Lake Minnetonka Association

Movement on AIS

2012-01-16T08:52:00.000-08:00

We have recently had some positive signs that the state is getting more serious and aggressive on aquatic invasive species (AIS) prevention. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has announced it will be requiring roadside AIS inspections and they will be issuing more citations for violations and requiring decontamination. In addition, the legislature has been presented with a proposal to create an invasive species research center at the University of Minnesota. This news was publically celebrated by a number of key legislators.

Until now, Minnesota’s AIS strategy has been incomplete, piecemeal and well, reliant on wishful thinking. In short, we have lacked a plan and strategy. For too long, we have hoped and many probably believed, that Minnesotans were well aware of and take appropriate voluntary protection actions so that the spread of AIS would be minimal. Those of us who observe boater behavior knew otherwise. The state reports that last year 18% of boaters stopped had violated AIS laws!

I suppose it is not productive to wonder, if these actions had been in place earlier, would Lake Minnetonka now be free of zebra mussels? But it is productive and appropriate to ask whether these new initiatives will be enough to protect Lake Minnetonka from additional AIS.

As encouraging as these developments are, we have a ways to go. The research institute must still be funded. Calling for Legacy monies is obvious, but so far, these have not been forthcoming for AIS prevention. The roadside checks and fines are appropriate, but the ‘small print’ indicates that these will be moderated so as not to unduly cause traffic congestion.

And what about protecting Lake Minnetonka? In addition to the proposed statewide efforts, we need protections on Lake Minnetonka. For 2012, the level of protection around Lake Minnetonka will be the same as it has been – and at that level, zebra mussels got in. It is time to consider access controls akin to those to be in place on Christmas Lake.

A recent Star-Tribune editorial (January 10, 2010) ends, “With a timely bipartisan push, Minnesota can bring a new sense of urgency to the invasive-species battle before it's a lost cause.” We agree, although we would argue the sense of urgency is not new, rather the sense of recognition that AIS are ruining our lakes is.

We need an AIS plan and strategy. Minnesota’s stated objective is to ‘slow the spread’ of AIS, which is meaningless in a management context. A true plan and strategy would state a measureable and actionable objective and identify the real needs. Lacking a plan with measurable objectives, we have been confusing doing something (doing anything) with doing what is needed.

Last April, I recall MN DNR Commissioner Landwehr telling the Minnesota Waters’ conference attendees, “We will never absolutely stop the spread of AIS, but if in ten years only ten more lakes have zebra mussels, I will consider that a success.” In 2011, zebra mussels were discovered in eight new lakes. We have a ways to go.

We applaud the new enthusiasm and initiatives and urge our leaders to follow through with adequate funding and priorities. We encourage our leaders to take real, strategic actions to protect our lakes from AIS, because more lakes are at risk of being invaded by more species.

Have the Milfoil Treatments Worked?

2011-12-18T15:35:00.001-08:00

Yes, on several levels.

To review, the Lake Minnetonka Association in cooperation with others, initiated a bay-wide milfoil control program in 2008. This program involved three bays (Carmans, Grays and Phelps) in 2008, then Gideon and St. Albans Bays were added in 2011. The program is guided by Lake Vegetation Management Plans, which are approved by the MN Department of Natural Resources. The program has several objectives, including controlling milfoil to specified levels, protecting native plants and minimizing lakeshore clean up of milfoil fragments.

This program has benefitted from the participation of the US Army Corps of Engineers who have provided expertise, detailed monitoring and evaluation. Most of the results I report here are from their technical reports.

Have the treatments controlled milfoil? Yes. We have evaluated the ‘frequency of occurrence,’ which means the percentage of sampling points with milfoil. Prior to the treatments, milfoil covered over 60% of each bay. Following the treatments, milfoil covered has been substantially reduced – in some cases to zero. The results, however, have varied. In the first year, 2008, the herbicide concentration was too low or had dissipated too quickly and the treatment effects were poor. Since then, we have modified the herbicide concentrations and timing so that this year (2011) we have met the program’s objectives of less than 20% milfoil coverage in the treated bays.

Another indicator of milfoil control is the overall abundance or matting amounts, which have visibly improved. No objective measures of this aspect have been included in the program; however, there are other positive indicators worth noting. For example, lakeshore owners on several of the bays have noted an increase in water-related activities, such as skiing and tubing, where these were not even possible previously. In addition, I have received hundreds of comments regarding the lack of matting among all the bays. Many will recall that major portions of Grays and Phelps Bays had previously been unavailable for any kind of boating. The photo shows Gray Bay in August of this year, the third season following the last treatment, with no matted milfoil evident.

Have the treatments protected native plants? Yes. The plan called for evaluating the number of native plant (measured as average number of species per sample point). In every case, except Grays Bay in 2009, this average remained the same or increased following the treatments, again meeting the plan’s objectives. This number decreased in Grays Bay in 2009; however, it is not clear this decrease was related to the treatments as native plants decreased in untreated bays that year too.

Our members have consistently reported substantially less shoreline clean up in these bays, sometimes no clean up at all. The lakeshore residents have contributed nearly a half million dollars to support this program and there have been requests to expand it to additional bays.

Is this program a silver bullet? No. This program is clearly effective and has met the objectives of the project. However, there are challenges, including the need for (and aptness for) consistent public funding. To-date, private, voluntary contributions have funded 60% of this project, which benefits a public resource. The treated bays are now useable by everyone.

Is the herbicide program safe? Yes. The herbicide products are allowed for use by the US Environmental Protection Agency and permitted for use by the MN DNR. We are aware of no objective or authoritative evidence or reports of any ill effects resulting from this project.

Is the project cost-effective? Yes. We have now narrowed to a reliable treatment program that costs about $500 per acre and is effective for two years (perhaps more). This is about $250 per acre per year, which compares to about $300 to $350 per acre per year for the harvesting program.

So, what next? We think this is a viable, valuable program worthy of continuation and expansion.

Thinking ahead, it is technically feasible to treat the entire lake! An entire lake treatment is estimated to cost less than $3,000,000. Lacking the re-introduction of milfoil from adjacent bays, I would expect a whole-lake treatment would last at least three and up to five years, representing a cost of about $100 to $170 per acre per year. While perhaps not ready for formal consideration, we are encouraged that this scale of treatment is possible.

We thank all the supporters of this treatment program and have been encouraged by the positive results. We are looking forward to ridding more bays of milfoil problems in the future.

Decontamination, gates and fees, oh my!

2011-11-22T06:13:00.001-08:00

There is now a gate installed at the Christmas Lake access. Carver County Parks has approved a plan and recommended funding for mandatory inspections for all boats entering Lake Minnewashta. This plan calls for turning boats away or requiring them to be decontaminated should they fail the inspection. Other area lake associations, such as Lotus Lake, Fish Lake, Medicine Lake, are arguing for similar protections.

Too much? No. Not if we are serious about protecting our lakes.

Unfortunately (for Lake Minnetonka), a zebra mussel infestation in Lake Minnetonka seems to have been a wake up call for others. For the sake of other lakes, we sincerely hope it is not too late. For the sake of Lake Minnetonka, let’s pay attention because we remain exposed to quagga mussel, spiny waterflea, hydrilla, etc.

Why is this happening? Simply, the state’s rules and authorities are not adequate and nearby lake association are rightfully concerned their lake will be next. The state bureaucracy is not as nimble as aquatic invasive species (AIS) and therefore the state response has been too slow. As well, AIS pose a huge challenge on many levels and there are competing and conflicting interests. In addition, the state’s AIS protection system has evolved piecemeal and lawmakers have approached the AIS crisis too timidly. We must now either play catch up or bear the consequences.

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is encouraging more efforts from local partners. However, they want consistency throughout the state, which is reasonable. Unfortunately, guidelines for local authorities that could provide this consistency are not at hand. This is creating great frustration. Encouraging local initiatives and partnerships on one hand, yet not allowing them to become unshackled from the inadequate protective state overlay on the other hand is a formula for frustration. It is also a formula for failure.

In a newspaper article, a DNR official is quoted as saying, “the DNR is studying whether it can delegate inspection authority to cities, counties or watershed districts, and is working on a "package" of changes that will be announced next spring.” If we wait for this, we will have lost another year. Again, more frustration.

Underlying all of this is the inability to reconcile the state’s long-standing tradition of allowing open access to lakes with the ability of AIS to exploit this open access. This must be confronted and reconciled if we are to be serious about protecting lakes. The Lake Minnetonka Association believes Lake Minnetonka and all Minnesota lakes are public resources that should be available for all to use and enjoy. We also believe that aggressive protection measures, such as those mentioned above, can be implemented in an equitable manner to better protect the lake without unreasonably affecting public access. In the meantime, we remain exposed.

We sometimes hear that the state constitution prohibits this kind of aggressive protection. I have asked both of my state legislators to provide an assessment of this question so we are all starting on the same page, but as of yet no answer. Until we learn otherwise, I think we should proceed in a manner that is more protective of our lakes. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is proposing to amend its management plan along these lines. The Lake Minnetonka Association supports this.

What next? We applaud these local initiatives and encourage their implementation. The Lake Minnetonka Association urges the local agencies responsible for protecting Lake Minnetonka to be similarly bold. Lacking this, Lake Minnetonka remains exposed to new and more AIS.

Time to Downsize Milfoil Harvesting

2011-10-17T04:25:00.001-07:00

The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) is contemplating replacing a damaged harvester (the LMCD’s harvester fleet totals three harvesters). The Lake Minnetonka Association, representing the interests of our members, believes replacing the third harvester is ill advised and asks the LMCD to not replace the harvester.

Over the past 12 years in this job, complaints from our members about the harvesting program have outnumbered all other concerns combined. In addition, 93% of those involved in the five bay milfoil control project prefer the herbicide program over the harvesting program. According to one commenter, “No comparison. Harvesting was a waste of money. The chemical treatment is superior in every way. St. Albans, is in all practical aspects, milfoil free.”

The Lake Minnetonka Association believes the harvesting program should be downsized because the need is diminished and other less costly, more effective options are available.

Harvesting had its day. Initiated in 1989, harvesting was the most feasible option for controlling milfoil impacts. But at its best, harvesting has limitations. For example, the harvesting operation commences in mid- to late-June and ends in mid-August. However, the boating season peaks around the Fourth of July, then declines – this offset is problematic because many areas do not receive relief until too late in the season. In addition, the harvesters generate milfoil fragments, which wash to shore and become a maintenance headache for lakeshore owners (we know milfoil fragments are generated in other ways, but the harvesters add significantly to this).

The need for the harvesters has diminished substantially. The five bays involved in the bay-wide herbicide treatments were selected because they were the worst milfoil bays. As the harvesters do not now work in these areas, there is substantially less milfoil remaining to be harvested in the lake. The total treated area in the five bays is over 600 acres, compared to the typical harvesting totals of 300 to 350 acres.

Less costly, more effective options are available. For example, contact herbicides (different from those being used in the five bay program, but the same as are being used by hundreds of lakeshore owners under permit from the MN DNR) would cost about $250 per acre (harvesting is about $300 per acre, excluding depreciation) and have these advantages: a) they can be applied early in the season and last the entire season (in June, before milfoil surfaces), b) they are applied by professional, licensed commercial applicators, c) the program is flexible and scalable – if the need is lower, the costs are lower and d) they can be targeted to the precise areas in the lake to facilitate navigation. Has contracting been explored?

Lake Minnetonka also has another invasive plant, Flowering rush, which can be spread by harvesters. There is no plan in place to control Flowering rush, indeed there is not even a monitoring program in place. We must get serious about managing these invasive plants. Lake Minnetonka lacks a comprehensive management plan for milfoil, Flowering rush and other nuisance plants.

Harvesting in some form probably has a place on Lake Minnetonka. However, milfoil is now being controlled in many of the areas previously requiring harvesting, so the need is greatly diminished. Until Lake Minnetonka has a comprehensive management plan for invasive plants, replacing the harvester is premature and ill advised.

The LMCD’s role in milfoil management has evolved incidentally to their original purchase and operation of the harvesters 23 years ago. Now, we question the LMCD’s ability to address the challenges of additional invasive plants as they lack staff expertise and sufficient financial resources. We have supported an increased role for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and we hope they rise to this need.

The members of the Lake Minnetonka Association do not support the continuation of the harvesting program in it current form and we do support the comprehensive and aggressive management of milfoil and other invasive plants consistent with sound environmental science and management.

We ask the communities around Lake Minnetonka to get together and provide direction to the LMCD and the MCWD to coordinate the most effective management program for Lake Minnetonka.

Our Lake

2011-09-18T10:14:00.001-07:00

Lakeshore owners have a strong affinity for and love of the lake where they live. This often translates into advocacy and action for preserving, protecting and improving the lake environment – a good thing. Unfortunately, this may also viewed as an indication that lakeshore owners really think it is ‘their’ lake. Or even worse, many think lakeshore owners want and expect ‘their’ lake to become their ‘private’ lake.

I say ‘their lake’ because most lakeshore owners say this, not in the sense they actually own it, rather in the sense that they take ownership in the welfare of the lake.

The position of the Lake Minnetonka Association is that Lake Minnetonka is a public resource for all to enjoy. Lake Minnetonka, as well as many lakes in Minnesota, benefit from lakeshore owners’ sense of ownership because lakeshore owners make significant investments in protecting and managing ‘their’ lakes.

Lakeshore owners welcome others’ use and enjoyment of Lake Minnetonka, but they also expect the same high level of caring and stewardship from visitors as lakeshore owners themselves.

Unfortunately, fingers often point both ways. Lake visitors point to shoreland modification, excessive weed and aquatic plant removal and large docks. Lakeshore owners point to excessive noise and speed, introduction of exotic species and sometimes rude or obnoxious behavior. Certainly, improvements can be made on both sides, but let us not forget Lake Minnetonka belongs to us all and its care ought to be borne by us all.

The Lake Minnetonka Association, on behalf of lakeshore owners, has been an unapologetic advocate for the highest level of protection and management for Lake Minnetonka. We believe aquatic invasive species (AIS) have harmed the lake and additional AIS will add to the damage. It is a reality that when AIS are introduced into a lake, it is there forever. From lakeshore owners’ perspective, AIS are brought to the lake from a visitor who can come and go, but the impacts are seen and experienced every day by lakeshore residents. From a lake users’ perspective, suggestions to control or restrict their access to minimize the threat of an AIS introduction is seen as a way to keep them out. While neither view is totally accurate, these opposing views work to keep us from addressing the underlying problems.

We must all work to see the others’ perspectives, understand the damage AIS is doing to our lakes and work to solve this huge challenge. Unfortunately, AIS exploit the way we move from lake-to-lake, and visitors move between lakes much more then lakeshore residents. So, the movement must be addressed to materially address the concern of AIS.

The better we understand and appreciate everybody’s concern for and love of this lake, and the more effort we put into finding common ground, the better, more lasting solutions will be forthcoming.

Let us (all of us) start by referring to Lake Minnetonka is ‘our’ lake – as it belongs to all of us. Then, let us think of solutions that involve all of us.

Community Clean-Up for Water Quality

2011-08-19T08:45:00.001-07:00

Like many of you, I’ve read Dick Osgood’s excellent postings on the problems facing Lake Minnetonka. Invasive species like milfoil choke the lake, and zebra mussels have been introduced. The options for solving the problem of invasives are complex, confusing, expensive and highly regulated. In addition to the invasive species that trouble Lake Minnetonka’s waters is the water that runs from the streets, parking lots and rooftops into the lake. Runoff carries pollutants that feed algae, turning areas of the lake green and smelly in the summer. Among the areas affected are Halsteds Bay, Stubbs Bay, West Arm and Jennings Bay on Lake Minnetonka. Fortunately, every one of us can play a role in preventing this kind of pollution from reaching the lake.

Loose soil, leaves, grass clippings and other organic materials in our storm drains play a role in why Lake Minnetonka turns green with algae. By sweeping regularly, most cities and towns do an admirable job of keeping their streets clean. But city governments can’t do it alone.

The Freshwater Society and our partner, the Friends of the Minnesota Valley, offer a program that helps you get involved in protecting healthy waters, Community Clean-Ups for Water Quality. Locally-led groups of volunteers, rake, sweep, bag and remove loose dirt and leaves blocking sewer grates on city streets, and compost the material to prevent pollutants such as phosphorus from entering the lake.

Depending on the mix of materials, for every five bags (100 pounds) of soil, leaves and other organic debris you collect, your lake association, community group, scout troop or church group can prevent up to a pound of phosphorus from entering your local lake or river. Each pound of phosphorus can cause the growth of up to 500 pounds of algae, and every little bit helps. This fall, the Freshwater Society will be working with groups throughout the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to sponsor Community Clean-ups for Water Quality.

The Freshwater Society is looking for neighborhood groups, churches, Scout troops and other community organizations in the Lake Minnetonka area who are interested in organizing a Community Clean-Up for Water Quality this fall. Clean-Ups typically happen in late October, after the leaves fall and before the snows begin. It’s a great community service project, simple and effective. Get involved and learn how you can be part of keeping Lake Minnetonka healthy and clean.

We have assembled a toolkit to help you implement a Community Clean-Up for Water Quality in your area. For more information on Community Cleanups for Water Quality, or to download the Toolkit, visit our website- http://freshwater.org/index.php/projects/community-cleanups-for-water-quality

For more information, or to set up a cleanup in your neighborhood, contact:
Peggy Knapp
pknapp@freshwater.org

Due Diligence

2011-08-18T08:46:00.001-07:00

The Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) receives concerns from time to time about supporting the use of chemicals for controlling milfoil in Lake Minnetonka. Recently, an anonymous person commented:

“While we do believe the LMA has done a good job to mitigate these risks (e.g., concentration levels, application, etc.), we'd prefer to avoid the use of chemicals altogether...at least until consensus can be gained on the risks. Until then, I think we owe to ourselves to do the research and make informed decisions on what risks are acceptable.”

The LMA has done our due diligence. More research on acceptable risks may sound good, but in my experience this request is usually a stalling tactic. We do not need more research on the safety of these products. Here is why I think that.

First of all, the chemical products that are used in the milfoil control program are registered for use by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, which conducts extensive research before allowing any herbicide to be allowed for use. In addition, the herbicides are permitted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Suggesting that the LMA or any local organization ‘do research’ is unrealistic. The investment in and thoroughness of the testing for the chemical triclopyr, the main herbicide used in the milfoil control project, has been supported by:

· Over 180 peer-reviewed scientific reports and technical documents on file with the US EPA.

· Over $100 million dollars have been invested in development and scientific regulatory studies to meet data requirements of US EPA herbicide registration.

· The US EPA uses these assessments in their evaluation process: Residue Chemistry Data, Environmental Fate Data, Degradation Studies, Metabolism Studies, Mobility Studies, Dissipation Studies, Accumulation Studies, Hazard to Humans and Domestic Animals, and Teratogenicity Studies, Mutagenicity Studies.

The US EPA requires these studies to assure there are acceptable risks to human health and the environment. The US EPA criteria are:

· An acceptable toxicity level for humans is defined as the level of pesticide present in fish or water in which a lifetime of human consumption is not likely to cause adverse health effects in humans.

· Environmental tolerance levels are determined to have “no observable effects” in animal diets and quantification of residues in fish and water.

The LMA (or any other local or state agency) does not have sufficient resources to do a credible, objective job over-and-above what has already been done. Indeed, we would submit no additional tests or research are needed.

The LMA believes that there are no other feasible (non-chemical) control options that accomplish our management goals, which are to control milfoil in a safe manner without harming native plants.

Selective hand-pulling of milfoil, which we know can be very effective, is not feasible. Waterfront Restoration offers hand-pulling milfoil control services. Their owner, Tom Suerth, estimated costs between $6,500 and $17,400 per acre for this service. This compares to less than $500 per acre for herbicide control. Selective hand-pulling is very effective and many lakeshore owners value this service, but it is cost-prohibitive for larger-scale projects.

Similarly using milfoil weevils for selective milfoil control is not feasible. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has funded (about $5,000) a small-scale pilot project overseen by a concerned citizen. However, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has invested over $1.3 million dollars spanning ten years for a University of Minnesota researcher to evaluate whether milfoil weevils could be an effective milfoil biological control. That research is no longer funded as weevils did not control milfoil on any kind of operational basis. Unfortunately, the weevils are readily eaten by bluegills.

Finally, harvesters are not an alternative to selective milfoil control. The harvesters are not selective and that program is designed to facilitate navigation in critical areas and not to control milfoil.

So, the LMA believes the use of herbicide in this project is safe and there are no other feasible alternatives. We appreciate some may prefer other methods or no control at all; however, on an objective, scientific basis, we know the risk to public and environmental health is very small. The EPA uses a criterion that there be less than one chance in a million for these products to cause harm. To put this into perspective, we have a one chance in one hundred of being killed in a car accident in our lifetimes, a risk that millions of people readily accept. So, in contrast, the risk than of being harmed by aquatic herbicides is at least 10,000-times smaller.

The Lake Minnetonka Association wants Lake Minnetonka to be healthy and enjoyable for all. On balance, we believe the use of herbicides in this project represents minimal, acceptable risks.

Who Should Manage Lake Minnetonka's Weeds?

2011-07-20T06:14:00.001-07:00

In a recent column, I argued it is time for a comprehensive management plan for managing aquatic plants (nuisance plants, invasive plants and native plants) for Lake Minnetonka. Here I use ‘weeds’ as a familiar term to most people, however, I am referring all plants – those that might require control, those that require protection and the balance between the two.

At this time, we know several things that compel use to be forthright and strategic:

• Milfoil is a scourge that can be controlled on a bay-wide basis
• Flowering rush has the potential to become problematic lake-wide
• New invasive plants are nearing Lake Minnetonka – hydrilla, Brazilian waterweed, etc.
• Native plants are abundant and important to protect
• There has never been a comprehensive plant management plan or program for Lake Minnetonka
• All past and current management efforts have been implemented piecemeal
• The desire to control invasive plants is heard lake-wide

We have tended to focus on milfoil, but we need a plan that is broadly focused on all aspects of plant control and protection. However, even our milfoil programs can be improved.

Many aspects of the plant management programs now in place are lacking. Milfoil is a huge problem and the harvesters cut a small portion on a schedule out of sync with the boating season. The newest invasive plant, Flowering rush, has been largely ignored since its discovery three years ago – it continues to spread with no agency monitoring its spread much less attempting to contain it. No agency has taken the lead in managing plants in the lake – rather it is left to a hodgepodge of individuals and several organizations and agencies.

Improvements can be made. While not yet complete, the five-bay milfoil program has demonstrated the use of selective herbicides as a safe, viable tool. Indeed, the most recent treatments to four bays (Grays has not yet been treated this season) have shown milfoil to be substantially gone and many native plants remain healthy. On a per acre basis, these herbicide treatments are comparable in cost to the harvesting program – plus herbicides control milfoil early in the season and lasts for multiple seasons. This compares to the harvesters, which do not get to many areas of the lake until late in the season, require the ownership and maintenance of capital assets, kill thousands of fish and generate milfoil fragments for lakeshore owners to clean up. While there may be a role of harvesters in a comprehensive approach, new harvester technologies do not address these concerns.

So who should be in charge of managing plants in Lake Minnetonka? The Lake Minnetonka Association believes the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is best suited to this critical task.

The MCWD is a local water resource management organization that has the required technical expertise, funding capacity and mission for this important task. As well, the MCWD is guided by sound ecological principals in its management plan, so it clearly has the capacity to balance the overall health of the lake with the desires to control nuisance and invasive plants to facilitate recreation.

Other watershed districts in Minnesota have assumed these responsibilities. For example, the Pelican River Watershed District manages invasive plants in the lakes in their district. Their program is paid for by a small levy to properties in the watershed.

The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) would appear to have a sufficient charter, but has never really embraced a comprehensive approach to managing plants. Indeed, the LMCD’s harvesting program’s main objective is to facilitate navigation and it is questionable to what extent this is accomplished as no program evaluation has ever been conducted. In addition, the LMCD lacks technical staff and does not have the fiscal capacity to enlarge its already small program – the harvester program cuts about 300 acres per season compared to an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 acres of milfoil in the lake.

The Lake Minnetonka Association has been proud to serve as project manager for the demonstration project and we are also proud of our members for providing the majority of funding for this project. However, this should not be our job in the long run. Following the completion of the five-bay milfoil demonstration project in 2012, we would expect a comprehensive aquatic plant management program to be assumed by a competent local agency. We think that job belongs to the MCWD.

New AIS Laws

2011-07-20T06:13:00.001-07:00

Aquatic invasive species commanded some attention at the legislature this past session. The Governor, with the support of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources proposed new laws and funding early in the session – a step long-awaited.

Now, with the regular legislative session over, the policy-related elements of the AIS bills have been enacted. However, the funding elements are in limbo along with most of the rest of the state funding matters. For now, here is a summary of some of what has been enacted into law:

• All water-related equipment, including boats and bait containers, must be drained before leaving any waterbody.
• Criminal citations may be issued for violations of laws pertaining to the transport of aquatic vegetation or failure to comply with the drain plug law.
• Watercraft owners must obtain and display an AIS sticker provided by the DNR.
• Authorized inspectors can now visually and tactically inspect watercraft.
• Inspections now include removal, drainage, decontamination or treatment to prevent the transportation and spread of AIS.
• Authorized inspectors may prohibit the launching of watercraft if the owner refuses an inspection or does not remove and dispose of aquatic vegetation prior to launching.
• Refusing an inspection or a removal order may result in a civil citation and the suspension of the watercraft license for a year.

The Governor’s proposal also included additional funding for AIS as well as increased penalties. Various funding sources had been included in the House and Senate versions, but all funding bills were vetoed by the Governor. I would expect once the budget impasse is resolved, some additional AIS funding will be provided to support the policy bills. What were not included in any of the legislative versions (but had been included in the original policy bill) however, were the increased penalties. The Lake Minnetonka Association has recommended increased penalties are critical for an effective AIS prevention program – so this is a disappointment.

So, what does this mean?

First of all, we are grateful the Governor, Legislature and the DNR are taking the AIS concerns seriously and have finally taken a significant step to improve the overall AIS management system. DNR Commissioner Landwehr, in the press conference announcing the Governor’s AIS proposal, said he knew the proposal did not go as far as many people would like. And, I suppose that will always be the case due to the nature of the AIS Aquademic. That day, we were reminded by a stakeholder involved in the process, “Let’s not let perfect get in the way of good.”

Secondly, we can expect the continued spread of AIS to lakes in Minnesota as well as into Lake Minnetonka. I think that spread will now be somewhat slower, but how much slower is uncertain.

Thirdly, we should be grateful for this step, but we must also remain vigilant. There will be more inspectors on Lake Minnetonka this year – good news. However, a significant focus for the inspectors will be on outgoing boats – good news for other Minnesota lakes. In addition, many of the Lake Minnetonka inspectors will not be ‘DNR authorized’ so they will not have the authority to prohibit the launching of AIS-infested boats or boat refusing an inspection – bad news.

Fourthly, many of the new authorities will require active and aggressive enforcement to be effective. Recently, the enforcement of AIS laws has been minimal, so we hope enforcement actions will pick up the pace along with these new laws and authorities.

Finally, a significant state-wide focus will be on zebra mussels, which makes sense from the state’s perspective. Unfortunately, now that zebra mussels are in Lake Minnetonka, we will not benefit from the extra attention. Indeed, we remain exposed to additional AIS like quagga mussels, spiny waterflea, VHS, hydrilla, etc.

We are all going to have to remain on guard. The new laws will help and we are grateful. The DNR Commissioner is correct, there can never be enough; although we think the balance remains tipped in favor of AIS.

Zebra Mussel's Ugly Cousin

2011-05-16T09:15:00.001-07:00

We were all disappointed last summer to learn of the discovery of zebra mussels in Lake Minnetonka. After a decade of warning that we were inadequately protected, zebra mussels invaded our lake. Now, Lake Minnetonka, along with Gull Lake, Prior Lake, the Alexandria Chain of Lakes and Mille Lacs Lake, are ‘super-spreaders’ and I would not be surprised if ten additional lakes have zebra mussels discovered this year.

Lake Minnetonka and all of Minnesota’s lakes remain under-protected.

We have yet to realize the full impacts of zebra mussel in Lake Minnetonka. I expect substantial increases in the zebra mussel population over the next two or three years. All hard surfaces will be coated with zebra mussels, shells will wash up on lakeshores, fish habitat will be degraded, water clarity could increase, milfoil growth will expand – it will be a headache we will have to learn to cope with.

So what could be worse?

Let me introduce zebra mussel’s ugly cousin, the quagga mussel. The quagga mussel is related to the zebra mussel, but its impacts will be more severe. The quagga mussel can grow on all surfaces, including muck, wood and vegetation, which are extensive in Lake Minnetonka. The quagga mussel grows in deeper water than zebra mussel. The quagga mussel reproduces throughout the open water season, whereas the zebra mussel reproduces only in mid-summer. In lakes where both mussels have been introduced, the quagga mussel takes over. As bad as zebra mussel will become, the quagga mussel will be worse.

Here is the issue – despite these being two distinct species mussel genus with different, severe impacts, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has classified these as the same animal.

Now that Lake Minnetonka has zebra mussel, more protection efforts are being focused on boats leaving the lake to help keep zebra mussel from spreading, meaning less attention will be spent on boats entering Lake Minnetonka. Because zebra and quagga mussel are classified as the same animal, the quagga mussel is not recognized as a separate threat.

Lacking this official distinction, inspectors and others may let down their guard for this new invader.

The quagga mussel has been in Lake Pepin and the Duluth-Superior Harbor and since 2006 and in the Mississippi River at Winona since 2005. Because the quagga mussel is not recognized by our regulatory programs to be different than the zebra mussel, Lake Minnetonka is inadvertently exposed. This oversight will, I fear, lead to a second wave of devastating mussels in Lake Minnetonka and across Minnesota.

It is tragic how we are learning of all the protection methods that are not effective – voluntary compliance, miniscule fines, minimal enforcement, practically non-existent oversight of angling tournaments and special events – if we really want to protect our lakes, we should be as aggressive with our protection actions as invasive species are in exploiting our ineffective protection measures.

Unfortunately, we now know the protections we had for Lake Minnetonka were not adequate. Because these protections have not improved, we can very well expect the zebra mussel’s ugly twin, the quagga mussel, is not far behind.

A Milfoil Plan for All of Lake Minnetonka

2011-05-16T09:14:00.001-07:00

Eurasian watermilfoil was discovered in Lake Minnetonka in 1987 – the first lake in Minnesota to have milfoil. Within a couple years, the pesky plant spread throughout the lake and has been problematic since that time – I estimate there are up to 5,000 acres of milfoil in Lake Minnetonka.

Given the scope, duration and impact of milfoil on Lake Minnetonka, it is surprising to me there has never been a comprehensive inventory of milfoil nor has there ever been a comprehensive management plan for milfoil.

There have been several milestones in collective battles to manage or control milfoil:

• 1989 – Harvesting Program began
• late-1990s to early 2000s – University of Minnesota research on milfoil weevil control
• 2006 – Milfoil Demonstration Project
• 2008 to 2012 – Milfoil Control on Carmans, Grays and Phelps Bays using herbicides
• 2011 – Gideon and St. Albans Bays added to herbicide project

A synopsis of these projects is as follows:

The harvesting program is designed to facilitate access and navigation, but not to control milfoil in the lake. The harvesting program cuts and removes about 300 acres of milfoil per season.

Weevils are native to Minnesota (and are in Lake Minnetonka) and grow on milfoil. It was hoped the weevils, if enhanced, would provide a biological control for milfoil. The weevil research of the University of Minnesota (as well as similar research around the country) did not result in any practical or operational control program, despite the expenditure of over $1,000,000. Unfortunately, sufficient weevil densities could neither be attained nor sustained - and it was discovered that bluegills preyed upon the weevils. The LMCD’s AIS Task Force has determined that weevils do not represent a viable control method for milfoil.

The 2006 demonstration project evaluated ‘selective’ herbicides in three test areas. Here, ‘selective’ refers to the ability of the herbicide product to selectively target and kill milfoil while doing minimal harm to native plants. On the basis of the positive results, the larger-scale milfoil control project was initiated.

In 2007, a Lake Vegetation Management Plan was developed to frame a milfoil control milfoil in three bays (Carmans, Grays and Phelps). The expert panel concluded that the use of selective herbicides was the only feasibly method to control milfoil and protect native plants. This project was begun in 2008 and will continue through 2012.

This year, Gideon and St. Albans Bays will be added to the herbicide project.

The Lake Minnetonka Association supports the herbicide project and believes it should be an element of a long-term, comprehensive management plan for milfoil in Lake Minnetonka.

The agencies responsible for managing milfoil on Lake Minnetonka must now take advantage of the recent knowledge gained and the high level of community interest and initiate the development of a milfoil management plan for all of Lake Minnetonka to be implemented by 2013.

Elements of a comprehensive plan should include:

• Problem assessment supported by a comprehensive lake vegetation inventory
• Stakeholder involvement and input
• Clear management goals and objectives
• A review feasible management and control alternatives
• Funding needs and sources
• A commitment to action

We have learned that private funding for controlling milfoil can be an element of this plan. However, the funding model we have developed through the milfoil control program on five bays relies too heavily on private funding, which we believe is not sustainable in the long run. Further, Lake Minnetonka is a public resource, therefore a reliable source of public funding ought to provide the majority of support for milfoil management.

The Lake Minnetonka Association is gratified the milfoil control program on the five bays has been supported by individuals, businesses and governmental agencies. We think this positive energy should now be focused on the development of a long-term milfoil management plan and program for all of Lake Minnetonka.

An Open Letter from Lakeshore Owners – Eurasian watermilfoil

2011-03-12T06:05:00.001-08:00

I have had the pleasure of serving as the Lake Minnetonka Association Executive Director for over 10 years. In that time, I have heard several consistent concerns from lakeshore owners, the people we represent. I have also heard several consistent myths about lakeshore owners. Over the next few months, I will present these in hopes of better understanding by all.

The most common complaint I get is about milfoil in Lake Minnetonka – lakeshore owners and most lake users do not like it.

Yes, sometimes lakeshore owners cast blame on boaters for bringing milfoil into the lake, but this is out of ongoing frustration that boaters continue to bring in aquatic invasive species (AIS), most recently zebra mussels. We understand that in the late-1980s when milfoil was brought in, there was poor awareness that this could be a problem (unlike now) and that milfoil was certainly not introduced intentionally.

Lakeshore owners are impacted by milfoil almost every day during the summer. It grows in dense mats near the shore, impeding our access to the lake. Wind, boats and harvesters cut it up and spread it, then it washes to our shores where we have to clean it up. I have heard accounts of lakeshore owners picking up dozens of wheelbarrows-full of milfoil after weekends.

We like the bay-wide milfoil treatments. Indeed, the lakeshore owners on the participating bays have paid the bulk of the treatment costs. While they have done so willingly, they do not understand why the agencies responsible for regulating and managing our lake do not pay more (maybe all) of the costs – it often rings hollow when on one hand we are told this is a public lake, but then on the other hand told it is our responsibility to pay for cleaning it up. While the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District supports this project, it has been through grants from their Save-the-Lake Fund, established from private contributions.

We are not concerned about the use of chemical herbicides to control milfoil. If these chemicals are approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and permitted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, that is, by and large, okay by us. We get frustrated and impatient with individuals and agencies who suggest these are harmful when they have neither the capacity, expertise nor the authority to regulate these management tools. The harvesters kill fish – the herbicides do not.

We do not like the harvesters. What relief they provide for navigation is minimal and short-lived. The harvesting season, by necessity, begins when milfoil is high enough to cut (late-June); however the boating season slows down significantly after the Fourth of July. As well, the milfoil fragments generated by the harvesters are not all collected – so they float to our shores.

We would like to see and would probably support a comprehensive milfoil control plan for the lake.

We do not understand the rules for weed control. The mantra of our public agencies is that milfoil is bad for lakes; however once it gets in, we are restricted how we can control it. We understand that native plants are important for the health of the lake, but we also understand milfoil left unmanaged, harms the lake’s health. The rules for managing milfoil ought to encourage its control while at the same time protecting other, good plants. The bay-wide program is a good step toward this – we would like to see this available for the whole lake.

There are too many agencies involved in managing or regulating milfoil. The LMCD which now manages the harvesters, has funding constraints and lacks technical expertise. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has substantial financial resources, credible expertise and the mission to protect the health of our waters, yet they are not directly involved in managing milfoil. Invasive plant management responsibilities ought to be vested in the MCWD.

Lakeshore owners on Lake Minnetonka love this lake and want it clean and healthy for all to enjoy.

Future topics – agencies, rules and regulations, docks and boating and water quality.

Piling On

2011-02-15T07:10:00.003-08:00

After their discovery this summer, the shock of zebra mussels in Lake Minnetonka has diminished. And while the full impacts of zebra mussel in our lake are yet to come, we must now turn our attention and prevention efforts to the other aquatic invasive species (AIS) that are coming our way.

The Minnesota Invasive Species Advisory Council has identified these AIS that are in Minnesota or are expected to be in Minnesota that represent a serious threat:

Plants - Brazilian waterweed, Brittle naiad, European frog-bit, Giant salvinia, Hardy hybrid water lily, Hydrilla, Phragmites, Salt-cedar, Water chestnut, Water hyacinth, Water lettuce, Yellow iris. Animals -Asian carp (bighead, black, grass, silver), Faucet snail, Mute swan, Mystery snails (Chinese, Japanese, banded), New Zealand mud snail, Northern snakehead, Quagga mussel, Round goby, Ruffe, Rusty crayfish, Sea lamprey, Spiny waterflea. Pathogens - viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS).

Lake Minnetonka is already home to these unwanted invaders: Common carp, curlyleaf pondweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, Flowering rush, zebra mussel and largemouth bass virus. Of these, only two species – milfoil and curlyleaf pondweed – are even attempted to be controlled or managed.

I have worked on lake issues around the country for over thirty years and in my opinion AIS issues and their impacts to lakes represent the most profound pollution challenge we have yet seen. As bad as lake pollution concerns were in the 1960s (remember ‘Lake Erie is dead’ ?), at least these impacts were reversed. With AIS, the impacts are permanent and accumulate as each new species is added to a lake.

From the list above, three species are of immediate concern:

Spiny waterflea – a small animal (about 3/8-inch long) that has a spiny tail that clings to fishing lines, anchor ropes and other equipment. Spiny waterflea reproduces rapidly and produces eggs that are resistant to drying. In addition to being a nuisance for anglers and boaters, this animal feeds at the base of the food chain, thereby robbing fish of their food base. Spiny waterflea are in Mille Lacs Lake and Lake Minnetonka is frequently visited by boaters from Mille Lacs.

VHS – a virus that causes fish kills en masse. VHS has caused large-scale mortality in black crappie, bluegill, freshwater drum, muskellunge and yellow perch and has also been confirmed to have caused kills of smallmouth bass and walleye. VHS is transported in contaminated fish and contaminated water and equipment. VHS is in Lake Superior.

Hydrilla – an invasive plant that is so aggressive, it has been known to out-compete milfoil. Hydrilla spreads rapidly and is difficult to control. Hydrilla has been found in Wisconsin and has been established in northern Indiana.

The Lake Minnetonka Association is extremely concerned about these (and other) new AIS because:

1) Each new invasion brings its own impacts plus the combined impacts with AIS already in the lake.
2) The inspections we had on Lake Minnetonka before the discovery of zebra mussel last year were not adequate in the first place – only about a quarter of incoming boats at public launches were inspected.
3) When zebra mussels were discovered in Lake Minnetonka, a significant amount of the planned inspections for incoming boats was either discontinued or re-directed to outgoing boats, leaving Lake Minnetonka more exposed.
4) We had become so focused on preventing zebra mussel that we had minimized the threat of other new AIS.

As additional AIS are introduced into Lake Minnetonka, their impacts will not just be additive, they will be synergetic. Simply, this means that one plus one will not equal two, it will equal three or even more. The fancy ecological term for this is the ecosystem will have less integrity and we risk undoing many years of positive clean up. In real terms, Lake Minnetonka will become less clean and less habitable for fish and wildlife.

Like it or not, zebra mussels are here to stay, but let’s not let down our guard.

Let’s let this awful lesson guide us and compel us to protect Lake Minnetonka from the next onslaught.

A Gathering Storm

2011-01-20T04:45:00.000-08:00

After years (and years and years …) of raising the aquatic invasive species (AIS) flag a disparate, but coalescing group of individuals, organizations and advocacy groups are now poised to bring the AIS threat to the fore. The Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) is one of many voices being raised around Minnesota who are demanding more resources and action be taken to protect and manage our lakes.

It is finally beginning to feel like we have a critical mass to call attention to the fact that AIS are ruining our lakes.

Here is some of what is happening:

• The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has proposed a plan amendment to address the AIS threat within the Minnehaha Creek watershed.

• On January 15th, the Tri-County (Hubbard, Becker and Ottertail Counties) AIS Legislative Summit was held for legislators in the Detroit Lakes area to hear from lake associations and watershed districts that something must be done to protect their lakes. Over three hundred attended.

• Prevention and control of aquatic invasive species is one of the top priorities of the Minnesota Seasonal and Recreational Property Owners. Their lobbyist will be advocating for new AIS laws and funding.

• Minnesota Waters and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) organized and hosted an expert forum in November 2010 to hear their views on how invasive plants, like milfoil, curlyleaf pondweed and Flowering rush (all in Lake Minnetonka) can be better managed and controlled. I was a co-moderator of that forum. A second follow-up forum is being planned for next month.

• The Green Lake Association (Spicer, MN) has begun a fundraising campaign to retain a legislative lobbyist and have asked other prominent lake associations to join their effort. To-date, they report having raised in excess of $15,000 from their members.

• The MN DNR has hosted a series of two stakeholder forums (completed in January 2010 and 2011). The stakeholders (including the LMA) were convened to determine the most important ideas for action. These are:

o Increase in enforcement of AIS laws.
o Increase the penalties for violation of AIS laws.
o Improve the AIS inspection process.
o Increase public awareness.
o Aide AIS actions at public accesses.
o Require lake service providers training.
o Focus on AIS super spreaders and prioritize.
o Increase funding for AIS efforts.

The Lake Minnetonka Association has played a significant role in all of these because we believe Lake Minnetonka is woefully under-protected and changes at the local and state level are needed.

It is clear that lakeshore owners’ associations are leading the way in Minnesota. In addition, some watershed districts, like Minnetonka Creek and Pelican River, are also assuming leadership roles to protect our lakes.

AIS action recommendations have recently been framed as an ‘us versus them’ scenario where lakeshore owners have been pitted against other lake users. This is unfortunate, inaccurate and unproductive as all lake users’ interests are to protect the lakes they love. This ought to be more appropriately framed as ‘us’ (all in Minnesota who love our lakes) versus ‘them’ (AIS that threaten to permanently damage our lakes).

It is now clear to a widespread and growing constituency that the status quo must be changed if we are to protect and restore our lakes.

Watershed-Wide AIS Management

2010-12-19T14:18:00.001-08:00

The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is proposing to amend its management plan to establish an aquatic invasive species (AIS) control and management plan throughout Minnehaha Creek Watershed, which includes Lake Minnetonka. In light of discoveries of Zebra Mussels and Flowering Rush in our lake, this proposed program is aggressive, timely and needed – more AIS are coming. The Lake Minnetonka Association, which serves as the voice of Lake Minnetonka lakeshore owners and businesses, supports this idea.

The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is best suited to this task in the watershed as they have the needed financial resources and staff scientific expertise. The District has also demonstrated an awareness of and positive actions toward the ecological stewardship of our water resources.

According to the District, preventing the introduction and spread of invasive species is imperative due to the “irreversible damage they have on our lakes and streams, plants and fish and recreational, property and commercial value of our water resources.”

Specifically, the proposed plan amendment would allow the District to conduct a rulemaking process with possibility of requiring anyone wishing to place a watercraft, dock, boat ramp or other equipment in a lake to obtain a permit. The permit could require a demonstration that such placement of boats and equipment into a lake be free of AIS. The permits could require a fee. The District plan could also establish a District-wide inspection and decontamination system. Education and outreach would be elements of the plan as well.

The proposed plan amendment makes a case for and seeks authority to implement the most extreme measures; however, the particular implementation elements would be subject to a highly public rule-making process that would follow the proposed plan’s approval. Even though the final details will need to be developed, the proposed plan frames possible future rules.

There will be challenges to this proposal, particularly regarding the ‘legality’ of charging permit fees, especially for watercraft entering lakes. The District claims to have the legal authority to implement this plan. The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, the state oversight agency for watershed districts, will make the final determination regarding the adoption of the District’s plan amendment. As well, the Attorney General’s office will be weighing in on any legal aspects of this proposal.

There may be other concerns. For example, this is a state-wide problem, so the District’s plan is out of context. If this is a state-wide problem, we challenge the state to propose and implement a comparable plan to obviate the need for District’s proposal. Until then, we like the District’s proposal.

According to Minnesota Waters in the AIS Position Paper (April 2009), AIS are referred to as an ‘aquademic’ and “The AIS management system in Minnesota is constrained by outdated laws and cultural norms ...” Further, Minnesota Waters says, “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 Lake Minnetonka Association, Minnesota Waters and many other lake associations have been leaders in advocating for aggressive, comprehensive AIS prevention and control. The District proposed plan appears to fit this bill. We applaud the District for the leadership, courage and commitment to confront this serious threat to our lakes.

MCWD’s proposal is truly transformative and merits our communities’ consideration and support.

Lake Minnetonka - Neat

2010-11-14T12:36:00.001-08:00

There are fewer and fewer days ice cover on Lake Minnetonka each winter. Long-term trends show that ice cover begins later and ice-off is earlier. This means fewer days per season of ice cover.

These same trends are occurring on lakes throughout the northern latitudes. According to one study which has investigated long-term trends (greater than 100 years) in ice cover, ice-on dates are later by about six days per hundred years and ice-off dates are between six and seven days earlier per hundred years. This means ice cover is almost two weeks less than it was one hundred years ago. The trends are continuing.

Most scientists, including me, attribute this to climate change, which has resulted in warmer temperatures in the northern latitudes.

For Lake Minnetonka, this means (on average) losing more than a day of ice cover each decade. In fact, in 21 of the past 30 years, Lake Minnetonka’s ice-off dates have been earlier than the long-term average ice-off date (April 15).

While longer periods of open water may be a blessing for those who enjoy summer boating activities, there are other worries to consider.

University of Minnesota scientists point out that earlier ice-off dates may disrupt fish spawning and make fish, such as walleye, less successful in recruiting young fish. As well, because more open water periods also means warmer water, many cold-water fish species may be displaced and replaced with warmer water species. These changes of course do not happen rapidly, but as these trends continue, we expect the fisheries in our lakes to be altered.

Longer ice-free periods and warmer waters also give aquatic invasive species (AIS) and edge over native plants and animals. This is a concern because AIS already have an advantage over native species – that is why they are invasive in the first place. This means they are getting help becoming even more invasive. In addition, longer ice-free periods provide more time for AIS to move about on boats and trailers each year.

Yikes - our task of keeping AIS out, minimizing their effects and mitigating their impacts gets more and more difficult.

Enjoy winter activities on Lake Minnetonka – Spring will be here all too soon.

We Know What the Problems Are

2010-10-19T04:39:00.001-07:00

The problems are: a) aquatic invasive species (AIS) hitchhike on boats and trailers and exploit new ecosystems where they are introduced, b) there is not a widespread appreciation that AIS are harmful, c) we have a culture and worldview that cannot adequately reconcile that easy and unimpeded access to and between lakes is exactly the pathway that AIS best exploit.

Unless we are collectively willing to confront these problems, new invasive plants, animals and viruses will continue to infest and damage our lakes.

AIS are harmful.

Recent reports from Prior Lake show the explosion in zebra mussels, only one year after they were discovered. Zebra mussels in Prior Lake are encrusting docks, lifts and boats as well as clogging water irrigation and boat engine cooling intakes. We also expect impacts to the lake’s ecology.

In another example, as Eurasian watermilfoil in Christmas Lake has increased, eight species of native plants have decreased.

Once we recognize that AIS really are harmful, we must confront the reality that preventing their movement requires changes in behaviors, attitudes and values - a significant cultural shift in thinking and behaving. It is human nature to wish away a problem rather than to confront it. We lack clear leadership to recognize and confront the AIS problem facing our lakes.

Even after lakes become infested, there is a tendency toward minimization, rationalization and denial. Last year, just after the discovery of zebra mussels in Prior Lake, I spoke with a homeowner to gauge their level of concern. They were not so concerned because they did not even see the zebra mussels in the lake - and they had been told that zebra mussels could even be fish food. Zebra mussels are certainly not fish food and unfortunately, we now know that zebra mussels are exploding in Prior Lake. I am afraid Lake Minnetonka faces the same fate.

We must take the AIS threats seriously and take aggressive prevention actions if we value our lakes.

We have become complacent, thinking that we are doing enough. Our protection system is largely permissive and a significant number of boaters are not even complying with current laws. The Minnesota DNR reports that extra efforts have occurred this year, especially at newly infested lakes. Intensive education, enforcement and inspections have logged 6,800 contacts at boat ramps and of these they issued over 320 warnings and about 120 citations – indicating that there is over 6% noncompliance with state laws, and that is with DNR uniformed personnel present. My personal observations on Lake Minnetonka indicate this rate of noncompliance is much higher, especially when inspectors are not present.

A large number of boaters are indeed aware of and in compliance with our AIS laws – thank you. Unfortunately, given the millions of boater trips that occur between Minnesota lakes, even a small percentage of noncompliant boaters translates into a very large risk of moving AIS.

We need even more funding, stronger laws, more enforcement and stiffer penalties. We need to take the AIS threat seriously.

We also need to profile and prioritize are prevention program.

As of this season, there are now four ‘superspreader’ lakes in Minnesota (Alexandria chain, Gull, Mille Lacs and Minnetonka) for zebra mussels. These lakes have (or soon will have) high densities of zebra mussels and large volumes of boat traffic. While increased protection efforts have occurred, they are unfortunately, still too small an effort.

Fishing tournaments and tournament participants represent a high risk category. I do not think it is a coincidence that five of the six most recently infested zebra mussel lakes (Alexandria chain, Gull, Mille Lacs, Pelican and Minnetonka) are all in the highest prize category (greater than $10,000) of permitted fishing contests in Minnesota. These lakes are also very highly visited, but many other highly visited lakes do not have zebra mussel.

I often hear criticisms of the MN DNR when the topic of protecting our lakes from AIS arises. In my experience, the DNR staff are professionals and are doing the best job possible with preventing AIS impacts, given the funding and policy constraints they must work within.

We need to ask – no expect – our elected leaders to give the DNR more resources and clear policy direction to really protect our lakes.

What Next?

2010-09-20T10:33:00.000-07:00

Now that zebra mussels are in Lake Minnetonka to stay, we will have to learn to cope with their impacts. We have an opportunity to learn from this and make adjustments to keep new and forthcoming other aquatic invasive species (AIS) out of Lake Minnetonka. Unfortunately, zebra mussels will not be the last AIS to threaten Lake Minnetonka.

The nature of the AIS issue makes this a large challenge on many levels, but a challenge we ought to confront.

The Lake Minnetonka Association has been urging protection against zebra mussel for about ten years. Perhaps by using zebra mussel as our poster AIS, we have not given enough emphasis to other AIS nearing Lake Minnetonka. We cannot afford to let down our guard because new AIS, such as hydrilla, spiny waterflea, VHS and many more, all will damage our lake should they get in.

We have learned that current protections – local and statewide are not adequate.

According to a position paper from Minnesota Waters, a statewide advocacy organization, “ Minnesota’s response to the AIS problem has evolved over the past two decades in a piecemeal fashion. As a result, we lack a comprehensive management system, and we lack a sense of urgency.” And “We need to change the game.”

An effective AIS protection system requires both statewide and local elements.

The protections now in place are largely permissive, relying on public awareness and voluntary actions. There are laws, which are enforced somewhat, but not nearly enough. At the local level, there have been ramped up inspection efforts, but these too have not been sufficient. For example, the LMCD’s Strategic Plan says 19,000 inspection hours (per season) are needed. This season, there were approximately 4,000 hours of inspections.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is hosting a series of stakeholder meetings this Autumn and the Lake Minnetonka Association has been invited to participate. A similar series of meetings occurred last year and one outcome was the new law requiring all boats to drain their water reservoirs after leaving any lake or river. Additional steps must be taken soon and our hope is these will be embraced in the upcoming legislative session.

We must recognize however, additional protection measures may be controversial or face obstacles. New funding of any kind will pose challenges in this economic climate. The Lake Minnetonka Association supports a fee system like that in place on Lake Tahoe, where boaters pay fees on two tiers – those using only Lake Tahoe and those visiting other lakes. These fees pay for inspections. For Minnesota, a version of this two-tier boat license system is being considered by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for possible introduction to the state legislature.

Another challenge we will encounter is there are angling and boating interests who may object to the cultural changes embodied by a more comprehensive protection system. Many individuals and groups have expressed concerns regarding the increased intrusiveness of additional laws, fees or inspections. These groups will be represented in the DNR’s stakeholder meetings and we will work to reach common understandings of the AIS challenges and impacts so we can come to consensus regarding meaningful and effective protections while allowing all Minnesotans to enjoy our lakes.

Given that several dozen new AIS have been identified by the DNR as having potential to impact Minnesota lakes, we must not let down our guard.

To do this, we must develop:

• Comprehensive protection with both state and local elements

• A systemic overhaul, rather than incremental changes

• An attitude and culture that AIS pose serious, permanent threats that must be addressed

• All Minnesotans being invested in the protection of our lakes

The Lake Minnetonka Association believes that if our local and state leaders can get on board with these guiding principles, then the details will follow. The Lake Minnetonka Association, partnering with Minnesota Waters and local leaders is prepared to offer specific recommendations.

Sad News - Zebra Mussels in Our Lake - What Do We Need to Know and What should We Be Doing Now?

2010-08-07T12:41:00.000-07:00

Everybody by now probably knows that zebra mussels have been found in Lake Minnetonka. I and everybody else who loves Lake Minnetonka hoped this day would never come. It is truly sad news for everyone. But, now that they are here, what next?

As of now, it appears the infestation is limited to Grays and Wayzata Bay and the Lower Lake south to Big Island. All appearances are that we are very early in the infestation. Crews from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District have and will continue to monitor the lake and more up-to-date information will be available in the weeks to come. The DNR will have a special page on their website dedicated to the Lake Minnetonka zebra mussel situation 9search ‘zebra mussel’).

Also as of this time, the agencies are exploring whether any kind of containment may be possible. The Lake Minnetonka Association will work with the agencies to explore all options. Again, more information will be forthcoming in the next month or two.

Typically, zebra mussel populations expand very slowly for the first two or three years, then multiply explosively.

Given this assessment and the way zebra mussel populations typically expand, I would expect the full impacts may take two to four years to be realized.

Zebra mussels will encrust hard surfaces – hard or firm lake bottoms, boat hulls, mooring buoys, inside mechanisms in boat motors, water toys, docks and lifts. Here are some precautions that should be taken.

At the end of the day, unfortunately, zebra mussels will be in Lake Minnetonka forever. So, we must learn to cope with them.

What should boaters and lakeshore owners do?

1. When swimming or wading, wear protective footwear to minimize cutting your feet, as zebra mussel shells are razor-sharp.

2. Remove irrigation intakes from the water and drain completely when not in use, as the immature forms will encrust the intakes and pipes.

3. If possible, keep your boat and motor completely out of water (when not in use) to minimize the encrustation of zebra mussels.

4. If it is not possible to store your boat out of water, contact a marina to inquire about protective paints and annual maintenance.

5. Run you boats long enough to reach operating temperatures. The immature zebra mussels are very sensitive to heat, so a hot engine will kill them as they are flushed through the cooling system. Drain all water reservoirs after each use.

6. Help prevent the spread to other lakes and rivers. If you take your boat out of Lake Minnetonka, thoroughly clean your boat and trailer inside and out and let it dry for at least five days. Scrape off any encrustations, wash with high pressure, hot water (120 degrees), then drain and dry all water reservoirs.

7. If you sell used docks, structures or water toys, be sure they are decontaminated and cleaned before they leave the area.

We expect zebra mussels will affect the overall health of the lake and the fisheries. As the infestation develops, agencies charged with managing Lake Minnetonka’s environmental health – MN DNR and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - will be reporting to the community.

I am saddened by this news, as I know all of you are as well. The Lake Minnetonka Association remains committed to being advocates for AIS prevention. While zebra mussels are here, there are dozens of other invasive plants, animals and pathogens coming toward of Lake Minnetonka.

Milfoil is Bad - Really

2010-07-19T04:07:00.000-07:00

We have been starting to hear from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources that milfoil can be good for lakes. Over the past month, I have heard and seen in various media that milfoil may be good fish habitat, milfoil may help to keep suspended sediments out of lakes, and milfoil may help keep lakes clear. I have also heard that overly aggressive control may do more harm than good.

There may be some truth to these statements in a very narrow context, but mostly milfoil is bad for lakes.

The DNR is concerned about protecting the health and integrity of lakes – we all are. However, when these concerns are framed inappropriately, they may be misleading. While milfoil control is high on Lake Minnetonka’s radar screen and keeping the lake healthy is in everyone’s interest, I think it is time to step back and examine these concerns.

The various statements from the DNR are true, but only in extreme cases. For example, milfoil is good fish habitat – but only when there are no other native plants in the lake. That is not the case in Lake Minnetonka. Lakes can become turbid and clouded with suspended sediment and algae, but this has only been observed in lakes where all plants have been removed, which has happened in only one or two lakes. That has not happened in Lake Minnetonka. Aggressive control, when it leads to total plant removal, can cause harm – again this has not happened in Lake Minnetonka.

We have heard with respect to the Lake Minnetonka milfoil treatments that the yardstick being used to evaluate this project is that the treatments will not cause more harm than good. This is an appropriate standard, but I have not seen any assessment weighing the relative harm versus good in Lake Minnetonka.

I believe the treatments on Lake Minnetonka have indeed been beneficial. Lake Minnetonka contains a variety of native plants, which by themselves provide beneficial fish habitat. Milfoil diminishes the quality of that habitat. Therefore, removing it is beneficial – as long as we do not also remove native plants.

Have we damaged native plants in this project?

The proposed Gideon and St. Albans Bay treatments were denied because the treatments in 2009 appear to have damaged native plants, “though no tests of the possible statistical significance of the apparent trend were reported.” In Grays Bay in 2009, three species of pondweeds had declined, which is accurate. Several species increased too. As well, in Carmans Bay, one of these plants decreased and there was no treatment in 2009. However, there is no objective basis to conclude, as the DNR points out, that the treatments were the cause.

Because we lack baseline information to indicate whether or not these plants normally increase and decrease in lakes without treatments, we do not know if the declines in some species are within normal ranges.

There is evidence that the opposite may also be true. Milfoil growth, if unchecked, can cause harm to native plants in lakes. Eurasian watermilfoil began becoming problematic on Christmas Lake in about 2001. Since that time, the DNR conducted surveys and found an increase in milfoil and a corresponding decrease in about a dozen native plant species. Overall, the habitat quality has diminished in Christmas Lake as a result of advancing milfoil growth. Good versus harm ought to be weighed on this scale too – it may be harmful doing nothing.

Milfoil is bad for lakes. While that does not mean we are compelled to treat it, if we desire to treat it, as we do in at least five bays on Lake Minnetonka, we should do so in a manner that is protective of the lake’s health and we should evaluate the relative benefits in the largest context possible.

Strong Medicine

2010-06-12T14:42:00.001-07:00

By the time this reaches the paper, the Lake Minnetonka Association’s 9th Annual Clean Up event will be over. During the event, volunteer SCUBA divers search various areas of the lake bottom and bring in trash and treasures. This event highlights the need for us all to do our part in keeping Lake Minnetonka clean.

This event requires a Special Event Permit from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. The permit requires the submission of an Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention Plan to assure all necessary steps are taken to keep unwanted invasive species out of our lake – a good thing.

The prevention plan I submitted with the permit application included a requirement that all watercraft not already residing on Lake Minnetonka arrive clean and dry (inside and out), that all divers’ gear arrive clean and inspections of both. Upon review, LMCD Executive Director Greg Nybeck called me and said he was concerned because Prior Lake’s Clean Up event was the week prior and many of the divers would be participating in both events. Prior Lake is infested with zebra mussels. He said he would add the requirement that no boats participating in Prior Lake’s event the week before the Lake Minnetonka event would be allowed to participate in the Lake Minnetonka event. Greg asked if I would be agreeable to that, and after a few seconds’ thought – yes of course I would.

First of all, thanks to Greg and the LMCD. The Lake Minnetonka Association has been calling for agencies to step up and aggressively protect Lake Minnetonka for years. Greg’s action is a clear demonstration of what we have been advocating. Secondly, thanks to Greg for setting a high standard for future action for the LMA and others to follow.

As we have notified the divers, I have been receiving some pushback. (“Divers do not transport zebra mussels! What gives the LMA the right to require more than the MN DNR recommends? This is a public lake – you cannot prevent us from entering.”).

While there is some truth in all of these sentiments, these are exactly the reasons zebra mussels and other aquatic invasive species (AIS) are moving – it always seems to be someone else’s issue.

Over the years, it seems every group I speak to or encounter – lakeshore owners, anglers, boaters, SCUBA divers, sailors, marina operators, transporters, dock installers, etc. – claim their group is clean and others’ are the carriers. The LMA does not have explicit ‘rights’ in a case like this, but we do have responsibilities and obligations to set an example. And Lake Minnetonka is a public lake, but when the LMA hosts or the LMCD permits an event inviting participants who could be bringing AIS, we have a trust to uphold and we should set an example.

Please, don’t become complacent, as I had. Please, all lake users, take the extra steps – every time you come to enjoy Lake Minnetonka. Make sure your boats, trailers, equipment are clean and thoroughly dry at least five days after leaving another lake (infested or not). Please everybody, urge your fellow lake users to adopt this ‘strong medicine’ ethic. This is what it will take to make sure Lake Minnetonka remains clean for all to enjoy.

AIS with Apologies to Dr. Seuss

2010-05-14T14:42:00.000-07:00

Aquatic Invasive Species – what are they?
They’re nearing our lakes and coming our way.
When they arrive, they’ll make a mess.
And we just call them A-I-S.

They hitchhike on boats from lake to lake,
Wreaking havoc in their wake.
They are plants, animals and even a virus.
We do not like you A-I-S!

As they infest lake after lake,
We must step up ‘fore its too late.
So many lakes are facing the test
Of this long, long list of A-I-S.

We’ve had some of these most of our life:
Milfoil, curlyleaf and purple loosestrife.
Flowering rush, common carp add to our stress.
Please, oh please no more A-I-S.

There are bighead, black and silver carp,
Brazilian elodea, Hydrilla and yellow floating heart.
Viral hemorrhagic septicemia – or VHS.
Alas, there are even more A-I-S.

Mystery snails – Banded, Japanese and Chinese,
European frogbit, New Zealand mudsnails and Indian swampweed – please.
Giant salvinia, water hyacinth and water lettuce.
When will it end? Yikes A-I-S!

Rusty – rainbow – spiny, gee!
[Crayfish, smelt and waterflea]
Mussels – Quagga and zebra – we cannot rest.
Will we stop these A-I-S?

Ruffe and round goby if you wish.
Even Northern snakehead, called ‘Frankenfish’
There are more and more of these awful pests.
We must stand up against A-I-S.

They spoil fishing, tourism, economy;
Recreation, enjoyment and ecology.
We can do more to ease our duress.
Why wouldn’t we stop these A-I-S?

Once in a lake, there is no cure-
All we can do is cope and endure.
We gotta prevent these blasted pests,
If we don’t want A-I-S.

A-I-S are big and bad,
A-I-S make us sad.
A-I-S are coming fast.
A-I-S are a pain in the … butt.

Ah, Spring

2010-04-18T14:05:00.001-07:00

My daffodils have been up for weeks now, my backyard prairie had its prescribed burn, I have raked the mulch from my perennial beds, the ice is now long off Lake Minnetonka. Signs of Spring.

As we look forward to another season enjoying beautiful Lake Minnetonka, let’s refresh our awareness of what boaters and lakeshore owners can do to be safe and keep ugly invasive species at bay.

The Lake Minnetonka Association wants Lake Minnetonka to be clean, safe and enjoyable for all. The summer rules for Lake Minnetonka are listed on the LMCD or Hennepin County Water Patrol websites. We urge special attention to safe and courteous boating.

We ask boaters visiting Lake Minnetonka to please take these simple precautions:

• INSPECT your boat, trailer and equipment and remove all vegetation, animals and mud before launching.
• DRAIN all water from live wells, bilges and bait containers – before arriving and away from the lake.
• SPRAY or DRY your boat before arriving – either thoroughly spray with high pressure/high temperature water or allow your boat and equipment to thoroughly dry for five days.
• When arriving at Lake Minnetonka, please be patient with the inspectors.
• For additional information, go to the ‘Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers’ website.

Lakeshore owners should also take precautions when working with water gardens, installing used docks and water structures and working with lake service providers, because these are all potential avenues for invasive species introductions. The Lake Minnetonka Association has received a grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to prepare a lakeshore owners’ guide – this will soon be available on our website and is being mailed to all Lake Minnetonka lakeshore owners.

Flowering rush, now in Lake Minnetonka, is believed to have escaped from a water garden because it is a commonly-used plant in water gardens. Last year’s Flowering rush discovery highlights the importance of prevention actions we should all be taking.

In 2010, less than a year after its discovery, we know Flowering rush to be found in only several areas of Lake Minnetonka. The Lake Minnetonka Association believes that until the full extent of the infestation is documented, areas of known infestation should be restricted to harvesters and boaters, because these activities are known to accelerate the spread of the plant around the lake.

Unfortunately, these conservation sreps are not going to be taken. In fact, there are no plans to document the extent of the infestation and there are no plans to control or contain the infestation. Because the plant is extremely difficult to identify as well as the fact that the plant has an underwater growth form, it will be impossible for harvesters or boaters to avoid. In deed, last year after the time of its first discovery, LMCD harvesters were operating in bays later discovered to have had Flowering rush. Alas, Flowering rush will likely spread rapidly around Lake Minnetonka. In other lakes, Flowering rush grows in thick beds, like cattails, often precluding access and activity.

It is not yet too late to keep additional invasive species out. We must dedicate our resources to comprehensive prevention actions because, as the Flowering rush example illustrates, once they get into the lake, the only action we are left with is coping. With respect to other invasive species, we have no early detection plans, no rapid response plans, no control or containment plans.

Individuals – boaters and lakeshore owners – have an important role – indeed an obligation - in preventing invasive species from getting into Lake Minnetonka. We urge all to become aware of and get into the habit of taking simple prevention actions. We all have the responsibility to keep Lake Minnetonka safe and clean.

Ramping Down

2010-03-16T12:28:00.001-07:00

Last year at this time, we were abuzz with the heightened prospect that zebra mussel had been discovered in Prior Lake – way too close for comfort. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources indicated they were beefing up their prevention and enforcement efforts. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District made increased inspections their ‘top priority.’ The Lake Minnetonka Association agreed to make a $10,000 match available to support these increased inspections. The LMCD directed its Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Task Force to develop a comprehensive prevention plan for implementation in 2010.

So, as we approach the open water season this year, where do we stand?

The DNR issued less than 100 aquatic invasive species-related citations state-wide in all of 2009. A channel 9 investigative report last summer noted that ‘boat after boat’ left zebra mussel-infested Prior Lake without draining their bilge water as required by state law.

On Lake Minnetonka, the promised increased inspections did not occur. In their Spring/Summer 2009 newsletter, the LMCD message from the chair stated, “One of the most serious issues facing Lake Minnetonka is the potential introduction of zebra mussel. The LMCD Board has made it a top priority to do what we can to stem the invasion of these aquatic pests.” Dick Woodruff, LMCD Board member, in the April 20, 2009 Lakeshore Weekly News stated, “There is a lot of horsepower being put into this.” A May 4, 2009 letter-writer called the prospect of zebra mussels in Lake Minnetonka an “Eco-Disaster.”

The LMCD stated they were increasing the number of inspection hours in 2009 by 40% (LMCD Spring/Summer 2009 newsletter). The actual increase was 6% and there were less than 4,000 total hours of inspections in 2009. Part of the shortfall was due to the inability of the MN DNR inspector program to hire sufficient numbers of interns. As this has been a perennial issue, we would urge the LMCD to hire seasonal inspectors.

And inspections and monitoring in 2010 will actually decrease. The MN DNR has notified the LMCD their grant will be less than last year (by about one third) and the hourly rate for the inspectors will be increased by about 20%, neither of which had been budgeted for by the LMCD. At their March 10th Board meeting, the LMCD approved an inspection plan for 2,700 hours of inspections – 24% less than last year! Video monitoring at accesses has been discontinued.

In a larger context, the LMCD’s Strategic Plan Work Plan (2009-2014), has identified a goal of 18,942 inspection hours per season – seven times what was approved for 2010. I am aware of no plan or proposal to bridge this gap.

The comprehensive AIS prevention plan, approved by the LMCD is nothing more than a list of prevention activities that the participating agencies and organizations had already planned and programmed in 2010, plus some other ‘proposed’ actions, but with no commitment to implement these. Perhaps most concerning is the submitted plan is far from comprehensive. The technical representatives on the committee could come to no consensus whatsoever regarding the relative risk of various AIS introduction pathways. Thus, the resultant plan is merely the collection of what agencies and organizations are already doing, rather than a comprehensive or focused strategy dealing with what needs to be done.

We are going entirely the wrong direction.

A year has gone by and Lake Minnetonka is less protected than last year. Our protection system for Lake Minnetonka is incomplete and seriously broken. The inspections, as noted above are vastly less than the stated need. Special events, events that bring participants (and their watercraft) from other states and who often frequent AIS-infested waters, are neither inspected nor washed, even though the LMCD found the voluntary affidavit system was not working and there was no use of the LMCD washers (Oct. 25, 2000 LMCD Board minutes) – this has gone on for 10 years with no change to the program! The prevention plan for 2010 calls for education of special event participants – which is a requirement of LMCD code anyway – again, no change.

The Lake Minnetonka Association, speaking on behalf of lakeshore owners and businesses, expects the agencies charged with protecting Lake Minnetonka to be aggressively moving the ball forward for protecting Lake Minnetonka.

Flowering rush, another invasive plant, was discovered on Lake Minnetonka last summer. This plant has the potential to circle the entire shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and there are no plans to contain its spread. Let’s not let zebra mussels (or spiny wateflea or hydrilla or VHS, or …) get into Lake Minnetonka.

The AIS protection ball has lost ground – and we will be penalized for delay of game.

Is Anyone Listening?

2010-02-17T05:08:00.001-08:00

Lakeshore Weekly News Editor Brett Strusa’s Column in the January 11th edition asked whether our elected officials were listening in reference to recent City actions in Deephaven.

Here, I want to talk about what lakeshore owners and businesses are saying relative to milfoil control on Lake Minnetonka.

Around Lake Minnetonka, the lakeshore owners and businesses have been very clear they want milfoil controlled and are elated over the results from the results in Grays and Phelps Bays last year. The lakeshore owners represent a significant constituency and in fact have provided the majority of funding to this project as well as additional projects planned for 2010.

Milfoil has been the scourge of Lake Minnetonka for over 20 years. It impacts the lake’s ecology and recreation. Indeed, in my 10 years on this job, complaints about milfoil (or the harvesters) have topped all other I have received.

Right now, there are ten active bay captains or co-captains – and a dozen or so street captains - working on fundraising for the planned 2010 milfoil treatments. They have or soon will raise about $220,000 toward the 2010 projects on five bays. We anticipate receiving about $60,000 in public money as well. Lakeshore owners and businesses are making serious and significant investments to clean up Lake Minnetonka for all to enjoy as well as for improving its health.

The lakeshore owners and businesses are speaking – with their investments, energy and commitment – are our public agencies listening?

Some are. The Cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Mound, Shorewood and Tonka Bay have committed funding toward these projects in 2010. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District’s Save-the-Lake Fund (private donations) has committed funding. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources probably will provide grant funding (grant application pending). We appreciate these commitments.

Unfortunately, some are not. It is unfortunate that lakeshore owners and businesses ought to foot the majority of the bill to protect and manage a public resource. It is unfortunate that over $100,000 per year is being spent on old technology – the harvesters – which cut less and less milfoil each year, which have trouble picking up all the milfoil fragments, which have difficulty cutting in straight lines and which will likely facilitate the spread of flowering rush (an invasive plant newly discovered in Lake Minnetonka last year). It is unfortunate there is no long-term plan or vision for milfoil control on Lake Minnetonka.

The Lake Minnetonka Association’s ‘Milfoil-Free Minnetonka’ campaign is resonating with lakeshore owners and businesses. Lake Minnetonka can be Milfoil-Free in a a manner that is safe and restorative.

We know the lakeshore owners and businesses are not the only constituencies the agencies and municipalities ought to listen to. However, with respect to milfoil control, lakeshore owners and businesses are willing, enthusiastic and committed partners. We urge the agencies and municipalities overseeing the management of Lake Minnetonka to listen to lakeshore owners and businesses, tap their energy and investment and help to make Lake Minnetonka Milfoil-Free.

A Fresh Perspective

2010-01-21T09:10:00.001-08:00

The Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) was fortunate to have had Andrew Bredeson as a summer intern last year. Andrew spent much of his youth visiting his grandparents on West Arm Bay and has a love for Lake Minnetonka. I asked Andrew to summarize his impressions and experiences following his internship this past summer. Below is an excerpt from his summary.

“I learned so many things from the three months I spent working with the LMA.

I learned that most people are hesitant and guarded when asked for a moment of their time or a contribution. That said, almost all those who gave me a few minutes were on board with the concern of the LMA and the vulnerability of Lake Minnetonka.

I learned that many people are very results driven – for example, they gave money for the milfoil treatments then were put off when asked for further contributions ("I've already given you guys money, why do I need to give more??)

I learned that the fear of aquatic invasive species introductions is widespread. I heard so many times that not enough is being done to prevent the introduction of zebra mussels.

I learned that I personally do not enjoy calling people and asking them for money, even when it is for a cause I know is incredibly important to the preservation of the lake I love and so many others also love.

I learned that it is frustrating and difficult to have to deal with governmental organizations to get things done. It seems to me that to gain more leverage with the LMCD and other governmental organizations, the LMA must persuade lakeshore residents to pester these officials and representatives repeatedly until they feel a greater sense of urgency to deal with problems like insufficient AIS prevention plans, outdated/inefficient methods of milfoil control, and so on.

Most importantly, I learned that ordinary (or extraordinary) citizens can indeed initiate change, frame and direct conversation, and get things done for the greater good. I also learned that these efforts can be tedious, frustrating, and exhausting, but that perseverance and effort can make a meaningful impact.

I did come away from my experience with the LMA with a sense of hope that Lake Minnetonka can be protected, but so much more needs to be done. People around Lake Minnetonka need to realize that their direct involvement, be it with financial contributions, showing up at LMCD meetings to voice their opinions, calling state legislators, etc., is crucial to the preservation and betterment of the Lake.

A prevailing attitude of many Lakeshore owners seems to be something like: "I will take care of myself and do what is right for me, my neighbors will do what's right for them and everything will be fine." This needs to change so that all lakeshore owners realize "What is right for me and my neighbors, should also be right for Lake Minnetonka as a whole." This may sound idealistic, but I feel this mentality needs to be encouraged as much as possible.

I also detected in some people a sense of despair. Some people felt that the problems and threats facing the lake were too large, and that not enough could be done to protect the lake so why even try. This did not seem to be the majority opinion, but a significant one nonetheless.

I learned so much more in the three months I was with the LMA. Keep up the good work and thanks for all you and the LMA do.”

Andrew is spending this year as a Team Leader with the AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) and is based in Denver, Colorado.

Funding for AIS Prevention and Control

2009-12-17T14:39:00.000-08:00

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.

The Cities Should Get into the Milfoil Game

2009-11-20T10:22:00.000-08:00

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.

Shielding Lake Minnetonka

2009-11-02T07:10:00.000-08:00

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?

Grays and Phelps Bays Are Milfoil-Free

2009-09-06T07:50:00.000-07:00

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.

The Changing Tide on Lake Minnetonka

2009-08-18T06:30:00.001-07:00

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.

Bad Synergy

2009-07-13T15:43:00.001-07:00

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.

Aquademic

2009-07-13T15:42:00.000-07:00

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.

Chemical Management Tools

2009-06-03T08:28:00.000-07:00

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.

Lake Stewardship

2009-06-03T08:27:00.000-07:00

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.

We Must Step Up Now

2009-06-03T08:26:00.000-07:00

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.

Zebra Mussel - One Last Chance

2009-03-23T06:25:00.001-07:00

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?”

Inspection Fees

2009-02-18T06:52:00.000-08:00

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.

Are the Milfoil Treatments Experimental?

2009-01-19T05:57:00.000-08:00

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.

Changing the Game

2008-12-16T05:34:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

Where should we seek this additional money?

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

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

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

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

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

Lake Minnetonka in 500 Years

2008-12-16T05:32:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lake Minnetonka - The Real Jewel

2008-12-16T05:30:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three Bay Milfoil Treatment - What Next?

2008-12-16T05:26:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confronting the Monster

2008-08-20T10:44:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

Without this support, here is where we stand:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weeds

2008-07-18T06:38:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Milfoil-Free Minnetonka

2008-06-16T09:16:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

There are two significant hurdles – funding and attitudes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expand the milfoil treatments
Monitoring and surveillance
Prevention
Early detection and rapid response
Research
Education

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

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

Aquatic Invasive Species - What is the Risk?

2008-05-20T17:44:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

Boats enter Lake Minnetonka from these categorical sources:

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

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

Public Access 84%

Commercial Access 3%

Municipal Docks (rented from cities) 0

Riparian 0

Special Events 3%

Tributary Lakes 9%

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

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

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

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

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

A Vision for Aquatic Invasive Species Protection

2008-04-19T11:19:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

Our prevention plan includes six elements:

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

2. Closure of Some Accesses

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

3. Fees

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

4. Tributary Lakes

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

5. Inspections at Special Events

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

6. Enforcement

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

Acceptable Risk

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

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

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

A Vision for Better Environmental Protection of Lake Minnetonka

2008-03-18T17:32:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is why we think this makes sense:

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

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

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

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

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

A Vision for Lake Minnetonka

2008-02-19T05:18:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· nearshore buffers are needed or best implemented

· docks and related boating activities affect fish and wildlife

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

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

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

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

Who Chould Pay for Milfoil Control?

2008-01-16T11:18:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shoreland Buffers

2007-12-20T13:10:00.000-08:00

As reported in this paper and elsewhere, the City of Minnetonka recently pulled back on their proposed shorland buffer proposal. I, representing the Lake Minnetonka Association, attended the November 27^th City Council listening session and spoke against that provision of the proposed shoreland ordinance. Here is why.

The proposed vegetated buffer in the shoreland zone was intended to improve water quality because vegetated buffers can reduce pollution in runoff compared to “unbuffered” areas. While this is technically true, closer examination reveals this concept was not well-conceived.

Simply, as proposed, the ordinance was a solution in search of a problem.

First of all, vegetated buffers remove certain kinds of pollution differently. For example, suspended sediments can be removed very effectively, but phosphorus is not removed effectively. Suspended sediments are not normally an issue in residential lakeshore properties and suspended sediments are not an issue in Lake Minnetonka, so there is no general need to mitigate these. Phosphorus can be a problem in Lake Minnetonka; however, Minnesota now restricts phosphates in lawn fertilizers, so phosphorus is not a big problem (even if the buffers could reduce it).

Second, what is the water quality problem? Gray’s Bay, the portion of Lake Minnetonka in the City of Minnetonka, has very good water quality. In fact, it has one of the highest water quality grades on the entire lake. Indeed, the overall quality and condition of Lake Minnetonka is actually very good. Water quality has been improving in many bays for the past 20 or 30 years – due in large part to diverting wastewater discharges to the lake. What water quality problems that do exist, occur in the shallow, Western bays. There, the water quality problems are due to runoff from large tributaries and not from lakeshore lawns. Also, Lake Minnetonka has one of the healthiest, most productive fisheries in the state.

Third, the proposed buffer requirement was negotiated as a trade-off to allow increased hard surface coverage in the shoreland zone. This is a bad trade-off for water quality. Hard or impervious surfaces do not allow rainfall to penetrate so it instead runs off. As more water runs off, its energy and erosive capacity increases and it tends to pick up and carry more pollution. This is especially critical in the shoreland zone.

Finally, the proposed buffers required the planting of “required” vegetation and certain maintenance prohibitions, such as no mowing or fertilizer use. However, this is a simplistic approach that is more for show than for function. We can do better.

The Lake Minnetonka Association recommends that lakeshore owners consider lakescaping as a way to protect their lakeshore. Specifically, we recommend:

“Lakescaping is simple landscaping on the lakeshore, providing a more natural alternative to structural or artificial shore landscaping and erosion control. Lakescaping can benefit Lake Minnetonka by improving fish and wildlife habitat, providing shoreline protection and enhancing the lake's aesthetics.”

There are important differences between this approach and the City of Minnetonka’s proposed vegetated buffer requirement. First, it should be voluntary. Second, notice that we do not cite water quality benefits because they are not usually a significant part of lakescaping. Third, lakescaping when done well, is an intensive, long-term project that involves planting, engineering, and restoration in the upland areas and in the lake. Typical lakescaping projects are often costly (tens of thousands of dollars) and can take two or three years to mature.

We feel, for those who value and appreciate this lakeshore experience, the costs and effort are worthwhile. But, we also feel this is an enhancement, and not a requirement.

The City of Minnetonka has a well-deserved reputation for being forward-looking and proactive with respect to environmental protection and we are grateful for that. In this case, while the City’s intentions are clearly well placed, their proposed buffer requirement was not. The Lake Minnetonka Association is grateful the City of Minnetonka has reconsidered their approach and would welcome the opportunity to work with them in the future.

Keeping Exotic Plants and Animals at Bay

2007-11-17T13:41:00.000-08:00

Exotic plants and animals in lakes are bad. We know about milfoil and the headaches it causes, but there are other aquatic invasive species that are as bad – even worse. We certainly don’t want them in Lake Minnetonka, or if they get here, we would like to know how to manage them.

So, what do we do?

There are five legs to the invasive species management stool. They are education, regulation & enforcement, prevention, early detection & rapid response and control. By looking at invasive plants and animals – either those already in the lake or those we hope to keep out – we can focus on the areas demanding most attention and action.

Education refers to raising the level of awareness among those who are likely to move invasive species. This awareness should then result in changes in behavior that reduce the risk of infestation. This leg is already strong. State and local agencies have done a good job in raising awareness and should continue to do that. This can become a problem when this leg is all that is relied upon, which to a certain degree is the current situation.

Regulations and enforcement are inadequate. There are regulations prohibiting moving aquatic vegetation attached to boats and trailers on public roads and into lakes. Unfortunately, these regulations are poorly enforced. If done well, enforcement should not be punitive; rather it should reinforce changes in behavior, as with speeding tickets.

Prevention means intercepting known vectors, most often boats and trailers, before they have a chance to infest a lake. In most cases, prevention requires inspections and monitoring. This is critical because even though the level of awareness and voluntary action is high, the mantra – “it only takes one” – is true. Thus, this becomes a numbers game. Resources must be devoted to preventing a low probability event, much like the inspections we now expect at airports.

Early detection and rapid response requires advanced, systematic monitoring (detection) and a plan (with funding) to act quickly if an invader is discovered. For some species in Lake Minnetonka, this step is too late. Eurasian watermilfoil, curlyleaf pondweed and largemouth bass virus are already in the lake. For other species, like hydrilla, early detection is critical. Hydrilla is particularly scary because it is more aggressive than milfoil. There are no early detection plans in place for hydrilla. For other species, like zebra and quagga mussels, spiny waterflea and viral hemorrhagic septicemia (and many others), early detection is moot because there are no know ways to eliminate or control these invasive species.

Finally, control refers to managing the invasive species to mitigate its nuisance and minimize its ecological damage. For Eurasian watermilfoil and curlyleaf pondweed, controls have been in place for some time. The harvesting program plus cutting, pulling or herbicide treatments done by individual lakeshore owners have been the only options. Following the 2006 demonstration project, the Lake Minnetonka Association and the LMCD are engaged in preparing a lake vegetation management plan to provide wider control of these pesky weeds. We hope to be able to implement that plan this coming season in three bays – Carman’s Gray’s and Phelp’s. Except for hydrilla and several other invasive plants, which will likely be more difficult to control than milfoil, most other invasive species coming our way cannot be effectively controlled. Therefore to protect our lake, we should put all of our eggs in the prevention basket as well are relying on state and other agencies to continue their education programs and beef up the enforcement programs.

I Told You So

2007-10-13T04:48:00.000-07:00

Zebra mussels in Ramsey County lakes. Hydrilla now in Wisconsin. Brazilian elodea in Powderhorn Lake. Asian carp in Lake Pepin. These and several other invasive plants, animals and killer viruses are moving our way – and when they get into Lake Minnetonka, you will not hear me say, “I told you so.”

A wise businessman taught me a lesson about ten years ago. When confronted with a frustrating situation, at a point when several of us on his management team wanted to say, “I told you so,” he said, “I have never made a nickel on an I-told-you-so.” His point was simple: once something irreversible happens, it is a waste of time, energy and resources going down that path; it is better to make those investments up front.

The time to address these threats to Lake Minnetonka is now.

I suppose it is normal to look away from challenging problems. And make no mistake, addressing the threat of these exotic species invasions is a huge challenge. However, avoidance, rationalization, minimization and fate, which underlie the collective prevention action of legislators and agencies is wrong-minded.

However challenging, we must confront these problems.

Later this month, in my address to the delegates at the international symposium of the North American Lake Management Society as incoming President, I will cite two large threats facing North America’s lakes – aquatic invasive species and adapting to climate change. Aquatic invasive species, when they get into lakes, alter ecosystems irreversibly and represent one of the greatest threats to our lakes. Climate change, is another large stressor and will accelerate and intensify the impacts of aquatic invasive species.

For Lake Minnetonka, there are proactive steps that can be taken now with minimal costs:

The surveillance and inspections at boat ramps should continue and include an enforcement element.
All participants in special events – events that bring boats from faraway places - should abide by the LMCD rules which prohibit boats coming from infested waters.
Our community – lakeshore residents, public officials and businesses should demand and expect an effective and sufficiently funded state-wide program.

Not implementing these steps now demonstrates an apathy or unwillingness to confront this problem.

Additional steps are also needed. The exotic species issue is larger than Lake Minnetonka. It is tempting to fault the MN DNR for inaction; however, I think the real responsibility lies at higher levels. Our state and local public officials must enact clear and decisive policy directions and statutes, and empower natural resource agencies by demanding the enforcement of state laws and adequately funding protection actions. It is unreasonable to expect our agencies to be fully proactive, unless they have broad and clear political support.

Lake Minnetonka lakeshore owners and business must also step up to support protection initiatives. In addition to demanding that our leaders and representatives take these threats seriously, we must stop looking to others and start providing significant financial support. Local efforts have made Lake Minnetonka a model, but much, much more effort is needed to protect our beautiful lake.

Now is the time to protect our lake.

If We Want to Protect Our Lake - Our Members Must Step Up

2007-09-21T14:54:00.000-07:00

Lake Minnetonka faces serious threats and management challenges. The likely introduction of more harmful exotic plants, animals and viruses, pose serious, even deadly threats. More effective and comprehensive control of milfoil is possible and desirable. Attending to either, or both, of these is critical and will require significant financial underwriting.

Lake Minnetonka Association members must provide financial support to protect Lake Minnetonka because no one else will.

In my position, I often hear lakeshore owners frustrated, sometimes angry, with lack of government or agency initiative or investment. I also hear strong suggestions that boaters should pay for management and prevention efforts, because they are the ones bringing exotic species into the lake.

The problem is this – neither government nor users can be looked upon for significant financial support to protect our lake.

Why do I say this?

Governmental attention at the federal, state, and even local levels is focused elsewhere. At all levels, we have serious deficiencies in funding and policy support for failed and failing systems that include: energy, transportation infrastructure, public works infrastructure, health care, social security and Medicare, and education. This means that environmental programs come very low on the priority list. Even with these obvious critical priorities, there is gridlock. Bottom line – critical and essential support for protecting Lake Minnetonka will not likely to garner significant attention any time soon.

In an almost perverse way, tax reduction initiatives are also a priority. This means that local governments – cities and counties – are being forced to confront reductions to non-essential services. Again, this leaves Lake Minnetonka on the back burner.

What about user fees? While we have advocated for user fees as a fair and proportional way to help pay for management and protection actions, especially for those involving exotic species, the political hurdles are formidable. Is this fair? No. Is this realistic? Yes, I believe it is.

A criticism often leveled at Lake Minnetonka protection initiatives is “Why should the state or local government or users pay to protect Lake Minnetonka when the residents are so wealthy?” Certainly, looking at the demographics and real estate around the lakeshore, there is obviously wealth here. But this misses the point. It is disingenuous when agencies and others point out the lake is really a public resource, then use arguments likes these to support inaction.

In fact, we are lucky to have this wonderful lake. Lakeshore owners, businesses, and the greater community enjoy the great wealth Lake Minnetonka provides. Lakeshore owners and businesses should have the motivation to voluntarily support protection efforts as being in their best interest. Local communities, especially the cities, have given the clear message they cannot afford significant protection efforts. However, I think they should demand and expect vigilance and enforcement of laws and ordinances that are already in place – something that can occur with minimum financial outlays.

So, Lake Minnetonka faces serious threats. Our governmental agencies and their elected leaders may not have the stomach to do what is really needed, and they clearly have other critical priorities that, as a practical matter, have precluded their support to protect Lake Minnetonka. And, while this may be wrong-minded, it is unfortunately where we are.

We should continue to demand our lakes get the protection they deserve, but in the meantime Lake Minnetonka will not be protected unless we step up.

What Can Members Do?

Mostly get involved. This is civics-101. Contact your state and local representatives and tell them protecting Lake Minnetonka is a priority. Also tell your Lake Minnetonka Conservation District representative. State and local leaders can affect significant differences with little or not additional money by critically looking at policies and priorities – does the size of dock platforms matter if zebra mussel gets into the lake? Can we implement fees to offset the costs of a credible protection program?

Effective programs for protection and control of exotic species require funding. Lake Minnetonka lakeshore owners and businesses should voluntarily step up to fund the advocacy, protection and control efforts. Without this voluntary support – the value of Lake Minnetonka to our community is at risk.

The Lake Minnetonka Association has a demonstrated track record of catalyzing positive action to protect Lake Minnetonka, but without additional funding, our efforts can go only so far. Lakeshore owners and businesses must step up and support the Lake Minnetonka Association so we can redouble our efforts to protect Lake Minnetonka. If you don’t – nobody else will!

A Call to Action

2007-08-23T11:55:00.000-07:00

I have found a copy of the Lake Minnetonka Association’s (then called the Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Association) first newsletter from the Spring of 1989. There were two presenting issues for the fledgling organization – property taxes (too high) and milfoil (too much). In the meantime, some relief has been provided for the issue of property taxes, but we still have too much milfoil.

What I find interesting is with this initial call to action, the LMLOA quickly engendered the support of lakeshore owners and businesses. The “From the Editor” column in the first newsletter said, “We have the opportunity to join with our friends and neighbors and make ourselves heard.”

The early LMLOA was effective because their call to action was heeded.

What I find interesting, is that the one issue they could not get on top of – milfoil – is still with us today. In the Association’s second newsletter (Fall 1989), there was already agency positioning reported with respect to milfoil control. JoEllen Hurr, then chair of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, along with Gene Strommen, LMCD Executive Director, provided an update on the new harvesting program, but were cautious regarding expectations. Dick Gray of the Freshwater Foundation urged against using chemicals to control milfoil because they would cause water quality problems, then recommended harvesting because it removed nutrients. Clarkson Lindley of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, explained the jurisdiction of the District and their responsibilities – basically, that milfoil is not their problem.

We now know the limits of harvesting and the fact that harvesting does not remove critical nutrients, and following last year’s milfoil demonstration project, that herbicides can safely control milfoil.

But really, even at that time, it was too late. The milfoil horse was out of the barn.

Here is my point – much of the LMLOA’s early success was a reaction to milfoil and their call to action was more a result of frustration than a realistic hope to eradicate milfoil. We were blind-sided by milfoil and a reactive response was all that was left.

But, were we blind-sided?

Milfoil had been in Wisconsin for 25 years at that time. Were we thinking it could not come here? The Freshwater Foundation hosted a milfoil forum in 1990 that brought in experts from around North America. Unfortunately, many of the eradication and containment strategies recommended by the experts were not embraced, poorly enforced or not adequately funded. The result – we now have milfoil in 200 Minnesota Lakes, which represents a rate of spread five-times greater than in Wisconsin in the early years.

So, what about now?

“On the Lake” editor Chris Lindstrom began her editor’s comments in the first newsletter: “The slow insidious process of political indifference …”

We have no excuse for being blind-sided with zebra mussel, viral hemorrhagic septicemia, hydrilla, spiny waterflea, incredible jumping (Asian) carp, blah, blah, blah (the list continues to grow). Our agencies and leaders charged with protecting our lakes also appear to have no stomach for the tough measures needed to assure permanent damage to our lake does not occur.

Our lakeshore is porous to the one known way these invades get into the lake – through boats and trailers. Our state-wide program relies almost exclusively on education and voluntary compliance, but we know that alone is not enough. At Lake Minnetonka, we have some inspectors and automatic monitors at some accesses at some times. There are no inspections at special events – events that often draw boats from out of state.

So, when we know ugly and harmful plants and animals are coming, we know how they get here, we know that once in the lake the damage will be substantial and irreversible, and we know that once in the lake there is no remedy – what should we do? Compare that with what we are doing.

Indifference?

Now is the time to be proactive. The Lake Minnetonka Association, in advocating for lakeshore owners and businesses has been and will continue to lead the charge. Please contact us to help.

** This was published as a Guest Editorial in Lakeshore Weekly News (August 2007)

A Plan to Manage Milfoil

2007-08-02T06:12:00.000-07:00

Good news for milfoil management in Lake Minnetonka – we have taken another positive step to provide more comprehensive control of Eurasian watermilfoil.

As many already know, milfoil has been in Lake Minnetonka for 20 years. As well, we all know what problems milfoil has caused – dense mats impeding recreation, diminished fish and wildlife habitat, fragments washing up on shore and even safety hazards. This summer milfoil is particularly bad.

Now, another critical step to better control milfoil has begun. Following the success of the 2006 milfoil demonstration project, the Lake Minnetonka Association and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District have begun the process of developing a Lake Vegetation Management Plan, or LVMP, for three bays – Carman’s, Gray’s and Phelp’s. This plan is a formal document recognized by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as a way to control milfoil outside of the normal permit restrictions.

Rules and restrictions for controlling nuisance plants were developed at a time when exotic plants, like milfoil, were not in Minnesota lakes. Because native plants are beneficial to lake health, controlling or removing these plants was allowed, but only in small areas and only to facilitate access or recreation. These restrictions were reasonable and most people easily worked within them.

The game changed with the introduction of exotic plants. Now, exotic plants not only create greater nuisances in larger areas, they also cause harm to lake ecosystems by displacing native plants and the fish and wildlife that need these good plants. So, the existing restrictions are sometimes impediments to the sound management of the lake.

Two recent developments allow better, more comprehensive plant management of milfoil and other exotic plants – the development of management tools that target the exotic plants while protecting native plants, plus the LVMP process which can allow variance to the existing plant management rules and restrictions.

The 2006 milfoil demonstration project is an example of a management tool that was used to target milfoil and protect native plants. In that project, three herbicides were applied to three areas in Lake Minnetonka which resulted in effective milfoil control without harming native plants. Tools like this can now be considered for wider application.

Developing an LVMP is the next logical step to consider the use of these tools in a comprehensive manner.

The LVMP will contain three key elements. The first element is a physical inventory of the plants in the three bays. The Army Corps of Engineers, recognized nationally for their expertise in aquatic plant management, have agreed to conduct the plant inventory at no cost to the local agencies. The second element is a stakeholder analysis. Here, a cross section of stakeholders will be involved by giving input regarding what they see as problematic about milfoil or other plants, helping to define appropriate management goals and objectives and supporting future control programs. The third element is developing a plan that meets the needs of the stakeholders.

The planning process will be completed in time for implementation in 2008.

Successfully completing the LVMP for the three bays will put the Lake Minnetonka Association and other agencies and interest groups in a strong position to continue this effort for the entire lake.

Why not prepare a plan for the whole lake? The main reason we could not consider developing a plan for the entire lake is a lack of funding. The Lake Minnetonka Association believes a thoughtful, comprehensive plan will be beneficial for lake health as well as leading to better, more effective milfoil control. Interested people can help pave the way for more planning and management attention by urging our elected leaders and contributing financial support.

Public participation and input is critical to the success of developing the LVMP. Please contact me if you would like more information.

** This was published as a Guest Editorial in Lakeshore Weekly News (July 2007)

Curlyleaf Pondweed in Lake Minnetonka

2007-06-25T05:14:00.000-07:00

Curlyleaf pondweed is the ‘other’ exotic weed in Lake Minnetonka. Curlyleaf pondweed has been in Minnesota for about 100 years, and probably in Lake Minnetonka for that long. This weed can also become a nuisance, but in Lake Minnetonka is more often overshadowed by milfoil. By the time you read this, curlyleaf pondweed will have died back naturally.

Curlyleaf pondweed has been in the news recently because several area lakes have problems with it and are attempting to control it. In Lake Minnetonka, as milfoil control becomes more comprehensive, we will need to be careful to also pay attention to curlyleaf pondweed. The Lake Vegetation Management Plan, now under development, will address this potential nuisance.

New Thinking About Milfoil Control

2007-06-24T08:19:00.000-07:00

Eurasian watermilfoil has been in Minnesota and in Lake Minnetonka for 20 years. We have been lulled into thinking that there is no solution and that this is as good as it gets. We were fortunate last year that it was a low milfoil year, but in most years milfoil has been worse.

We have, individually and collectively, managed milfoil through a) harvesting, b) individual control in front of lakeshore properties or c) tolerance – or at least a benign resignation. Some have suggested that milfoil has been good for fishing. But really, there is nothing good about milfoil. In addition to being a nuisance for recreation and a safety hazard, milfoil causes ecological damage by displacing native plants and diminishing fish habitat.

The Lake Minnetonka Association has been a leader in advocating a more comprehensive approach to controlling milfoil in Lake Minnetonka. The Lake Minnetonka Association sponsored the Milfoil Forum in August of 2005, which led to the 2006 milfoil demonstration project in three bays. The Lake Minnetonka Association and the LMCD partnered to treat small areas in three bays of the lake to control milfoil and enhance native plants. The demonstration project, supported by lakeshore residents, was a success. There was a 99% reduction in milfoil and the native plants increased in the treatment areas.

Based on these positive results as well as sound science, we recommended late last summer that the demonstration project be expanded to include whole bays, beginning in 2007. Unfortunately, that will not happen this year.

Two main obstacles have been identified – the lack of a comprehensive plan and funding. A comprehensive plan, referred to as a Lake Vegetation Management Plan, would take a broad view of the milfoil problem in Lake Minnetonka. The Plan would involve detailed inventories of where milfoil as well as other vegetation grows, the nature of its impacts to lake ecology and recreation and would involve all stakeholders. The outcome of the Plan would be a prescription for the best way to manage milfoil in Lake Minnetonka. It makes sense to approach managing milfoil in Lake Minnetonka as guided by a vegetation management plan.

I have estimated that developing this plan would cost about $100,000 and take about a year.

The other obstacle, funding, I think is highly surmountable. Because we do not yet have a plan, we do not know how much the comprehensive management would cost. However, I have done some preliminary estimates on scenarios that would involve enclosed bays, such as Gray’s Bay or St. Alban’s Bay. Expanding the demonstration treatments to either of these Bays may cost approximately $20,000 per bay and the treatment is expected to last about three years. I have asked several of our members if they and their lakeshore neighbors would be willing to pay these costs and they would. So, I think private funding is a viable option in Lake Minnetonka.

The cost of the plan however, ought to be paid by a public agency. The LMCD Exotic Species Committee is coordinating several agencies in an attempt to piece together a plan for 2007. At this point, it appears plant inventories in three bays may be conducted this year. Unfortunately, unless the other elements of the plan as also conducted this year, this information will not be used in a comprehensive plan.

The Lake Minnetonka Association recommends a comprehensive lake vegetation management plan be conducted this year to allow for expanded treatment in 2008. But, time is short. Unless decisions are made very soon, another field season will pass and another year delay will occur before we can even consider following up on the successful demonstration project.

** This appeared as a Guest Column in Lakeshore Weekly News (April 2007)

We Need New Thinking to Stop Zebra Mussels

2007-06-24T08:17:00.000-07:00

What if we could turn back the clock and prevent milfoil from entering Lake Minnetonka? Knowing what a problem it has caused, wouldn't we have taken the necessary steps? We are now faced with something equally as harmful and troublesome.

Zebra mussels, if they get into Lake Minnetonka, would be a disaster. Zebra mussel would do lots of damage – to the economy, to recreation, to lake health, to the fishery – and once in the lake, there is no remedy. So, we must put all our eggs in the prevention basket.

But this is not happening – at least not to an adequate degree.

There are inspectors at some accesses at some times, there are automatic video devices and the state has a broad education campaign. But these are not enough and Lake Minnetonka remains highly exposed.

The problem is this – we are not set up for funding or even approaching the prevention of zebra mussel (and soon many other nasty exotic plants and animals) due to archaic policy framework that encourages unfettered access to our public waters. These policies were developed at times when aquatic invasive species were not an issue, but they sure are now.

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

We must have new thinking to have a real chance at preventing zebra mussels from getting into Lake Minnetonka. The Lake Minnetonka Association believes that prevention of zebra mussels must come from two levels. There must be a comprehensive state-wide imperative to keep zebra mussels from moving around. This should involve more aggressive enforcement and containment – neither of which are occurring now.

There must also be a comprehensive protection plan for Lake Minnetonka. Right now, the level of inspectors and automatic monitoring devices covers some accesses at peak times, but we remain highly exposed. Thousands of boats bypass these measures. As well, no boats at special events are inspected, and many of these come from out of state. More inspectors or more monitors are not feasible because there are too many access points on Lake Minnetonka.

The Lake Minnetonka Association has developed a plan that proposes closing some accesses at some times to facilitate inspections. We have also proposed fees for boaters to offset the costs of protecting our lake. We believe that these are fair and appropriate for addressing the problem and can (and should) be done in a way to assure access to the lake. We believe the Cities, through the LMCD, have a responsibility to provide resources to protect the lake. To their credit, the LMCD has provided some protection by stretching their budget.

Unfortunately, as I write this, neither the Cities nor the LMCD appear willing to provide the needed funds. We applauded LMCD Chair Tom Skramstad’s leadership when he challenged the LMCD to increase funding for protecting the lake when preparing their 2008 budget. Unfortunately, no increase has been proposed. To make matters worse, the LMCD discussed perhaps developing a budget in 2008 to develop a plan in 2009. We do not need another plan – we need action, leadership and new thinking.

We need those who live on and use the lake to demand the agencies charged with protecting our lake to make that a priority.

The Lake Minnetonka Association believes Lake Minnetonka is a public resource for all to use and enjoy. Unfortunately, aquatic invasive species have changed the game. Meaningful and effective protection measures will require additional cost and inconvenience. We know that some access closures or the imposition of fees are controversial. We are open to other ideas for the protection of Lake Minnetonka, but we think what we have proposed must be on the table if we are serious about keeping zebra mussels out of the lake.

If we continue to approach this issue by just doing what we can rather than what needs to be done, we are not taking this seriously and we will soon have zebra mussels. We do not want that.

** This appeared as a Guest Column in Lakeshore Weekly News (May 2007)

Conservation

2007-06-24T08:00:00.000-07:00

… the act of preserving, guarding or protecting to keep healthy, preservation.

According to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District’s 1991 management plan, “The first major focus of the LMCD was on environmental problems, reflecting deteriorating water quality…” At the time of the LMCD’s formation (1967), Lake Minnetonka water quality was foul – the lake had legendary algae blooms and stank. Fortunately, the main causes – sewage discharges to the lake – have been eliminated and lake quality today is markedly improved. Indeed, most of the lake has “A” or “B” grades. Some of the shallow western bays with poorer quality will no longer improve due to nutrients trapped in the lake bottom.

Today, the most significant conservation need for Lake Minnetonka is the control and prevention of exotic species. We know that milfoil control is now possible and zebra mussel, if it gets to the lake, would be a disaster.

The 1991 management plan provided for the control and prevention of exotic species. Indeed, these policies were articulated:

“Manage the growth of Eurasian watermilfoil in Lake Minnetonka to allow reasonable recreational use of the lake until a means can be found to eradicate it, while preventing its spread from Lake Minnetonka to other area lakes.”

“Develop a vigorous prevention and eradication program for other exotic marine plant and animal species (such as zebra mussels) in Minnesota.”

Today, milfoil control in Lake Minnetonka is not occurring. The LMCD’s harvesting program, which does a good job of providing recreational access in some areas, is not a control program in the sense of the management plan’s objectives. The 2006 milfoil demonstration project showed that bay-wide milfoil control is possible. And preventing the spread from Lake Minnetonka, the state’s job, has never been seriously attempted. In fact, the rate of spread from Lake Minnetonka to other Minnesota lakes, about 10 new lakes per year, is about five times greater than Wisconsin’s rate in their first 20 years with milfoil.

As far as prevention of new species, the access inspection program and video surveillance system is a good start. The Lake Minnetonka Association recognizes the LMCD has stretched its resources to provide this. Unfortunately, much more is needed and our lake remains highly vulnerable.

Again, the 1991 management plan recognized the LMCD’s funding limitations and recommended user fees to provide the additional funding: “User fees will be used to the maximum possible extent.” In fact, the plan called for boat stickers or permits and a permit fee at boat ramps.

The Lake Minnetonka Association has advocated for milfoil control and zebra mussel prevention. We now know that bay-wide, perhaps even lake-wide milfoil control is possible. I am happy to report the Lake Minnetonka Association and the LMCD have agreed to prepare a lake vegetation management plan as the first step to more comprehensive milfoil control. We also know that comprehensive protection must occur. We are ready to confront these conservation challenges, but we need our agencies and cities to step up.

So what next? Right now, we challenge the LMCD and the 14 member cities to include these conservation priorities in their 2008 budget, which as drafted contains no increases for milfoil control or zebra mussel prevention. There has been debate about budget priorities among the LMCD board members and the cities they represent. And there appears to be some immediate shifts that can occur within a reasonable overall budget increase. Specifically, a) there is no need to add a ½-time staff position for code enforcement, b) funds could be shifted from the budget reserve and c) the accumulated funds for the state’s boat user surveys should be used, as this data is not used by the LMCD. The LMCD also has about a quarter of a million dollar fund balance in their “Save-the-Lake” fund – a fund dedicated to lake conservation. Finally, user fees must be considered as a supplemental funding source to fund milfoil control and comprehensive protection.

The Lake Minnetonka Association also recommends the 1991 management plan be revisited. The plan, now out of date, called for the LMCD to be the lead agency and advocate for implementing the plan and assuring the plan’s objectives were met. Until the management plan is revised, the need for controlling and preventing exotic species is urgent. We must all be dedicated to the conservation of our beautiful lake.

** This appeared as a Guest Colum in Lakeshore Weekly News (June 2007)