommend all participating watercraft demonstrate they contain no water in their live wells or no live bait.

6. Enforcement

The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District should upgrade and enforce its prohibitions. The LMCD code prohibits any plant fragments on boats or trailers within boat launch areas. This has not been enforced. The LMCD ordinance does not specifically define or prohibit other AIS. The Lake Minnetonka Association recommends the LMCD’s ordinance should be amended to specifically include prohibited and regulated invasive species. The LMCD should better enforce the above-referenced sections of its ordinances.

Acceptable Risk

There is no practical way to reduce the risk of AIS introductions to zero. However, the Lake Minnetonka Association believes AIS prevention must substantially reduce the risk of AIS introductions. Furthermore, unless the risks are substantially reduced, half-measures are poor public investments. The Lake Minnetonka Association recommends the overall risk of AIS introductions be reduced by at least 90% compared to the present baseline.

The complete position statement (Prevention of Aquatic Invasive Species) can be found on our web site.

We believe the new thinking we present will help the overall efforts to better protect and manage Lake Minnetonka now and in the future.

A Vision for Better Environmental Protection of Lake Minnetonka

The Lake Minnetonka Association is dedicated to the sound environmental management and protection of Lake Minnetonka. As I outlined in last month’s column, there is a lack of a clear vision for protection and management of our lake. Here and in the next several columns, I want to articulate the Lake Minnetonka Association’s vision for Lake Minnetonka in several critical areas.

Future columns will address protection from zebra mussels and other new invasive plants, animals and viruses and a comprehensive approach for shoreland and nearshore protection and management. This column presents our vision for managing milfoil in Lake Minnetonka.

Our vision for milfoil management is to expand a long-term comprehensive restoration program throughout the lake.

Milfoil has been managed primarily through the harvesting program of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. This program, established in 1989, harvests (or cuts) and removes milfoil in targeted areas around the lake. While the program is managed and administered effectively; there are limitations to what harvesting can accomplish.

Stakeholders from three bays (Carmans, Grays and Phelps) had these views regarding the harvesting program: only 16% of respondents thought the harvesting program was effective and 76% thought it is short-term, small-scale or ineffective. In addition, the number of acres harvested has decreased by 100% since 1989. In 2007, only 323 acres were harvested.

New science is now available that offers advantages in the ability to actually restore native plants while controlling milfoil. The use of herbicides, as has been proposed for Carmans, Grays and Phelps Bays in 2008, is safe and restorative. The Lake Minnetonka Association believes the harvesting program should be phased out and replaced with a program that is restorative and will treat much larger areas of the lake.

Here is why we think this makes sense:

Herbicides are available that can selectively control milfoil and protect native plants. Compared to harvesting, selective herbicides have these advantages:

• Selective herbicides are safe and a restorative.
• Selective herbicides will actually control milfoil over large areas and for multiple seasons.
• Selective herbicides are applied early in the season and their use will diminish over time.
• There are no capital investments.
• Significant reductions in lakeshore cleanup are expected.

Another significant advantage is that larger areas of milfoil can be controlled within the same budget as is now available for the harvesting program. Our analysis indicates the number of acres of milfoil controlled could increase by five-fold within the same operating budget for the harvesting program. We propose involving lakeshore owners as private funding partners in this program, because they have demonstrated a willingness to help protect this public lake.

Our complete analysis can be found on our web site in a document titled, “LMA Position Statement on Milfoil Management.”

We believe the new thinking we present will help the overall efforts to better protect and manage Lake Minnetonka now and in the future.

A Vision for Lake Minnetonka

Lake Minnetonka is much cleaner today that it was 20, 30, even 50 years ago. The main reason is the diversion of six sewage treatment plants that discharged directly into the lake. Nutrients in the sewage discharge spawned incredible and legendary algae blooms. By taking away the sewage inputs, the lake got cleaner, and it appears we have finally reached a new condition. Of course there will always be problems with respect to nutrients, like phosphorus in runoff pollution, but for now the situation is under control and we can look forward to enjoying a cleaner lake, especially compared to the recent past.

Now there are other kinds of pollution and impacts that are cause for concern. As a community, we should be aware of and orient our programs toward these impacts, so we can keep Lake Minnetonka clean and healthy.

Unfortunately, there is no clear vision regarding prioritizing these threats or investments for preventing or minimizing these threats.

Lake Minnetonka faces serious threats in three areas – aquatic invasive species (AIS) prevention, aquatic invasive species control and nearshore impacts, in that order.

AIS prevention must be the top priority for Lake Minnetonka. The reason is simple: As additional AIS enter the lake, its quality and condition diminish irreparably and permanently. The Great Lakes have had a century of AIS introductions and ecologists refer to the Great Lakes ecosystem as a train wreck. Lake Minnetonka has been lucky, not having a new exotic species introduction for about 20 years. However, we are tempting fate and much more investment is needed to keep new AIS at bay. I don’t think anyone has the “train wreck” vision for Lake Minnetonka.

The Lake Minnetonka Association’s vision for Lake Minnetonka is to keep zebra mussel, viral hemorrhagic septicemia, spiny waterflea and a bout a dozen other harmful AIS at our doorstep out of the lake. We have developed a plan to accomplish this, but it has not received serious consideration. AIS prevention efforts to-date have occurred in the absence of a plan or a meaningful strategic context. We remain highly exposed and can do much better.

AIS control is our next priority. Eurasian watermilfoil and curlyleaf pondweed are now in Lake Minnetonka. We have developed and proposed scientifically valid treatments to control milfoil and curlyleaf pondweed in the three bay Lake Vegetation Management Plan in 2008. This program is a stepping stone to a larger, more comprehensive and ecologically valid solution to milfoil control.

The Lake Minnetonka Association’s vision for Lake Minnetonka is to provide lake-wide milfoil control making Lake Minnetonka healthier and more pleasant for boating, swimming and other recreation.

Our last priority is to assure the nearshore land and shallow water areas on Lake Minnetonka are well managed. Nearshore areas are important for fish and wildlife habitat and therefore impacts in these areas are a concern. There have been a number of proposals and initiatives recently that attempt to protect nearshore areas, but these proposed remedies have been piecemeal and poorly focused. The lakeshore on Lake Minnetonka is arguably the most urbanized and developed of any lake in Minnesota, yet our beautiful lake boasts a world-class bass fishery as well as a healthy fishery overall. There is clearly not an imminent threat.

Lacking any clear threat should not be justification for turning our backs on these concerns however. Rather, shoreland protection and management should rely on facts and good science. Good policy and regulations should be developed to discover whether or how:

· nearshore buffers are needed or best implemented

· docks and related boating activities affect fish and wildlife

· artificial shoreland structures add to or detract from fish, wildlife and environmental values

While much of the lakeshore has been developed, there remain nearshore wetlands and sensitive areas that ought to be protected. These areas should be identified and specifically protected.

The Lake Minnetonka Association’s vision for Lake Minnetonka is the lakeshore be fully used and enjoyed without harming the Lake Minnetonka’s environmental values. Lakeshore owners should have the right to use these areas reasonably and have the obligation to assure that their use does not harm the lake. Right now, there appears to be a good balance, as Lake Minnetonka’s overall nearshore health is good.

Of course the devil is always in the details. Unfortunately there is not an official comprehensive vision or plan in place to assure that investments toward accomplishing these visions will occur. The Lake Minnetonka Association believes it is time for the entire Lake Minnetonka community to become engaged in protecting this wonderful asset.

Who Chould Pay for Milfoil Control?

Milfoil is a big problem. That is why the Lake Minnetonka Association and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District have been preparing a vegetation management plan for three of the worst milfoil bays on Lake Minnetonka (Carmen’s, Gray’s and Phelp’s). We now know two important things: 1) the proposed bay-wide herbicide treatments are expected to control milfoil and curlyleaf pondweed (another exotic plant) and 2) the costs for these treatments.

We have received strong support for the proposed treatments. However, the costs are significant and serious questions of who pays for these treatments have been raised.

Who should pay for these treatments – both in the short-term and in the long-term?

A proposed five-year treatment program is estimated to cost up to $190,000 (Carmen’s), $259,000 (Gray’s) and $247,000 (Phelp’s). We have a good feeling for the costs the first year, but subsequent years’ treatment costs depend on the results from the prior years, so our estimates are probably high for the five-year program. For this reason, our discussions have focused on the costs for the first year. In the long run, if this program is sustained, I expect the annual costs to be about one fifth of the first year costs to maintain essentially milfoil-free bays.

So, here I focus on the first year (2008) as that is the most significant hurdle to overcome.

The estimated costs for the proposed treatments in 2008 are: $53,000 (Carmen’s), $75,000 (Gray’s) and $71,000 (Phelp’s). The good news is we will apply for and hope to receive grants from the DNR that will reduce the local costs by $10,000 to $15,000 (depending on bay size). The LMCD has committed $5,000 per bay. So, the remaining costs will be: $33,000 (Carmen’s), $60,000 (Gray’s) and $51,000 (Phelp’s).

With the anticipated state (DNR) grants, plus the LMCD contribution, the lakeshore owners will be asked to contribute between 62 and 80% of the project costs for 2008 – these percentages would go up in future years if the DNR or LMCD funding are dropped. This is wrong.

The DNR funds come from a boat license surcharge for every boat in Minnesota. So these funds are to a degree tied to the movement of milfoil (by boats). The state then re-distributes this money through grants for milfoil treatments, such as are proposed here. However, there is no assurance Lake Minnetonka projects will receive these funds, as the grants are competitive.

At the local level, we have argued, as have many lakeshore owners in the three bays, that at a minimum the LMCD should contribute at least the amount of money that would be spent on harvesting because there will be not harvesting in these bays if the treatments occur. I have estimated this to be $31,000 based on the harvesting program’s record averaging 30% in the three bays and an annual budget of $105,000. Simply, it is wrong to ask the lakeshore owners in these bays to both pay a disproportionate share and continue paying for the harvesting (with public funds) which will now occur in other bays. In addition, the LMCD contribution comes from their Save-the-Lake Fund, a fund with a $265,000 balance that has been raised from private contributions and is not public money.

As a side note, it is also time to re-evaluate the harvesting program in light of more advanced milfoil controls, such as are being proposed. Indeed, only 16% of survey respondents in this program thought the harvesting program was effective and 76% thought it is short-term, small-scale or ineffective. Science has moved past harvesting as a more effective long-term remedy for milfoil and other invasive plants in Lake Minnetonka.

Lake Minnetonka is a public resource for all to use and enjoy. I believe the lakeshore owners have a responsibility to make investments in keeping it clean and healthy; but I also believe our public agencies also have that responsibility. As it stands, there is an imbalance.

The window of opportunity for implementing this milfoil control project in 2008 is small, as the treatments would have to occur by early-May. I will be asking the lakeshore owners to support this project with funding as noted above, but their support is entirely voluntary. Regardless of what they choose, this level of private support is neither appropriate nor sustainable in the long run. For the sake of keeping Lake Minnetonka clean and healthy, I think the local communities, through the cities and LMCD, must also step up.