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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
