In last month’s column, I made a plea that the Cities around Lake Minnetonka ought to provide more funding toward the control of milfoil. Indeed, since then, the Cities of Greenwood and Tonka Bay each committed $5,000 toward the proposed milfoil treatments in St. Albans and Gideon Bays and the Cities of Mound and Shorewood have again budgeted money toward the Phelps Bay treatments.
In this column, I provide a breakdown of the total funding toward aquatic invasive species (AIS) prevention and control, and present our views on where future funding ought to go.
AIS prevention programs in 2009 included DNR watercraft inspectors and the I-LIDS video monitoring with approximate budgets of $49,000 and $7,000, respectively. AIS control programs included the milfoil harvesters and the milfoil treatments in Grays and Phelps Bays plus plant assessments (pre-treatment) for Gideon and St. Albans Bays with approximate budgets of $100,000 and $146,000, respectively.
Funding for these programs comes from public and private sources. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) receives its general funding from a levy through the 14 Cities around the lake. In addition, the LMCD administers its Save-the-Lake Fund, which is maintained solely by private contributions. The Minnesota DNR provides grant funds for the inspectors, harvesting and milfoil treatments. Several Cities contribute to the milfoil treatments on some bays. Finally, the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) administers privately collected funds, mostly from lakeshore owners and businesses, which have supported AIS prevention and control programs.
So, there are three public funding sources (LMCD, Cities and DNR) and two private funding sources (Save-the-Lake and LMA) that support AIS prevention and control on Lake Minnetonka.
Here is a break down of the funding sources for the AIS prevention and control programs for Lake Minnetonka:
• Lake Minnetonka Conservation District – 31% (Inspector and harvesting)
• Cities – 7% (Milfoil treatments)
• MN DNR – 24% (Inspectors, harvesting and milfoil control)
• Save-the-Lake – 9% (video monitoring and milfoil control
• Lake Minnetonka Association – 29% (Inspectors and milfoil control)
Here are some boiled down points of note:
• Of the $302,000 total investment in AIS prevention and control, prevention represents 19% and control represents 81%
• Total funding from local public sources (LMCD + cities) represents 38% (31% + 7%)
• Total Funding from state public sources (DNR) represents 24%
• Total funding from local private sources (Save-the-Lake + LMA) represents 38% (9% + 29%)
The Lake Minnetonka Association is proud of the support for AIS prevention and control provided by our members. Their support is voluntary and represents a substantial part of the total protection effort. Lake Minnetonka is a public resource and its protection and management are critically important to sustaining the quality and value of this beautiful resource.
The Lake Minnetonka Association, through the generous, voluntary contributions of our members will continue to do our share. We think our members’ support of the milfoil control program will likely remain high, as there is increasing demand and interest for our Milfoil-Free Minnetonka campaign.
However, we think Lake Minnetonka is seriously under-invested for protecting Lake Minnetonka from new AIS.
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is contemplating becoming involved in AIS prevention for Lake Minnetonka and other lakes in the District. We encourage and would welcome their participation from a watershed perspective.
The $56,000 budget for AIS prevention is a pittance compared to the need and priority. For most AIS approaching Lake Minnetonka, there are no remedies or controls once they get into the lake. The LMCD’s share of this, $33,100, represents about 13% of their total municipal levy. The Lake Minnetonka Association believes this should be a higher priority and a greater portion of the funding dedicated to the conservation of the lake we love. We advocate for additional funding and believe that will need to arise locally, as there are limited state funds likely to be available – and no state funding through the newly-passed constitutional amendment monies.
Lake Minnetonka is too valuable a resource – if we do not provide for its protection, we risk losing the treasure of our community.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
The Cities Should Get into the Milfoil Game
The Lake Minnetonka Association is gratified at the wonderful results of the milfoil herbicidal treatments in Grays and Phelps Bays this year. We are also proud of our members’ voluntary financial support – in fact, the majority of the financial support has come from lakeshore residents and businesses on the respective bays.
We are also grateful for the public support we have received. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the three cities abutting Phelps Bay - Mound, Shorewood and Minnetrista. The City of Greenwood also provided funding for the preparatory plant inventory conducted on St. Albans Bay this year.
As the milfoil control program is in its second of five years (of the demonstration), it is clear to us that the results are positive and the demand is increasing. Indeed, we are hoping to expand the treatments to Carmans, Gideon, St. Albans and perhaps and expanded area on Phelps Bays in 2010. We have also received inquiries from Carsons and Maxwell Bays.
This project is a demonstration project. We hope to demonstrate the viability of the method to control milfoil, protect native plants and restore the health of the lake. But, we also hope to demonstrate the viability of a public/private funding formula. Right now, most of the funding comes from private sources. While this makes the demonstration project viable, I do not believe this is sustainable (in these portions) in the long run.
Where do we go from here?
In a good way, the demand is outpacing the communities’ capacity to fund and manage this program and as a result, it is evolving somewhat piecemeal. We appreciate the demand reflects a good program and therefore this is a good problem; but now we must be more thoughtful and systematic in how we invest in managing this public resource. The community should take steps to be more strategic to avoid continuing in this manner.
Right now, the cities’ fund the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, which is charged with managing milfoil (and other things too). The LMCD’s milfoil program includes using mechanical harvesters. The LMCD funding of the milfoil herbicidal treatments is not public funding, rather privately-collected funds through their Save-the-Lake Fund. The result, with respect to Cities’ funding of the treatment project, is their funding is uneven – ranging from almost half of the Phelps Bay costs to none of Grays Bay costs. This ‘formula’ will become even more complicated as new bays are added.
While the Lake Minnetonka Association has managed the milfoil treatment project, we believe this is ultimately a public function.
We do not see the convergence of the two milfoil control programs as problematic, rather we see this as an opportunity to better manage and control milfoil in Lake Minnetonka and one day make it Milfoil-Free.
One way to meet this challenge might be for the LMCD and the Cities to work together to develop a long-term milfoil control program that integrates the best available technologies and tools and shifts to greater portion of public funding. We see this as a very strategic and sustainable path forward and think it should be started now.
If asked, the Lake Minnetonka Association will help with this program.
We are also grateful for the public support we have received. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the three cities abutting Phelps Bay - Mound, Shorewood and Minnetrista. The City of Greenwood also provided funding for the preparatory plant inventory conducted on St. Albans Bay this year.
As the milfoil control program is in its second of five years (of the demonstration), it is clear to us that the results are positive and the demand is increasing. Indeed, we are hoping to expand the treatments to Carmans, Gideon, St. Albans and perhaps and expanded area on Phelps Bays in 2010. We have also received inquiries from Carsons and Maxwell Bays.
This project is a demonstration project. We hope to demonstrate the viability of the method to control milfoil, protect native plants and restore the health of the lake. But, we also hope to demonstrate the viability of a public/private funding formula. Right now, most of the funding comes from private sources. While this makes the demonstration project viable, I do not believe this is sustainable (in these portions) in the long run.
Where do we go from here?
In a good way, the demand is outpacing the communities’ capacity to fund and manage this program and as a result, it is evolving somewhat piecemeal. We appreciate the demand reflects a good program and therefore this is a good problem; but now we must be more thoughtful and systematic in how we invest in managing this public resource. The community should take steps to be more strategic to avoid continuing in this manner.
Right now, the cities’ fund the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, which is charged with managing milfoil (and other things too). The LMCD’s milfoil program includes using mechanical harvesters. The LMCD funding of the milfoil herbicidal treatments is not public funding, rather privately-collected funds through their Save-the-Lake Fund. The result, with respect to Cities’ funding of the treatment project, is their funding is uneven – ranging from almost half of the Phelps Bay costs to none of Grays Bay costs. This ‘formula’ will become even more complicated as new bays are added.
While the Lake Minnetonka Association has managed the milfoil treatment project, we believe this is ultimately a public function.
We do not see the convergence of the two milfoil control programs as problematic, rather we see this as an opportunity to better manage and control milfoil in Lake Minnetonka and one day make it Milfoil-Free.
One way to meet this challenge might be for the LMCD and the Cities to work together to develop a long-term milfoil control program that integrates the best available technologies and tools and shifts to greater portion of public funding. We see this as a very strategic and sustainable path forward and think it should be started now.
If asked, the Lake Minnetonka Association will help with this program.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Shielding Lake Minnetonka
In the fight against aquatic invasive species (AIS), there is a new jargon being used to frame strategic prevention approaches. We are now speaking of ‘containment’ and ‘shields’ – referring to containing AIS within waters already infested with AIS and shielding un-infested waters to keep unwanted AIS out.
With respect to Lake Minnetonka and zebra mussels for example, we hope and expect the state will keep them contained in Mille Lacs Lake, Prior Lake and the other waters they have infested, but it is a local responsibility to shield Lake Minnetonka.
Research has clearly shown that the containment strategy is by far the most effective, efficient large-scale approach. Unfortunately, Minnesota is way under-invested in this strategy. Indeed, Minnesota Waters, a state-wide advocacy group, has found the AIS management system in Minnesota to be ‘broken.’ We see much evidence of this. There have been about a half dozen new zebra mussel infestations this season, with probably more to be discovered. Minnesota law requires boaters leaving zebra mussel infested lakes to immediately drain all water upon exiting the lake; yet a Fox 9 investigative report documents boat after boat leaving Prior Lake this summer without draining. Tick, tick, tick …
What this means for Lake Minnetonka is – if we want to protect our lake from zebra mussel, hydrilla, viral hemorrhagic septicemia, Brazilian elodea, spiny waterflea, rusty crayfish, Asian carp, and on and on – we had better adopt the shield approach.
That is exactly what is being developed right now.
The Lake Minnetonka Association is facilitating a multi-agency effort to develop an AIS prevention plan for Lake Minnetonka to include meaningful protection actions. Other agencies are partnering to develop the plan, including the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the MN Department of Natural Resources, Three Rivers Park District, Hennepin County Environmental Services and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. We expect the draft plan to be completed in December, then the respective organizations will review and be asked to adopt and implement the plan.
It should be no surprise that a comprehensive protection plan will be challenging and expensive to fully implement. The technical committee developing the plan has adopted a goal of reducing the risk of an AIS introduction by at least 90%. We have identified 13 discrete pathways for AIS to get into the lake, but the main (over 50% of the overall risk) pathway is public boat ramps. We know already that voluntary cleaning actions and signage, while important, will not be nearly enough to reduce the risk of AIS introductions.
While specific prevention actions have not been recommended at this time, it is clear that substantial investments will be required to meet the 90% reduction goal. As a community, we will need to decide soon – can we, should we, how do we make the investments that will be necessary to protect our lake?
This year, prevention activities on Lake Minnetonka include inspectors at four public accesses during weekends and holidays and video monitoring at two accesses. That coverage has a budget is about $50 to $60 thousand dollars, yet represents a fraction (about 9%) of the 90% goal.
The Lake Minnetonka Association thinks that local leaders must contemplate and actualize real protection for the lake. We need serious new thinking and investment if we want to protect the lake that is the economic engine for our community. Furthermore, we think these investments will need to arise locally, as there are practically no state monies available.
We hear, often actually, that fees assessed to boaters would be a logical and fair way to raise money for protection actions. We agree. However, the reality is that the political hurdles are enormous so this is not likely to happen any time soon. We have also heard that the constitutional amendment money is for clean water, so why not go there? Again, it has become clear that AIS protection activities are out of bounds for those monies.
It will boil down to local investment and commitment – Are we there?
With respect to Lake Minnetonka and zebra mussels for example, we hope and expect the state will keep them contained in Mille Lacs Lake, Prior Lake and the other waters they have infested, but it is a local responsibility to shield Lake Minnetonka.
Research has clearly shown that the containment strategy is by far the most effective, efficient large-scale approach. Unfortunately, Minnesota is way under-invested in this strategy. Indeed, Minnesota Waters, a state-wide advocacy group, has found the AIS management system in Minnesota to be ‘broken.’ We see much evidence of this. There have been about a half dozen new zebra mussel infestations this season, with probably more to be discovered. Minnesota law requires boaters leaving zebra mussel infested lakes to immediately drain all water upon exiting the lake; yet a Fox 9 investigative report documents boat after boat leaving Prior Lake this summer without draining. Tick, tick, tick …
What this means for Lake Minnetonka is – if we want to protect our lake from zebra mussel, hydrilla, viral hemorrhagic septicemia, Brazilian elodea, spiny waterflea, rusty crayfish, Asian carp, and on and on – we had better adopt the shield approach.
That is exactly what is being developed right now.
The Lake Minnetonka Association is facilitating a multi-agency effort to develop an AIS prevention plan for Lake Minnetonka to include meaningful protection actions. Other agencies are partnering to develop the plan, including the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the MN Department of Natural Resources, Three Rivers Park District, Hennepin County Environmental Services and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. We expect the draft plan to be completed in December, then the respective organizations will review and be asked to adopt and implement the plan.
It should be no surprise that a comprehensive protection plan will be challenging and expensive to fully implement. The technical committee developing the plan has adopted a goal of reducing the risk of an AIS introduction by at least 90%. We have identified 13 discrete pathways for AIS to get into the lake, but the main (over 50% of the overall risk) pathway is public boat ramps. We know already that voluntary cleaning actions and signage, while important, will not be nearly enough to reduce the risk of AIS introductions.
While specific prevention actions have not been recommended at this time, it is clear that substantial investments will be required to meet the 90% reduction goal. As a community, we will need to decide soon – can we, should we, how do we make the investments that will be necessary to protect our lake?
This year, prevention activities on Lake Minnetonka include inspectors at four public accesses during weekends and holidays and video monitoring at two accesses. That coverage has a budget is about $50 to $60 thousand dollars, yet represents a fraction (about 9%) of the 90% goal.
The Lake Minnetonka Association thinks that local leaders must contemplate and actualize real protection for the lake. We need serious new thinking and investment if we want to protect the lake that is the economic engine for our community. Furthermore, we think these investments will need to arise locally, as there are practically no state monies available.
We hear, often actually, that fees assessed to boaters would be a logical and fair way to raise money for protection actions. We agree. However, the reality is that the political hurdles are enormous so this is not likely to happen any time soon. We have also heard that the constitutional amendment money is for clean water, so why not go there? Again, it has become clear that AIS protection activities are out of bounds for those monies.
It will boil down to local investment and commitment – Are we there?
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Grays and Phelps Bays Are Milfoil-Free
Based upon late-season inspections of Grays and Phelps Bays, they are free of Eurasian watermilfoil (technically there are small amounts of milfoil, but they are operationally milfoil-free). These results are especially gratifying, as milfoil was problematic throughout the rest of the lake this season.
Recall, these two bays were treated in June to selectively kill milfoil, while protecting native plants. Representatives from several state and local agencies as well as the manufacturer of the herbicide used in this year’s treatment inspected both bays recently. The overall result – milfoil was controlled throughout the bays and there were abundant native plants.
These results are informal and the final technical results will be forthcoming later this autumn. But at this point, we are very pleased and I have received numerous calls and emails from residents of these bays who are similarly pleased. According to Mike Mason, a Phelps Bay resident, “In the 18 years that we have lived on Phelps Bay, this by far is the best that the bay has ever looked. The water is clearer, people are skiing in the open water that was once choked with milfoil, I have spent minimal time on cleaning the beach and my kids can actually swim around my dock. I also can fish off my dock without reeling in weed after weed.” According to Paul Pedersen, a long time resident of Grays Bay, “I am highly encouraged by what I see. We were told to expect the milfoil would be gone – that is what happened. I am looking forward to more seasons without milfoil.” Terry Bryce, a resident of Grays Bay since 1980, says “Marvelous! Since milfoil has been in Grays Bay, no other treatment has come close to the results this year. I can enjoy boating without milfoil clogging my prop.”
We have also been working with representatives of St. Albans and Gideon Bays, who have visited Grays or Phelps Bays and are excited about the possibility of being included in the treatment program. Indeed, lakeshore residents, businesses and the City of Greenwood have contributed to plant inventories of these two bays, which is a prerequisite step to participating in the treatment program in 2010. Other steps also need to occur, such as securing funding and permits, and these are being pursued in the next few months.
These treatments are part of a five-year demonstration project, supported by the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA), Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and other agencies. The objectives of the program are to control milfoil in a safe manner throughout the respective bays, protect and improve native plants and minimize lakeshore clean up of milfoil fragments. We believe we are on track to satisfy those objectives and soon be able to offer a safe, effective and comprehensive milfoil control option for Lake Minnetonka that is sustainable and restorative.
Recently, concerns have been raised regarding the safety of the herbicides used in this program. We point out that all agencies involved in the demonstration project and program have approved the plan that prescribes their use. In addition, the LMA, LMCD, MN DNR and several cities have provided funding for this project; the MN DNR approved the plan and provided permits; and the herbicides are registered for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Indeed, the regulatory agencies and scientists involved in the project found these herbicides were the only feasible management tool that could accomplish the project’s objectives.
The Lake Minnetonka Association is concerned with any management approach that compromises the health of Lake Minnetonka. In this case, we believe these herbicides are safe and restorative. We know that untreated, milfoil diminishes the health of the lake ecosystem by displacing native plants and diminishing plant diversity, so even not controlling milfoil has negative consequences.
Overall, we are proud of the leadership and support provided by our members – over half the financial support was provided by private, voluntary contributions. We are pleased with the results. We are grateful for the funding support provided by the Save-the-Lake Fund, a MN DNR grant, and the Cities of Minnetrista, Mound and Shorewood.
Recall, these two bays were treated in June to selectively kill milfoil, while protecting native plants. Representatives from several state and local agencies as well as the manufacturer of the herbicide used in this year’s treatment inspected both bays recently. The overall result – milfoil was controlled throughout the bays and there were abundant native plants.
These results are informal and the final technical results will be forthcoming later this autumn. But at this point, we are very pleased and I have received numerous calls and emails from residents of these bays who are similarly pleased. According to Mike Mason, a Phelps Bay resident, “In the 18 years that we have lived on Phelps Bay, this by far is the best that the bay has ever looked. The water is clearer, people are skiing in the open water that was once choked with milfoil, I have spent minimal time on cleaning the beach and my kids can actually swim around my dock. I also can fish off my dock without reeling in weed after weed.” According to Paul Pedersen, a long time resident of Grays Bay, “I am highly encouraged by what I see. We were told to expect the milfoil would be gone – that is what happened. I am looking forward to more seasons without milfoil.” Terry Bryce, a resident of Grays Bay since 1980, says “Marvelous! Since milfoil has been in Grays Bay, no other treatment has come close to the results this year. I can enjoy boating without milfoil clogging my prop.”
We have also been working with representatives of St. Albans and Gideon Bays, who have visited Grays or Phelps Bays and are excited about the possibility of being included in the treatment program. Indeed, lakeshore residents, businesses and the City of Greenwood have contributed to plant inventories of these two bays, which is a prerequisite step to participating in the treatment program in 2010. Other steps also need to occur, such as securing funding and permits, and these are being pursued in the next few months.
These treatments are part of a five-year demonstration project, supported by the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA), Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and other agencies. The objectives of the program are to control milfoil in a safe manner throughout the respective bays, protect and improve native plants and minimize lakeshore clean up of milfoil fragments. We believe we are on track to satisfy those objectives and soon be able to offer a safe, effective and comprehensive milfoil control option for Lake Minnetonka that is sustainable and restorative.
Recently, concerns have been raised regarding the safety of the herbicides used in this program. We point out that all agencies involved in the demonstration project and program have approved the plan that prescribes their use. In addition, the LMA, LMCD, MN DNR and several cities have provided funding for this project; the MN DNR approved the plan and provided permits; and the herbicides are registered for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Indeed, the regulatory agencies and scientists involved in the project found these herbicides were the only feasible management tool that could accomplish the project’s objectives.
The Lake Minnetonka Association is concerned with any management approach that compromises the health of Lake Minnetonka. In this case, we believe these herbicides are safe and restorative. We know that untreated, milfoil diminishes the health of the lake ecosystem by displacing native plants and diminishing plant diversity, so even not controlling milfoil has negative consequences.
Overall, we are proud of the leadership and support provided by our members – over half the financial support was provided by private, voluntary contributions. We are pleased with the results. We are grateful for the funding support provided by the Save-the-Lake Fund, a MN DNR grant, and the Cities of Minnetrista, Mound and Shorewood.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The Changing Tide on Lake Minnetonka
In the 1960s and 1970s Lake Minnetonka experienced horrible pollution. There were six sewage treatment plants discharging their effluent directly to Lake Minnetonka and, after years of operation, the lake had become so polluted that algae caked the water surface and as it rotted, it stunk to high heaven. This was bad.
Lake Minnetonka had become a local cause célèbre and the community response, which mirrored a national and international response to similar problems elsewhere, corrected the problem. As a result of many local and national efforts, we now have the Environmental Protection Agency, we no longer discharge sewage effluent into Lake Minnetonka and when sewage is discharged into the nation’s waterways, it is treated.
Lake Minnetonka’s water quality has gotten steadily and significantly better over the past several decades as a direct result of removing sewage discharges. This is good.
Lake Minnetonka now faces a similar tidal change. Aquatic invasive species (AIS), if allowed to become established in the lake, will cause damage greater than what the lake experienced a half century ago. The difference this time is that 1) we can see this coming and 2) once in the lake, we have no way to reverse or remedy the damage.
This is bad.
Lake Minnetonka is highly exposed to AIS introductions. Lake Minnetonka has dozens of access points. Lake Minnetonka welcomes hundreds of thousands of boaters each year. Boater knowledge of and actions to clean their boats and trailers is high, but not high enough. Insufficient prevention actions include inspectors (covering about 20% of the public access hours), video monitors (which are not reviewed) and special event participants (who are not inspected). The Lake Minnetonka Association, the LMCD and other agencies have stepped up their efforts recently – yet we remain highly exposed.
Minnesota Waters, the state-wide advocacy organization, has recently adopted a position paper and recommendations on AIS in Minnesota and has found the state’s AIS management system to be broken. Simply, Minnesota has a highly permissive system that hangs on to a long-standing cultural ethic of free access to our lakes and rivers. Unfortunately, AIS moving mainly on boats and trailers exploit this. Unless we find some way to reconcile this dilemma, and soon, Lake Minnetonka and many other lakes will be forever changed.
The Minnesota Waters paper also found AIS infestations and impacts to be accelerating. We have more lakes and rivers becoming infested, we have more kinds of exotic species in and entering Minnesota and the impacts are increasing. For example, zebra mussels in Lake Ossawinnamakee are now at densities of hundreds per square foot. Zebra mussels are growing in places where it was once thought they would not grow – on soft bottoms and on plants. The entire ecosystem in Lake Ossawinnamakee is damaged.
We must change the way we approach protecting our lakes and these changes must be considered locally (for Lake Minnetonka) as well as state-wide.
If this sounds like a large challenge – it is. However, we must find ways to confront this challenge if we are to protect the lakes we love. Minnesota Waters has made recommendations to change this AIS management system. The Lake Minnetonka Association, in our Milfoil-Free Minnetonka campaign, has made recommendations to protect Lake Minnetonka. The Lake Minnetonka Association, the DNR, the LMCD and other agencies have begun developing a comprehensive prevention plan for Lake Minnetonka. This plan, scheduled to be implemented in time for next season, has so far adopted a goal of reducing the risk of an AIS introduction to Lake Minnetonka by at least 90%. This is aggressive, but so are AIS.
Unless our state and local leaders confront these challenges, the tides on Lake Minnetonka could be forever changed.
Lake Minnetonka had become a local cause célèbre and the community response, which mirrored a national and international response to similar problems elsewhere, corrected the problem. As a result of many local and national efforts, we now have the Environmental Protection Agency, we no longer discharge sewage effluent into Lake Minnetonka and when sewage is discharged into the nation’s waterways, it is treated.
Lake Minnetonka’s water quality has gotten steadily and significantly better over the past several decades as a direct result of removing sewage discharges. This is good.
Lake Minnetonka now faces a similar tidal change. Aquatic invasive species (AIS), if allowed to become established in the lake, will cause damage greater than what the lake experienced a half century ago. The difference this time is that 1) we can see this coming and 2) once in the lake, we have no way to reverse or remedy the damage.
This is bad.
Lake Minnetonka is highly exposed to AIS introductions. Lake Minnetonka has dozens of access points. Lake Minnetonka welcomes hundreds of thousands of boaters each year. Boater knowledge of and actions to clean their boats and trailers is high, but not high enough. Insufficient prevention actions include inspectors (covering about 20% of the public access hours), video monitors (which are not reviewed) and special event participants (who are not inspected). The Lake Minnetonka Association, the LMCD and other agencies have stepped up their efforts recently – yet we remain highly exposed.
Minnesota Waters, the state-wide advocacy organization, has recently adopted a position paper and recommendations on AIS in Minnesota and has found the state’s AIS management system to be broken. Simply, Minnesota has a highly permissive system that hangs on to a long-standing cultural ethic of free access to our lakes and rivers. Unfortunately, AIS moving mainly on boats and trailers exploit this. Unless we find some way to reconcile this dilemma, and soon, Lake Minnetonka and many other lakes will be forever changed.
The Minnesota Waters paper also found AIS infestations and impacts to be accelerating. We have more lakes and rivers becoming infested, we have more kinds of exotic species in and entering Minnesota and the impacts are increasing. For example, zebra mussels in Lake Ossawinnamakee are now at densities of hundreds per square foot. Zebra mussels are growing in places where it was once thought they would not grow – on soft bottoms and on plants. The entire ecosystem in Lake Ossawinnamakee is damaged.
We must change the way we approach protecting our lakes and these changes must be considered locally (for Lake Minnetonka) as well as state-wide.
If this sounds like a large challenge – it is. However, we must find ways to confront this challenge if we are to protect the lakes we love. Minnesota Waters has made recommendations to change this AIS management system. The Lake Minnetonka Association, in our Milfoil-Free Minnetonka campaign, has made recommendations to protect Lake Minnetonka. The Lake Minnetonka Association, the DNR, the LMCD and other agencies have begun developing a comprehensive prevention plan for Lake Minnetonka. This plan, scheduled to be implemented in time for next season, has so far adopted a goal of reducing the risk of an AIS introduction to Lake Minnetonka by at least 90%. This is aggressive, but so are AIS.
Unless our state and local leaders confront these challenges, the tides on Lake Minnetonka could be forever changed.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Bad Synergy
syn-er-gy - combined effect being greater than parts. When the individual effects are negative, the combined effects are bad.
The underlying ecological principles that make aquatic invasive species (AIS) ‘bad’ for lakes are solid. Simply, AIS having come from somewhere else - from somewhere exotic – and are not constrained by the normal check and balances they encounter in their native waters. Thus, they often grow unfettered and create severe nuisances and ecological damage.
Two familiar examples are common carp and Eurasian watermilfoil. Common carp was intentionally introduced to the country over 100 years ago because of their high reproductive potential, their high protein quality and their popularity as food in Asian countries. While common carp have not become popular as a game fish or a food fish in Minnesota, their populations have exploded in Minnesota lakes and they have become a huge problem.
Likewise, milfoil, while not introduced intentionally, has also become a huge problem. Milfoil was first discovered in Minnesota (Lake Minnetonka) in 1987 and is now in over 200 lakes and continues to expand. In Lake Minnetonka, milfoil quickly expanded to the entire lake and now occupies between 3,000 and 5,000 acres. Unchecked, it forms dense mats and out-competes native plants causing nuisances and damage that include interfering with fishing, swimming and boating, the displacement of native plants, and the accumulation of nutrient-rich lake sediments.
We have practically no control methods for common carp and our controls for milfoil have, to-date, been limited to managing or mitigating some nuisance aspects. The harvesting program is designed to facilitate navigation and covers 300 to 500 acres per season. Individual lakeshore owners’ treatments are limited to small areas adjacent to their lakeshores. Most recently, the herbicide treatments in Grays and Phelps Bays offer promise for larger-scale, longer-term control.
We know carp and milfoil are bad - what happens as additional AIS are introduced into the lake?
This question must be contemplated as policies and programs are developed to prevent additional AIS. The Lake Minnetonka Association and others have focused much recent attention on zebra mussels that have been the AIS villain du jour. This makes sense as zebra mussels are the closest AIS to Lake Minnetonka and are likely to cause extreme damage.
In addition to the anticipated impacts of zebra mussel, we are concerned with synergistic effects. For example, we anticipate that should zebra mussel get into Lake Minnetonka, much of the lake water will be cleared through zebra mussel’s filtering action. This in turn will cause milfoil to expand its range by growing in deeper waters than at present.
There are other examples of synergistic impacts involving zebra mussels too. Zebra mussels facilitate avian botulism when round goby (another AIS) is in the lake. Thus, avian botulism has become problematic in lakes with both zebra mussel and round goby when it had not been a problem previously.
There are two points to make. First, while we usually cannot fully anticipate the full range of impacts of new AIS, we can expect there will be unanticipated impacts and enhanced impacts as new AIS are introduced into the lake. Second, all of the attention and effort that has been focused on single AIS (like zebra mussel) applies equally to additional AIS. And there are a couple dozen new AIS – plants, animals and viruses – nearing Lake Minnetonka. So, even if zebra mussel should be found in Lake Minnetonka, there is an ample and ongoing need to sustain our prevention efforts.
Synergistic effects of AIS boil down to: 1 + 1 = 3. The math may be bad, but so is AIS synergy.
We must remain vigilant and continue to invest in prevention programs, actions and funding. Lake Minnetonka remains highly exposed, so we have much more to do – Lake Minnetonka is too valuable.
The underlying ecological principles that make aquatic invasive species (AIS) ‘bad’ for lakes are solid. Simply, AIS having come from somewhere else - from somewhere exotic – and are not constrained by the normal check and balances they encounter in their native waters. Thus, they often grow unfettered and create severe nuisances and ecological damage.
Two familiar examples are common carp and Eurasian watermilfoil. Common carp was intentionally introduced to the country over 100 years ago because of their high reproductive potential, their high protein quality and their popularity as food in Asian countries. While common carp have not become popular as a game fish or a food fish in Minnesota, their populations have exploded in Minnesota lakes and they have become a huge problem.
Likewise, milfoil, while not introduced intentionally, has also become a huge problem. Milfoil was first discovered in Minnesota (Lake Minnetonka) in 1987 and is now in over 200 lakes and continues to expand. In Lake Minnetonka, milfoil quickly expanded to the entire lake and now occupies between 3,000 and 5,000 acres. Unchecked, it forms dense mats and out-competes native plants causing nuisances and damage that include interfering with fishing, swimming and boating, the displacement of native plants, and the accumulation of nutrient-rich lake sediments.
We have practically no control methods for common carp and our controls for milfoil have, to-date, been limited to managing or mitigating some nuisance aspects. The harvesting program is designed to facilitate navigation and covers 300 to 500 acres per season. Individual lakeshore owners’ treatments are limited to small areas adjacent to their lakeshores. Most recently, the herbicide treatments in Grays and Phelps Bays offer promise for larger-scale, longer-term control.
We know carp and milfoil are bad - what happens as additional AIS are introduced into the lake?
This question must be contemplated as policies and programs are developed to prevent additional AIS. The Lake Minnetonka Association and others have focused much recent attention on zebra mussels that have been the AIS villain du jour. This makes sense as zebra mussels are the closest AIS to Lake Minnetonka and are likely to cause extreme damage.
In addition to the anticipated impacts of zebra mussel, we are concerned with synergistic effects. For example, we anticipate that should zebra mussel get into Lake Minnetonka, much of the lake water will be cleared through zebra mussel’s filtering action. This in turn will cause milfoil to expand its range by growing in deeper waters than at present.
There are other examples of synergistic impacts involving zebra mussels too. Zebra mussels facilitate avian botulism when round goby (another AIS) is in the lake. Thus, avian botulism has become problematic in lakes with both zebra mussel and round goby when it had not been a problem previously.
There are two points to make. First, while we usually cannot fully anticipate the full range of impacts of new AIS, we can expect there will be unanticipated impacts and enhanced impacts as new AIS are introduced into the lake. Second, all of the attention and effort that has been focused on single AIS (like zebra mussel) applies equally to additional AIS. And there are a couple dozen new AIS – plants, animals and viruses – nearing Lake Minnetonka. So, even if zebra mussel should be found in Lake Minnetonka, there is an ample and ongoing need to sustain our prevention efforts.
Synergistic effects of AIS boil down to: 1 + 1 = 3. The math may be bad, but so is AIS synergy.
We must remain vigilant and continue to invest in prevention programs, actions and funding. Lake Minnetonka remains highly exposed, so we have much more to do – Lake Minnetonka is too valuable.
Aquademic
How do you describe a condition where harmful polluting agents spread rapidly to new lakes, are self-replicating, and cannot be treated effectively or eradicated once they have been introduced? Minnesota Waters calls this condition an Aquatic Epidemic – or an Aquademic.
This introductory statement is from Minnesota Waters’ newly released position statement on aquatic invasive species (AIS) in Minnesota. Minnesota Waters is a state-wide advocacy organization and the Lake Minnetonka Association played a key role in developing the position statement and recommendations.
Minnesota Waters has found AIS to be a defining environmental issue in Minnesota. AIS are a serious and pervasive threat to our lakes – we must make equally serious investments and cultural changes to beat them. Minnesota Waters found the state’s system for protecting and managing AIS is broken and has made policy and funding recommendations to fix the dysfunctional system.
While education, awareness and voluntary actions have increased Minnesotans’ knowledge of AIS, more must be done.
The position statement found, “Unless we transform our approach, AIS will steadily overrun Minnesota’s lakes and rivers – with devastating results for our state’s businesses, communities, and recreation. The AIS management system in Minnesota is constrained by outdated laws and cultural norms and is seriously broken.” The good news is – it is not too late. The report’s recommendations include:
• An AIS management system that prioritizes its activities, especially by devoting more focus and resources to prevention should be adopted.
• 80% of all state resources for AIS should be devoted to prevention – and focused on much more than education and awareness.
• Funding for the AIS prevention program (excluding grant funding) should be doubled.
• Funding for AIS prevention and control grants to local interests should be increased from about $700,000 to $3.2 million per year.
• AIS plant control (like milfoil) should protect native plants and encourage restoration by requiring Lake Vegetation Management Plans (LVMPs), providing grant funding for LVMPs, eliminating permit fees and eliminating riparian consents.
• Finally, a dialog should be initiated among Minnesota’s resource managers and policy makers to re-examine the legal, cultural and social framework that now prevents consideration of Level 3 (a more stringent level described in the full report) AIS management system that includes these elements: quarantine of waters, significant increases in fines and penalties for AIS laws, new funding, inspection fees, providing local authorities to control accesses (while protecting public access rights).
The Lake Minnetonka Association supports these recommendations and will continue to work for their implementation.
A copy of the position statement and an executive summary is available on Minnesota Waters Website at: www.MinnesotaWaters.org (see News Stories and AIS Summary on the Home Page). A lengthy technical supporting report is also available at the same site.
The Lake Minnetonka Association finds these recommendations timely as we are working on two immediate AIS concerns - to control milfoil in Lake Minnetonka and to prevent zebra mussels from getting into the lake. Both these efforts could be greatly facilitated by a more comprehensive state policy and increased state funding.
This introductory statement is from Minnesota Waters’ newly released position statement on aquatic invasive species (AIS) in Minnesota. Minnesota Waters is a state-wide advocacy organization and the Lake Minnetonka Association played a key role in developing the position statement and recommendations.
Minnesota Waters has found AIS to be a defining environmental issue in Minnesota. AIS are a serious and pervasive threat to our lakes – we must make equally serious investments and cultural changes to beat them. Minnesota Waters found the state’s system for protecting and managing AIS is broken and has made policy and funding recommendations to fix the dysfunctional system.
While education, awareness and voluntary actions have increased Minnesotans’ knowledge of AIS, more must be done.
The position statement found, “Unless we transform our approach, AIS will steadily overrun Minnesota’s lakes and rivers – with devastating results for our state’s businesses, communities, and recreation. The AIS management system in Minnesota is constrained by outdated laws and cultural norms and is seriously broken.” The good news is – it is not too late. The report’s recommendations include:
• An AIS management system that prioritizes its activities, especially by devoting more focus and resources to prevention should be adopted.
• 80% of all state resources for AIS should be devoted to prevention – and focused on much more than education and awareness.
• Funding for the AIS prevention program (excluding grant funding) should be doubled.
• Funding for AIS prevention and control grants to local interests should be increased from about $700,000 to $3.2 million per year.
• AIS plant control (like milfoil) should protect native plants and encourage restoration by requiring Lake Vegetation Management Plans (LVMPs), providing grant funding for LVMPs, eliminating permit fees and eliminating riparian consents.
• Finally, a dialog should be initiated among Minnesota’s resource managers and policy makers to re-examine the legal, cultural and social framework that now prevents consideration of Level 3 (a more stringent level described in the full report) AIS management system that includes these elements: quarantine of waters, significant increases in fines and penalties for AIS laws, new funding, inspection fees, providing local authorities to control accesses (while protecting public access rights).
The Lake Minnetonka Association supports these recommendations and will continue to work for their implementation.
A copy of the position statement and an executive summary is available on Minnesota Waters Website at: www.MinnesotaWaters.org (see News Stories and AIS Summary on the Home Page). A lengthy technical supporting report is also available at the same site.
The Lake Minnetonka Association finds these recommendations timely as we are working on two immediate AIS concerns - to control milfoil in Lake Minnetonka and to prevent zebra mussels from getting into the lake. Both these efforts could be greatly facilitated by a more comprehensive state policy and increased state funding.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Chemical Management Tools
The unfortunate letter, titled ‘Chemicals,’ in last week’s edition (June 2, 2009 Lakeshore Weekly News) contained numerous factual errors and mis-representations and was therefore misleading.
The authors were correct in citing me, representing the Lake Minnetonka Association, Minnesota Waters and the North American Lake Management Society, where I am an executive in all three organizations, as an advocate for the comprehensive protection and management of Lake Minnetonka and lakes in general. Specifically, I have advocated controlling Eurasian watermilfoil (and other invasive plants) and protecting native plants in lakes. Based on my background with a graduate degree in aquatic ecology, a certified lake manager (one of only 60 in the world), 30-years’ experience in managing lakes and holding leadership and executive positions in state, national and international professional lake management organizations – it is my opinion that the approach being used and advocated on Lake Minnetonka is safe, restorative and fully consistent with scientific, government and industry standards.
I do not begrudge the authors for their obvious distaste for the use of herbicides in lakes. However, in public discourse, it is important to rely on objective information based on sound science.
Errors in fact include an inappropriate reference to 2,4-D as being synonymous with the “notorious Agent Orange.” Agent Orange contained dioxin, a chemical found to be hazardous and banned long ago. Because dioxin is also known as 2,4,5-T, which appears similar to 2,4-D, it is often confused. However, 2,4-D has not been found to be unsafe and is widely used. Indeed, even the study cited in the letter has been refuted by later, more rigorous studies and to-date there has been no association between 2,4-D and public health concerns.
In fact, 2,4-D has been used for decades in hundreds, perhaps thousands of Minnesota lakes. I am not aware of any known ill effects to people or the environment. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) permits its use.
The Lake Minnetonka milfoil control project was developed with expert input and consensus by numerous public agencies including the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the University of Minnesota, the US Army Corps of Engineers, Three Rivers Park District, Hennepin County Environmental Services and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The two herbicides that have been used, endothall and triclopyr, are registered for use in lakes by the US Environmental Protection Agency and are permitted for use by the DNR. In fact, the DNR, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and several Cities have provided grants toward the project.
The authors erroneously state the Lake Vegetation Management Plan (a DNR document) allows the killing of vegetation other than milfoil. In fact, the explicit objective of the plan is to protect and restore native plants that milfoil has displaced and intensive monitoring conducted by an independent federal agency has confirmed this. Indeed, the management plan is intended to be restorative by controlling milfoil – because the milfoil in Lake Minnetonka, when not controlled, has harmed native vegetation in the lake.
The principals, partners and experts in this project recognized a real problem and sought solutions. The expert team concluded that the use of herbicides was the only safe and feasible management tool that would accomplish the objective of controlling milfoil and protecting and enhancing native plants in Lake Minnetonka.
The authors may not like using chemicals, but they have not offered any feasible alternatives. It is unfortunate reality that aquatic invasive species must be dealt with, but I believe, their impacts are increasing and Lake Minnetonka as well as other Minnesota lakes are gravely threatened.
The Lake Minnetonka Association has also advocated strong measures to prevent new invasive species from entering the lake, because of the great impacts they will cause. Unlike milfoil, which can be controlled, most other invasive species have not controls – so keeping them out must be the top priotity.
The authors were correct in citing me, representing the Lake Minnetonka Association, Minnesota Waters and the North American Lake Management Society, where I am an executive in all three organizations, as an advocate for the comprehensive protection and management of Lake Minnetonka and lakes in general. Specifically, I have advocated controlling Eurasian watermilfoil (and other invasive plants) and protecting native plants in lakes. Based on my background with a graduate degree in aquatic ecology, a certified lake manager (one of only 60 in the world), 30-years’ experience in managing lakes and holding leadership and executive positions in state, national and international professional lake management organizations – it is my opinion that the approach being used and advocated on Lake Minnetonka is safe, restorative and fully consistent with scientific, government and industry standards.
I do not begrudge the authors for their obvious distaste for the use of herbicides in lakes. However, in public discourse, it is important to rely on objective information based on sound science.
Errors in fact include an inappropriate reference to 2,4-D as being synonymous with the “notorious Agent Orange.” Agent Orange contained dioxin, a chemical found to be hazardous and banned long ago. Because dioxin is also known as 2,4,5-T, which appears similar to 2,4-D, it is often confused. However, 2,4-D has not been found to be unsafe and is widely used. Indeed, even the study cited in the letter has been refuted by later, more rigorous studies and to-date there has been no association between 2,4-D and public health concerns.
In fact, 2,4-D has been used for decades in hundreds, perhaps thousands of Minnesota lakes. I am not aware of any known ill effects to people or the environment. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) permits its use.
The Lake Minnetonka milfoil control project was developed with expert input and consensus by numerous public agencies including the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the University of Minnesota, the US Army Corps of Engineers, Three Rivers Park District, Hennepin County Environmental Services and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The two herbicides that have been used, endothall and triclopyr, are registered for use in lakes by the US Environmental Protection Agency and are permitted for use by the DNR. In fact, the DNR, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and several Cities have provided grants toward the project.
The authors erroneously state the Lake Vegetation Management Plan (a DNR document) allows the killing of vegetation other than milfoil. In fact, the explicit objective of the plan is to protect and restore native plants that milfoil has displaced and intensive monitoring conducted by an independent federal agency has confirmed this. Indeed, the management plan is intended to be restorative by controlling milfoil – because the milfoil in Lake Minnetonka, when not controlled, has harmed native vegetation in the lake.
The principals, partners and experts in this project recognized a real problem and sought solutions. The expert team concluded that the use of herbicides was the only safe and feasible management tool that would accomplish the objective of controlling milfoil and protecting and enhancing native plants in Lake Minnetonka.
The authors may not like using chemicals, but they have not offered any feasible alternatives. It is unfortunate reality that aquatic invasive species must be dealt with, but I believe, their impacts are increasing and Lake Minnetonka as well as other Minnesota lakes are gravely threatened.
The Lake Minnetonka Association has also advocated strong measures to prevent new invasive species from entering the lake, because of the great impacts they will cause. Unlike milfoil, which can be controlled, most other invasive species have not controls – so keeping them out must be the top priotity.
Lake Stewardship
Elitism. That word has gotten tossed around recently following the Lake Minnetonka Association’s recommendation that inspection fees be charged to help pay for inspections and other aquatic invasive species programs. I have offered our rationale and justification for this recommendation as well as described a comprehensive protection plan in previous columns.
Unfortunately, an accusation of elitism is usually meant to stop dialog and is seldom constructive. Lake Minnetonka has its share of wealth among its lakeshore residents, but probably not more than many other Minnesota lakes. As well, there is a very large portion of middle-income residents on the lake.
Lakeshore owners on Lake Minnetonka – individually and collectively - are good stewards of the lake and are motivated buy a sincere desire to protect this beautiful lake.
Lakeshore owners and members of the Lake Minnetonka Association care about Lake Minnetonka. I have worked with hundreds of lake associations in Minnesota and other states and my experience is this trait – a high level of stewardship and affinity for the lakes people live on – is common to all lakeshore owners.
Lakeshore owners’ investment in their lakeshore properties is much more than financial. Their investment is emotional, environmental and spiritual. That is why they want to take care of their lake and they expect visitors and public agencies to share in that stewardship responsibility.
I sometimes hear criticism that if lakeshore owners on Lake Minnetonka really cared, they would not have rip rapped lakeshore, manicured turf lawns or weed removal in their beaches. We need to consider these charges in the context of Lake Minnetonka being a large, popular, urban lake – indeed the most highly used recreational lake in Minnesota.
Nearshore waves cause damage to unprotected lakeshore and some kind of stabilization is needed to protect the shore. Rip rapping and other structural methods are one way to protect the shore and these are permitted by regulatory agencies. The Lake Minnetonka Association encourages the use of lakescaping, a more natural method, but on a voluntary basis and where it is feasible. We see this trend beginning to become more popular.
Similarly, turf lawns are the norm for urban areas. Lakeshore turf areas are no different that residential lawns away from the lake - both drain to the lake. Also, Minnesota has restricted the use of phosphorus in lawn fertilizers, so the concern with phosphorus in runoff from fertilized lawns is greatly reduced.
Weed control in areas adjacent to lakeshore properties is a common practice – as in hundreds of other Minnesota lakes. This activity, again permitted by regulatory agencies, represents a small overall impact, especially compared to the impact of the milfoil infestation. The Lake Minnetonka Association supports moving to a new model where invasive plants are controlled and native plants are protected. This is the approach being used in the Three Bay milfoil control project and one we hope will be adopted lake-wide.
We should also highlight the fact that lakeshore owners have made personal investments of time and money in these stewardship activities:
- they clean up after ice fishing season
- they clean up after the harvesters go through
- they clean up boat launches
- they protect their shoreline due to intense boating activity
- they make substantial contributions to the Three Bay milfoil project
Lake Minnetonka lakeshore owners do all of this because they love and care about the lake. It is frustrating and disheartening when they do not see the same level of care, commitment or investment from lake visitors and public agencies.
We all have a responsibility to be good stewards of Lake Minnetonka. Lakeshore owners as well as visitors and public agencies can all certainly make improvements in our stewardship of the lake. So, in a sense, Lake Minnetonka lakeshore owners are elitists - elite stewards of the lake.
Unfortunately, an accusation of elitism is usually meant to stop dialog and is seldom constructive. Lake Minnetonka has its share of wealth among its lakeshore residents, but probably not more than many other Minnesota lakes. As well, there is a very large portion of middle-income residents on the lake.
Lakeshore owners on Lake Minnetonka – individually and collectively - are good stewards of the lake and are motivated buy a sincere desire to protect this beautiful lake.
Lakeshore owners and members of the Lake Minnetonka Association care about Lake Minnetonka. I have worked with hundreds of lake associations in Minnesota and other states and my experience is this trait – a high level of stewardship and affinity for the lakes people live on – is common to all lakeshore owners.
Lakeshore owners’ investment in their lakeshore properties is much more than financial. Their investment is emotional, environmental and spiritual. That is why they want to take care of their lake and they expect visitors and public agencies to share in that stewardship responsibility.
I sometimes hear criticism that if lakeshore owners on Lake Minnetonka really cared, they would not have rip rapped lakeshore, manicured turf lawns or weed removal in their beaches. We need to consider these charges in the context of Lake Minnetonka being a large, popular, urban lake – indeed the most highly used recreational lake in Minnesota.
Nearshore waves cause damage to unprotected lakeshore and some kind of stabilization is needed to protect the shore. Rip rapping and other structural methods are one way to protect the shore and these are permitted by regulatory agencies. The Lake Minnetonka Association encourages the use of lakescaping, a more natural method, but on a voluntary basis and where it is feasible. We see this trend beginning to become more popular.
Similarly, turf lawns are the norm for urban areas. Lakeshore turf areas are no different that residential lawns away from the lake - both drain to the lake. Also, Minnesota has restricted the use of phosphorus in lawn fertilizers, so the concern with phosphorus in runoff from fertilized lawns is greatly reduced.
Weed control in areas adjacent to lakeshore properties is a common practice – as in hundreds of other Minnesota lakes. This activity, again permitted by regulatory agencies, represents a small overall impact, especially compared to the impact of the milfoil infestation. The Lake Minnetonka Association supports moving to a new model where invasive plants are controlled and native plants are protected. This is the approach being used in the Three Bay milfoil control project and one we hope will be adopted lake-wide.
We should also highlight the fact that lakeshore owners have made personal investments of time and money in these stewardship activities:
- they clean up after ice fishing season
- they clean up after the harvesters go through
- they clean up boat launches
- they protect their shoreline due to intense boating activity
- they make substantial contributions to the Three Bay milfoil project
Lake Minnetonka lakeshore owners do all of this because they love and care about the lake. It is frustrating and disheartening when they do not see the same level of care, commitment or investment from lake visitors and public agencies.
We all have a responsibility to be good stewards of Lake Minnetonka. Lakeshore owners as well as visitors and public agencies can all certainly make improvements in our stewardship of the lake. So, in a sense, Lake Minnetonka lakeshore owners are elitists - elite stewards of the lake.
We Must Step Up Now
Zebra mussel is near! The breaking news that zebra mussel is now in Prior Lake reminds us that our concerns are validated - Lake Minnetonka is a big target. We must now step up our efforts and be vigilant.
Efforts have been and will continue to be increased to protect Lake Minnetonka. Specifically, the Lake Minnetonka Association and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District are joining forces to increase the inspector hours at public launches. The MN Department of Natural Resources will be increasing enforcement efforts at Lake Minnetonka as well as Prior Lake and Mille Lacs Lake. All three agencies will continue and expand their public awareness programs to make sure we are all taking actions to keep zebra mussels form getting into the lake.
First of all, to the best of anyone’s knowledge, zebra mussels are not now in Lake Minnetonka. Secondly, I believe we can, with a comprehensive, coordinated effort, keep zebra mussels out. Here are what lakeshore owners and lake users can do.
1. All boaters should follow the MN DNR recommendations, which are:
• inspect and remove all visible aquatic plants, animals and mud from boats, trailers and equipment such as anchors before leaving a water access;
• inspect and remove all visible aquatic plants, animals or mud from docks, boat lifts and swim rafts before transporting to another water;
• drain all water from boats - including live wells, bilges and bait buckets - before leaving a water access;
• spray or rinse boats with high pressure and/or hot water, or let them dry thoroughly for five days before transporting to another water.
2. Zebra mussels may be introduced if attached to used docks and boat lifts. Lakeshore owners who have purchased a used dock or boat lift and suspect it has come from an infested lake, please make sure it is free of zebra mussels before putting it into Lake Minnetonka.
3. Lakeshore owners should routinely check their shoreline for suspicious-looking shells. Call me if you have any questions or would like to know what to do if you find anything suspicious.
The threat of zebra mussels is imminent and serious. If zebra mussels get into Lake Minnetonka, the results will be disastrous. Impacts will include property devaluation, boat damage and increased maintenance costs, beach closures, and expanded milfoil infestations.
We can – we must – marshal our efforts and investments to protect Lake Minnetonka. Our investments now will also help protect Lake Minnetonka from other exotic plants, animals and viruses, which while not as imminent, are also coming this way. Each new aquatic invasive species that gets into the lake will magnify the impacts.
Efforts have been and will continue to be increased to protect Lake Minnetonka. Specifically, the Lake Minnetonka Association and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District are joining forces to increase the inspector hours at public launches. The MN Department of Natural Resources will be increasing enforcement efforts at Lake Minnetonka as well as Prior Lake and Mille Lacs Lake. All three agencies will continue and expand their public awareness programs to make sure we are all taking actions to keep zebra mussels form getting into the lake.
First of all, to the best of anyone’s knowledge, zebra mussels are not now in Lake Minnetonka. Secondly, I believe we can, with a comprehensive, coordinated effort, keep zebra mussels out. Here are what lakeshore owners and lake users can do.
1. All boaters should follow the MN DNR recommendations, which are:
• inspect and remove all visible aquatic plants, animals and mud from boats, trailers and equipment such as anchors before leaving a water access;
• inspect and remove all visible aquatic plants, animals or mud from docks, boat lifts and swim rafts before transporting to another water;
• drain all water from boats - including live wells, bilges and bait buckets - before leaving a water access;
• spray or rinse boats with high pressure and/or hot water, or let them dry thoroughly for five days before transporting to another water.
2. Zebra mussels may be introduced if attached to used docks and boat lifts. Lakeshore owners who have purchased a used dock or boat lift and suspect it has come from an infested lake, please make sure it is free of zebra mussels before putting it into Lake Minnetonka.
3. Lakeshore owners should routinely check their shoreline for suspicious-looking shells. Call me if you have any questions or would like to know what to do if you find anything suspicious.
The threat of zebra mussels is imminent and serious. If zebra mussels get into Lake Minnetonka, the results will be disastrous. Impacts will include property devaluation, boat damage and increased maintenance costs, beach closures, and expanded milfoil infestations.
We can – we must – marshal our efforts and investments to protect Lake Minnetonka. Our investments now will also help protect Lake Minnetonka from other exotic plants, animals and viruses, which while not as imminent, are also coming this way. Each new aquatic invasive species that gets into the lake will magnify the impacts.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Zebra Mussel - One Last Chance
Open water is about a month away and the stage is set. Zebra mussels are coming to Lake Minnetonka – fast.
Zebra mussels in Mille Lacs Lake exploded in 2008. Zebra mussels in Mille Lacs Lake were found at densities of 1 per square foot in 2008 and the DNR expects they will increase to hundreds per square foot this year. Virtually every boat in Mille Lacs Lake will come into contact with zebra mussel and Mille Lacs Lake receives about 400,000 boating visits each year. About 1% of all boats entering Lake Minnetonka come from Mille Lacs Lake.
Lake Minnetonka is inadequately protected, so we consider this an emergency situation. Unless quick and comprehensive steps are taken before the open water season, we believe Lake Minnetonka is at extremely high risk.
The Lake Minnetonka Association has been bringing this issue to the communities’ attention since 2001. We fear, unless quick and decisive action is taken, zebra mussels will soon be in the lake. The results will be devastating. We have developed plans, risk analyses and recommendation for what to do. However, the authority for implementing these actions rests with various other agencies.
Once zebra mussels are in the lake, it will be too late to ask, “Could we have done more?”
Zebra mussels in Mille Lacs Lake exploded in 2008. Zebra mussels in Mille Lacs Lake were found at densities of 1 per square foot in 2008 and the DNR expects they will increase to hundreds per square foot this year. Virtually every boat in Mille Lacs Lake will come into contact with zebra mussel and Mille Lacs Lake receives about 400,000 boating visits each year. About 1% of all boats entering Lake Minnetonka come from Mille Lacs Lake.
Lake Minnetonka is inadequately protected, so we consider this an emergency situation. Unless quick and comprehensive steps are taken before the open water season, we believe Lake Minnetonka is at extremely high risk.
The Lake Minnetonka Association has been bringing this issue to the communities’ attention since 2001. We fear, unless quick and decisive action is taken, zebra mussels will soon be in the lake. The results will be devastating. We have developed plans, risk analyses and recommendation for what to do. However, the authority for implementing these actions rests with various other agencies.
Once zebra mussels are in the lake, it will be too late to ask, “Could we have done more?”
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Inspection Fees
The Lake Minnetonka Association’s Milfoil-Free Minnetonka Vision and Plan recommends inspection fees as one way to help pay for the aquatic invasive species (AIS) protection and control programs we recommend. The access fee issue has raised some healthy discussion. Here I would like to add further clarification.
First of all, the Lake Minnetonka Association believes Lake Minnetonka is a public resource and that no method ought to unreasonably restrict access to this public resource. While fees are a departure from our past practice, we believe we must change the game if we are to protect Lake Minnetonka. We liken these fees to fees required to enter state parks, both would be used to manage and protect the public resource people come to enjoy.
Secondly, I am not aware anyone disagrees with the notion that AIS – those now in Lake Minnetonka or those yet to arrive – pose serious, real and irreversible threats. The potential damage caused by zebra mussels, VHS, spiny waterflea, hydrilla and many more is so great that prevention is the first and sometimes the only line of defense.
Thirdly, we have recommended a comprehensive management and protection program with an annual budget of $600,000 – and the Lake Minnetonka Association has committed to contributing 25% of this. While this may seem to be great, let’s put it into perspective. Lake Minnetonka is large, comprised of dozens of interconnected bays. Therefore, Lake Minnetonka ought to be considered as more than a single, small lake. Lake Manitou (Indiana) spends $500,000 per year to control a single species, hydrilla. Lake Manitou is only 700 acres (Lake Minnetonka is 14,000 acres). Lake Minnetonka has numerous access points, special events and is a regional resource.
Finally, the key element to a comprehensive protection program involves inspections to assure boats and trailers arrive dry inside and out. It has been suggested that AIS could evade inspections, because they are often small or inconspicuous. However, most AIS will not be introduced when there is not water carried from a contaminated lake or river. So, inspections can be effective. Since AIS move by watercraft, the likelihood of an AIS introduction is proportional to the mode of movement. Therefore a fee associated with the boat launching is appropriate.
The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has released a statement saying “Thus far, the LMCD Board does not support the concept of user fees at public accesses.” In the same statement, the LMCD says they “…will be seeking alternative funding sources…”
The Lake Minnetonka Association notes however, that LMCD Executive Director was recent quoted as saying, “Can more be done? Yes. We are willing to do more. But we have budget constraints.” In addition, the LMCD’s “Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka” includes policies and recommendations for inspections of watercraft at all public and private accesses, and further, they recommend inspections should be paid for by fees assessed to watercraft owners at the time of inspection.
There appears to be no argument that more AIS prevention is needed and that inspections are a key element to that program. At issue is how to fund such a program. Some have argued the state should support these protection activities. However, the reality is the state’s grant program for AIS prevention is $100,000 per year – for the entire state! With these numbers, we are not even in the ballpark to help Lake Minnetonka.
The Lake Minnetonka Association is open to any source of funding that is adequate to protect Lake Minnetonka from AIS. We have considered alternatives and have recommended inspection fees as one source because these are equitable and proportional to how AIS enter lakes. Further, we have recommended that fees collected at Lake Minnetonka be dedicated to protecting Lake Minnetonka.
The Lake Minnetonka Association’s underlying interest is to protect the lake. In that vein, any viable method to accomplish meaningful and comprehensive protection should be on the table. We hope and expect that our proposals will be critically scrutinized and if better alternatives are available to protect Lake Minnetonka, they should be brought forward and considered. Until that time, we are in a situation where there is a recognized and legitimate need for protection and we must find new ways to address that need.
We know that the proposed access fees will be controversial; but inaction or inadequate action is also at issue. The AIS threat will not go away. We believe the inspection fees we propose are justified and appropriate. While this proposal should continue to be discussed, we hope that discussion will occur in the context of the comprehensive vision and plan we have put forward.
First of all, the Lake Minnetonka Association believes Lake Minnetonka is a public resource and that no method ought to unreasonably restrict access to this public resource. While fees are a departure from our past practice, we believe we must change the game if we are to protect Lake Minnetonka. We liken these fees to fees required to enter state parks, both would be used to manage and protect the public resource people come to enjoy.
Secondly, I am not aware anyone disagrees with the notion that AIS – those now in Lake Minnetonka or those yet to arrive – pose serious, real and irreversible threats. The potential damage caused by zebra mussels, VHS, spiny waterflea, hydrilla and many more is so great that prevention is the first and sometimes the only line of defense.
Thirdly, we have recommended a comprehensive management and protection program with an annual budget of $600,000 – and the Lake Minnetonka Association has committed to contributing 25% of this. While this may seem to be great, let’s put it into perspective. Lake Minnetonka is large, comprised of dozens of interconnected bays. Therefore, Lake Minnetonka ought to be considered as more than a single, small lake. Lake Manitou (Indiana) spends $500,000 per year to control a single species, hydrilla. Lake Manitou is only 700 acres (Lake Minnetonka is 14,000 acres). Lake Minnetonka has numerous access points, special events and is a regional resource.
Finally, the key element to a comprehensive protection program involves inspections to assure boats and trailers arrive dry inside and out. It has been suggested that AIS could evade inspections, because they are often small or inconspicuous. However, most AIS will not be introduced when there is not water carried from a contaminated lake or river. So, inspections can be effective. Since AIS move by watercraft, the likelihood of an AIS introduction is proportional to the mode of movement. Therefore a fee associated with the boat launching is appropriate.
The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has released a statement saying “Thus far, the LMCD Board does not support the concept of user fees at public accesses.” In the same statement, the LMCD says they “…will be seeking alternative funding sources…”
The Lake Minnetonka Association notes however, that LMCD Executive Director was recent quoted as saying, “Can more be done? Yes. We are willing to do more. But we have budget constraints.” In addition, the LMCD’s “Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka” includes policies and recommendations for inspections of watercraft at all public and private accesses, and further, they recommend inspections should be paid for by fees assessed to watercraft owners at the time of inspection.
There appears to be no argument that more AIS prevention is needed and that inspections are a key element to that program. At issue is how to fund such a program. Some have argued the state should support these protection activities. However, the reality is the state’s grant program for AIS prevention is $100,000 per year – for the entire state! With these numbers, we are not even in the ballpark to help Lake Minnetonka.
The Lake Minnetonka Association is open to any source of funding that is adequate to protect Lake Minnetonka from AIS. We have considered alternatives and have recommended inspection fees as one source because these are equitable and proportional to how AIS enter lakes. Further, we have recommended that fees collected at Lake Minnetonka be dedicated to protecting Lake Minnetonka.
The Lake Minnetonka Association’s underlying interest is to protect the lake. In that vein, any viable method to accomplish meaningful and comprehensive protection should be on the table. We hope and expect that our proposals will be critically scrutinized and if better alternatives are available to protect Lake Minnetonka, they should be brought forward and considered. Until that time, we are in a situation where there is a recognized and legitimate need for protection and we must find new ways to address that need.
We know that the proposed access fees will be controversial; but inaction or inadequate action is also at issue. The AIS threat will not go away. We believe the inspection fees we propose are justified and appropriate. While this proposal should continue to be discussed, we hope that discussion will occur in the context of the comprehensive vision and plan we have put forward.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Are the Milfoil Treatments Experimental?
As many know, we are preparing for follow up milfoil treatments in Carmans, Grays and Phelps Bays in 2009. Volunteers on each bay are working with their lakeshore neighbors on fundraising to support the costs of the treatments. The Lake Minnetonka Association is gratified that so many of our members support this worthy project for the betterment of Lake Minnetonka. As in 2008, our members’ voluntary contributions will provide the majority of funding for this project. Other funding will come from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District’s (LMCD) Save-the-Lake fund, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and some cities.
The Lake Minnetonka Association’s vision is these treatments will be expanded to include the entire lake and that Lake Minnetonka can be milfoil-free. We have articulated this vision in our “Milfoil-Free Minnetonka Vision and Plan,” which provides a detailed plan to rid the lake of milfoil and keep new exotic pests out of the lake.
As we look forward to implementing and expanding these programs, I want to confront some common misconceptions. This month, I will address whether the milfoil treatments are experimental. They are not.
The milfoil treatments are framed in a Lake Vegetation Management Plan (or LVMP), which has been approved by the DNR. For Lake Minnetonka, the LVMP focuses on the three bays (Carmans, Grays and Phelps) and provides for the expansion into other areas of the lake. A technical committee composed of experts from the DNR, University of Minnesota, US Army Corps of Engineers, Three Rivers Park District and the Lake Minnetonka Association, with additional input from LMCD and Hennepin County, evaluated management methods that would control Eurasian watermilfoil and protect native plants. The committee concluded the use of selective herbicides was the only feasible and safe method. Here, ‘selective’ refers to selectively killing milfoil and not other plants.
The LVMP is a five-year plan for treatments in the three bays, including ongoing evaluation of the results for the purpose of making adjustments from year-to-year. After five years, we expect annual small-scale maintenance treatments will be needed to keep on top of milfoil. The LVMP is neither designed for nor intended to be experimental.
One source of misunderstanding may be the DNR’s funding program that helps support this project. The DNR’s funding program is called the “Pilot Project Grant Program.” That program funds eligible projects, such as the Lake Minnetonka project, for lake-wide or bay-wide milfoil control. The funding program is intended to learn more about how lake-wide controls, which heretofore have not been permitted in Minnesota. The DNR provides minimal oversight, but will use the results to better guide additional projects in Minnesota. Again, not at all ‘experimental.’
‘Experimental’ refers to a scientific method used to test hypotheses and requires a highly controlled environment – obviously not the case for the milfoil control program. The MN DNR and others, including the Lake Minnetonka Association, hope to learn and demonstrate that in addition to controlling milfoil, these treatments will allow the protection and recovery of native plants in the lake.
Treatments such as occurred in 2008 and are planned in 2009 are common across the United States. The particular herbicides have been widely-used and their results are well-understood. Because Lake Minnetonka has unique features and we are not yet able to treat the entire lake, we are ‘tweaking’ the protocol by manipulating the timing, dose and combination of the herbicides to get the most effective result as detailed in the LVMP.
We are confident this approach used in 2008 and planned in 2009 with minor modification will accomplish our shared objective of ridding these bays and ultimately the entire lake of milfoil and restoring a healthy native plant assemblage.
Milfoil has been the top concern and complaint we have heard over the past decade. This tells us we are on the right track.
The Lake Minnetonka Association’s vision is these treatments will be expanded to include the entire lake and that Lake Minnetonka can be milfoil-free. We have articulated this vision in our “Milfoil-Free Minnetonka Vision and Plan,” which provides a detailed plan to rid the lake of milfoil and keep new exotic pests out of the lake.
As we look forward to implementing and expanding these programs, I want to confront some common misconceptions. This month, I will address whether the milfoil treatments are experimental. They are not.
The milfoil treatments are framed in a Lake Vegetation Management Plan (or LVMP), which has been approved by the DNR. For Lake Minnetonka, the LVMP focuses on the three bays (Carmans, Grays and Phelps) and provides for the expansion into other areas of the lake. A technical committee composed of experts from the DNR, University of Minnesota, US Army Corps of Engineers, Three Rivers Park District and the Lake Minnetonka Association, with additional input from LMCD and Hennepin County, evaluated management methods that would control Eurasian watermilfoil and protect native plants. The committee concluded the use of selective herbicides was the only feasible and safe method. Here, ‘selective’ refers to selectively killing milfoil and not other plants.
The LVMP is a five-year plan for treatments in the three bays, including ongoing evaluation of the results for the purpose of making adjustments from year-to-year. After five years, we expect annual small-scale maintenance treatments will be needed to keep on top of milfoil. The LVMP is neither designed for nor intended to be experimental.
One source of misunderstanding may be the DNR’s funding program that helps support this project. The DNR’s funding program is called the “Pilot Project Grant Program.” That program funds eligible projects, such as the Lake Minnetonka project, for lake-wide or bay-wide milfoil control. The funding program is intended to learn more about how lake-wide controls, which heretofore have not been permitted in Minnesota. The DNR provides minimal oversight, but will use the results to better guide additional projects in Minnesota. Again, not at all ‘experimental.’
‘Experimental’ refers to a scientific method used to test hypotheses and requires a highly controlled environment – obviously not the case for the milfoil control program. The MN DNR and others, including the Lake Minnetonka Association, hope to learn and demonstrate that in addition to controlling milfoil, these treatments will allow the protection and recovery of native plants in the lake.
Treatments such as occurred in 2008 and are planned in 2009 are common across the United States. The particular herbicides have been widely-used and their results are well-understood. Because Lake Minnetonka has unique features and we are not yet able to treat the entire lake, we are ‘tweaking’ the protocol by manipulating the timing, dose and combination of the herbicides to get the most effective result as detailed in the LVMP.
We are confident this approach used in 2008 and planned in 2009 with minor modification will accomplish our shared objective of ridding these bays and ultimately the entire lake of milfoil and restoring a healthy native plant assemblage.
Milfoil has been the top concern and complaint we have heard over the past decade. This tells us we are on the right track.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
