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.
Friday, November 20, 2009
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
