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.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Aquademic
How do you describe a condition where harmful polluting agents spread rapidly to new lakes, are self-replicating, and cannot be treated effectively or eradicated once they have been introduced? Minnesota Waters calls this condition an Aquatic Epidemic – or an Aquademic.
This introductory statement is from Minnesota Waters’ newly released position statement on aquatic invasive species (AIS) in Minnesota. Minnesota Waters is a state-wide advocacy organization and the Lake Minnetonka Association played a key role in developing the position statement and recommendations.
Minnesota Waters has found AIS to be a defining environmental issue in Minnesota. AIS are a serious and pervasive threat to our lakes – we must make equally serious investments and cultural changes to beat them. Minnesota Waters found the state’s system for protecting and managing AIS is broken and has made policy and funding recommendations to fix the dysfunctional system.
While education, awareness and voluntary actions have increased Minnesotans’ knowledge of AIS, more must be done.
The position statement found, “Unless we transform our approach, AIS will steadily overrun Minnesota’s lakes and rivers – with devastating results for our state’s businesses, communities, and recreation. The AIS management system in Minnesota is constrained by outdated laws and cultural norms and is seriously broken.” The good news is – it is not too late. The report’s recommendations include:
• An AIS management system that prioritizes its activities, especially by devoting more focus and resources to prevention should be adopted.
• 80% of all state resources for AIS should be devoted to prevention – and focused on much more than education and awareness.
• Funding for the AIS prevention program (excluding grant funding) should be doubled.
• Funding for AIS prevention and control grants to local interests should be increased from about $700,000 to $3.2 million per year.
• AIS plant control (like milfoil) should protect native plants and encourage restoration by requiring Lake Vegetation Management Plans (LVMPs), providing grant funding for LVMPs, eliminating permit fees and eliminating riparian consents.
• Finally, a dialog should be initiated among Minnesota’s resource managers and policy makers to re-examine the legal, cultural and social framework that now prevents consideration of Level 3 (a more stringent level described in the full report) AIS management system that includes these elements: quarantine of waters, significant increases in fines and penalties for AIS laws, new funding, inspection fees, providing local authorities to control accesses (while protecting public access rights).
The Lake Minnetonka Association supports these recommendations and will continue to work for their implementation.
A copy of the position statement and an executive summary is available on Minnesota Waters Website at: www.MinnesotaWaters.org (see News Stories and AIS Summary on the Home Page). A lengthy technical supporting report is also available at the same site.
The Lake Minnetonka Association finds these recommendations timely as we are working on two immediate AIS concerns - to control milfoil in Lake Minnetonka and to prevent zebra mussels from getting into the lake. Both these efforts could be greatly facilitated by a more comprehensive state policy and increased state funding.
This introductory statement is from Minnesota Waters’ newly released position statement on aquatic invasive species (AIS) in Minnesota. Minnesota Waters is a state-wide advocacy organization and the Lake Minnetonka Association played a key role in developing the position statement and recommendations.
Minnesota Waters has found AIS to be a defining environmental issue in Minnesota. AIS are a serious and pervasive threat to our lakes – we must make equally serious investments and cultural changes to beat them. Minnesota Waters found the state’s system for protecting and managing AIS is broken and has made policy and funding recommendations to fix the dysfunctional system.
While education, awareness and voluntary actions have increased Minnesotans’ knowledge of AIS, more must be done.
The position statement found, “Unless we transform our approach, AIS will steadily overrun Minnesota’s lakes and rivers – with devastating results for our state’s businesses, communities, and recreation. The AIS management system in Minnesota is constrained by outdated laws and cultural norms and is seriously broken.” The good news is – it is not too late. The report’s recommendations include:
• An AIS management system that prioritizes its activities, especially by devoting more focus and resources to prevention should be adopted.
• 80% of all state resources for AIS should be devoted to prevention – and focused on much more than education and awareness.
• Funding for the AIS prevention program (excluding grant funding) should be doubled.
• Funding for AIS prevention and control grants to local interests should be increased from about $700,000 to $3.2 million per year.
• AIS plant control (like milfoil) should protect native plants and encourage restoration by requiring Lake Vegetation Management Plans (LVMPs), providing grant funding for LVMPs, eliminating permit fees and eliminating riparian consents.
• Finally, a dialog should be initiated among Minnesota’s resource managers and policy makers to re-examine the legal, cultural and social framework that now prevents consideration of Level 3 (a more stringent level described in the full report) AIS management system that includes these elements: quarantine of waters, significant increases in fines and penalties for AIS laws, new funding, inspection fees, providing local authorities to control accesses (while protecting public access rights).
The Lake Minnetonka Association supports these recommendations and will continue to work for their implementation.
A copy of the position statement and an executive summary is available on Minnesota Waters Website at: www.MinnesotaWaters.org (see News Stories and AIS Summary on the Home Page). A lengthy technical supporting report is also available at the same site.
The Lake Minnetonka Association finds these recommendations timely as we are working on two immediate AIS concerns - to control milfoil in Lake Minnetonka and to prevent zebra mussels from getting into the lake. Both these efforts could be greatly facilitated by a more comprehensive state policy and increased state funding.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Chemical Management Tools
The unfortunate letter, titled ‘Chemicals,’ in last week’s edition (June 2, 2009 Lakeshore Weekly News) contained numerous factual errors and mis-representations and was therefore misleading.
The authors were correct in citing me, representing the Lake Minnetonka Association, Minnesota Waters and the North American Lake Management Society, where I am an executive in all three organizations, as an advocate for the comprehensive protection and management of Lake Minnetonka and lakes in general. Specifically, I have advocated controlling Eurasian watermilfoil (and other invasive plants) and protecting native plants in lakes. Based on my background with a graduate degree in aquatic ecology, a certified lake manager (one of only 60 in the world), 30-years’ experience in managing lakes and holding leadership and executive positions in state, national and international professional lake management organizations – it is my opinion that the approach being used and advocated on Lake Minnetonka is safe, restorative and fully consistent with scientific, government and industry standards.
I do not begrudge the authors for their obvious distaste for the use of herbicides in lakes. However, in public discourse, it is important to rely on objective information based on sound science.
Errors in fact include an inappropriate reference to 2,4-D as being synonymous with the “notorious Agent Orange.” Agent Orange contained dioxin, a chemical found to be hazardous and banned long ago. Because dioxin is also known as 2,4,5-T, which appears similar to 2,4-D, it is often confused. However, 2,4-D has not been found to be unsafe and is widely used. Indeed, even the study cited in the letter has been refuted by later, more rigorous studies and to-date there has been no association between 2,4-D and public health concerns.
In fact, 2,4-D has been used for decades in hundreds, perhaps thousands of Minnesota lakes. I am not aware of any known ill effects to people or the environment. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) permits its use.
The Lake Minnetonka milfoil control project was developed with expert input and consensus by numerous public agencies including the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the University of Minnesota, the US Army Corps of Engineers, Three Rivers Park District, Hennepin County Environmental Services and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The two herbicides that have been used, endothall and triclopyr, are registered for use in lakes by the US Environmental Protection Agency and are permitted for use by the DNR. In fact, the DNR, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and several Cities have provided grants toward the project.
The authors erroneously state the Lake Vegetation Management Plan (a DNR document) allows the killing of vegetation other than milfoil. In fact, the explicit objective of the plan is to protect and restore native plants that milfoil has displaced and intensive monitoring conducted by an independent federal agency has confirmed this. Indeed, the management plan is intended to be restorative by controlling milfoil – because the milfoil in Lake Minnetonka, when not controlled, has harmed native vegetation in the lake.
The principals, partners and experts in this project recognized a real problem and sought solutions. The expert team concluded that the use of herbicides was the only safe and feasible management tool that would accomplish the objective of controlling milfoil and protecting and enhancing native plants in Lake Minnetonka.
The authors may not like using chemicals, but they have not offered any feasible alternatives. It is unfortunate reality that aquatic invasive species must be dealt with, but I believe, their impacts are increasing and Lake Minnetonka as well as other Minnesota lakes are gravely threatened.
The Lake Minnetonka Association has also advocated strong measures to prevent new invasive species from entering the lake, because of the great impacts they will cause. Unlike milfoil, which can be controlled, most other invasive species have not controls – so keeping them out must be the top priotity.
The authors were correct in citing me, representing the Lake Minnetonka Association, Minnesota Waters and the North American Lake Management Society, where I am an executive in all three organizations, as an advocate for the comprehensive protection and management of Lake Minnetonka and lakes in general. Specifically, I have advocated controlling Eurasian watermilfoil (and other invasive plants) and protecting native plants in lakes. Based on my background with a graduate degree in aquatic ecology, a certified lake manager (one of only 60 in the world), 30-years’ experience in managing lakes and holding leadership and executive positions in state, national and international professional lake management organizations – it is my opinion that the approach being used and advocated on Lake Minnetonka is safe, restorative and fully consistent with scientific, government and industry standards.
I do not begrudge the authors for their obvious distaste for the use of herbicides in lakes. However, in public discourse, it is important to rely on objective information based on sound science.
Errors in fact include an inappropriate reference to 2,4-D as being synonymous with the “notorious Agent Orange.” Agent Orange contained dioxin, a chemical found to be hazardous and banned long ago. Because dioxin is also known as 2,4,5-T, which appears similar to 2,4-D, it is often confused. However, 2,4-D has not been found to be unsafe and is widely used. Indeed, even the study cited in the letter has been refuted by later, more rigorous studies and to-date there has been no association between 2,4-D and public health concerns.
In fact, 2,4-D has been used for decades in hundreds, perhaps thousands of Minnesota lakes. I am not aware of any known ill effects to people or the environment. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) permits its use.
The Lake Minnetonka milfoil control project was developed with expert input and consensus by numerous public agencies including the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the University of Minnesota, the US Army Corps of Engineers, Three Rivers Park District, Hennepin County Environmental Services and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The two herbicides that have been used, endothall and triclopyr, are registered for use in lakes by the US Environmental Protection Agency and are permitted for use by the DNR. In fact, the DNR, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and several Cities have provided grants toward the project.
The authors erroneously state the Lake Vegetation Management Plan (a DNR document) allows the killing of vegetation other than milfoil. In fact, the explicit objective of the plan is to protect and restore native plants that milfoil has displaced and intensive monitoring conducted by an independent federal agency has confirmed this. Indeed, the management plan is intended to be restorative by controlling milfoil – because the milfoil in Lake Minnetonka, when not controlled, has harmed native vegetation in the lake.
The principals, partners and experts in this project recognized a real problem and sought solutions. The expert team concluded that the use of herbicides was the only safe and feasible management tool that would accomplish the objective of controlling milfoil and protecting and enhancing native plants in Lake Minnetonka.
The authors may not like using chemicals, but they have not offered any feasible alternatives. It is unfortunate reality that aquatic invasive species must be dealt with, but I believe, their impacts are increasing and Lake Minnetonka as well as other Minnesota lakes are gravely threatened.
The Lake Minnetonka Association has also advocated strong measures to prevent new invasive species from entering the lake, because of the great impacts they will cause. Unlike milfoil, which can be controlled, most other invasive species have not controls – so keeping them out must be the top priotity.
Lake Stewardship
Elitism. That word has gotten tossed around recently following the Lake Minnetonka Association’s recommendation that inspection fees be charged to help pay for inspections and other aquatic invasive species programs. I have offered our rationale and justification for this recommendation as well as described a comprehensive protection plan in previous columns.
Unfortunately, an accusation of elitism is usually meant to stop dialog and is seldom constructive. Lake Minnetonka has its share of wealth among its lakeshore residents, but probably not more than many other Minnesota lakes. As well, there is a very large portion of middle-income residents on the lake.
Lakeshore owners on Lake Minnetonka – individually and collectively - are good stewards of the lake and are motivated buy a sincere desire to protect this beautiful lake.
Lakeshore owners and members of the Lake Minnetonka Association care about Lake Minnetonka. I have worked with hundreds of lake associations in Minnesota and other states and my experience is this trait – a high level of stewardship and affinity for the lakes people live on – is common to all lakeshore owners.
Lakeshore owners’ investment in their lakeshore properties is much more than financial. Their investment is emotional, environmental and spiritual. That is why they want to take care of their lake and they expect visitors and public agencies to share in that stewardship responsibility.
I sometimes hear criticism that if lakeshore owners on Lake Minnetonka really cared, they would not have rip rapped lakeshore, manicured turf lawns or weed removal in their beaches. We need to consider these charges in the context of Lake Minnetonka being a large, popular, urban lake – indeed the most highly used recreational lake in Minnesota.
Nearshore waves cause damage to unprotected lakeshore and some kind of stabilization is needed to protect the shore. Rip rapping and other structural methods are one way to protect the shore and these are permitted by regulatory agencies. The Lake Minnetonka Association encourages the use of lakescaping, a more natural method, but on a voluntary basis and where it is feasible. We see this trend beginning to become more popular.
Similarly, turf lawns are the norm for urban areas. Lakeshore turf areas are no different that residential lawns away from the lake - both drain to the lake. Also, Minnesota has restricted the use of phosphorus in lawn fertilizers, so the concern with phosphorus in runoff from fertilized lawns is greatly reduced.
Weed control in areas adjacent to lakeshore properties is a common practice – as in hundreds of other Minnesota lakes. This activity, again permitted by regulatory agencies, represents a small overall impact, especially compared to the impact of the milfoil infestation. The Lake Minnetonka Association supports moving to a new model where invasive plants are controlled and native plants are protected. This is the approach being used in the Three Bay milfoil control project and one we hope will be adopted lake-wide.
We should also highlight the fact that lakeshore owners have made personal investments of time and money in these stewardship activities:
- they clean up after ice fishing season
- they clean up after the harvesters go through
- they clean up boat launches
- they protect their shoreline due to intense boating activity
- they make substantial contributions to the Three Bay milfoil project
Lake Minnetonka lakeshore owners do all of this because they love and care about the lake. It is frustrating and disheartening when they do not see the same level of care, commitment or investment from lake visitors and public agencies.
We all have a responsibility to be good stewards of Lake Minnetonka. Lakeshore owners as well as visitors and public agencies can all certainly make improvements in our stewardship of the lake. So, in a sense, Lake Minnetonka lakeshore owners are elitists - elite stewards of the lake.
Unfortunately, an accusation of elitism is usually meant to stop dialog and is seldom constructive. Lake Minnetonka has its share of wealth among its lakeshore residents, but probably not more than many other Minnesota lakes. As well, there is a very large portion of middle-income residents on the lake.
Lakeshore owners on Lake Minnetonka – individually and collectively - are good stewards of the lake and are motivated buy a sincere desire to protect this beautiful lake.
Lakeshore owners and members of the Lake Minnetonka Association care about Lake Minnetonka. I have worked with hundreds of lake associations in Minnesota and other states and my experience is this trait – a high level of stewardship and affinity for the lakes people live on – is common to all lakeshore owners.
Lakeshore owners’ investment in their lakeshore properties is much more than financial. Their investment is emotional, environmental and spiritual. That is why they want to take care of their lake and they expect visitors and public agencies to share in that stewardship responsibility.
I sometimes hear criticism that if lakeshore owners on Lake Minnetonka really cared, they would not have rip rapped lakeshore, manicured turf lawns or weed removal in their beaches. We need to consider these charges in the context of Lake Minnetonka being a large, popular, urban lake – indeed the most highly used recreational lake in Minnesota.
Nearshore waves cause damage to unprotected lakeshore and some kind of stabilization is needed to protect the shore. Rip rapping and other structural methods are one way to protect the shore and these are permitted by regulatory agencies. The Lake Minnetonka Association encourages the use of lakescaping, a more natural method, but on a voluntary basis and where it is feasible. We see this trend beginning to become more popular.
Similarly, turf lawns are the norm for urban areas. Lakeshore turf areas are no different that residential lawns away from the lake - both drain to the lake. Also, Minnesota has restricted the use of phosphorus in lawn fertilizers, so the concern with phosphorus in runoff from fertilized lawns is greatly reduced.
Weed control in areas adjacent to lakeshore properties is a common practice – as in hundreds of other Minnesota lakes. This activity, again permitted by regulatory agencies, represents a small overall impact, especially compared to the impact of the milfoil infestation. The Lake Minnetonka Association supports moving to a new model where invasive plants are controlled and native plants are protected. This is the approach being used in the Three Bay milfoil control project and one we hope will be adopted lake-wide.
We should also highlight the fact that lakeshore owners have made personal investments of time and money in these stewardship activities:
- they clean up after ice fishing season
- they clean up after the harvesters go through
- they clean up boat launches
- they protect their shoreline due to intense boating activity
- they make substantial contributions to the Three Bay milfoil project
Lake Minnetonka lakeshore owners do all of this because they love and care about the lake. It is frustrating and disheartening when they do not see the same level of care, commitment or investment from lake visitors and public agencies.
We all have a responsibility to be good stewards of Lake Minnetonka. Lakeshore owners as well as visitors and public agencies can all certainly make improvements in our stewardship of the lake. So, in a sense, Lake Minnetonka lakeshore owners are elitists - elite stewards of the lake.
We Must Step Up Now
Zebra mussel is near! The breaking news that zebra mussel is now in Prior Lake reminds us that our concerns are validated - Lake Minnetonka is a big target. We must now step up our efforts and be vigilant.
Efforts have been and will continue to be increased to protect Lake Minnetonka. Specifically, the Lake Minnetonka Association and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District are joining forces to increase the inspector hours at public launches. The MN Department of Natural Resources will be increasing enforcement efforts at Lake Minnetonka as well as Prior Lake and Mille Lacs Lake. All three agencies will continue and expand their public awareness programs to make sure we are all taking actions to keep zebra mussels form getting into the lake.
First of all, to the best of anyone’s knowledge, zebra mussels are not now in Lake Minnetonka. Secondly, I believe we can, with a comprehensive, coordinated effort, keep zebra mussels out. Here are what lakeshore owners and lake users can do.
1. All boaters should follow the MN DNR recommendations, which are:
• inspect and remove all visible aquatic plants, animals and mud from boats, trailers and equipment such as anchors before leaving a water access;
• inspect and remove all visible aquatic plants, animals or mud from docks, boat lifts and swim rafts before transporting to another water;
• drain all water from boats - including live wells, bilges and bait buckets - before leaving a water access;
• spray or rinse boats with high pressure and/or hot water, or let them dry thoroughly for five days before transporting to another water.
2. Zebra mussels may be introduced if attached to used docks and boat lifts. Lakeshore owners who have purchased a used dock or boat lift and suspect it has come from an infested lake, please make sure it is free of zebra mussels before putting it into Lake Minnetonka.
3. Lakeshore owners should routinely check their shoreline for suspicious-looking shells. Call me if you have any questions or would like to know what to do if you find anything suspicious.
The threat of zebra mussels is imminent and serious. If zebra mussels get into Lake Minnetonka, the results will be disastrous. Impacts will include property devaluation, boat damage and increased maintenance costs, beach closures, and expanded milfoil infestations.
We can – we must – marshal our efforts and investments to protect Lake Minnetonka. Our investments now will also help protect Lake Minnetonka from other exotic plants, animals and viruses, which while not as imminent, are also coming this way. Each new aquatic invasive species that gets into the lake will magnify the impacts.
Efforts have been and will continue to be increased to protect Lake Minnetonka. Specifically, the Lake Minnetonka Association and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District are joining forces to increase the inspector hours at public launches. The MN Department of Natural Resources will be increasing enforcement efforts at Lake Minnetonka as well as Prior Lake and Mille Lacs Lake. All three agencies will continue and expand their public awareness programs to make sure we are all taking actions to keep zebra mussels form getting into the lake.
First of all, to the best of anyone’s knowledge, zebra mussels are not now in Lake Minnetonka. Secondly, I believe we can, with a comprehensive, coordinated effort, keep zebra mussels out. Here are what lakeshore owners and lake users can do.
1. All boaters should follow the MN DNR recommendations, which are:
• inspect and remove all visible aquatic plants, animals and mud from boats, trailers and equipment such as anchors before leaving a water access;
• inspect and remove all visible aquatic plants, animals or mud from docks, boat lifts and swim rafts before transporting to another water;
• drain all water from boats - including live wells, bilges and bait buckets - before leaving a water access;
• spray or rinse boats with high pressure and/or hot water, or let them dry thoroughly for five days before transporting to another water.
2. Zebra mussels may be introduced if attached to used docks and boat lifts. Lakeshore owners who have purchased a used dock or boat lift and suspect it has come from an infested lake, please make sure it is free of zebra mussels before putting it into Lake Minnetonka.
3. Lakeshore owners should routinely check their shoreline for suspicious-looking shells. Call me if you have any questions or would like to know what to do if you find anything suspicious.
The threat of zebra mussels is imminent and serious. If zebra mussels get into Lake Minnetonka, the results will be disastrous. Impacts will include property devaluation, boat damage and increased maintenance costs, beach closures, and expanded milfoil infestations.
We can – we must – marshal our efforts and investments to protect Lake Minnetonka. Our investments now will also help protect Lake Minnetonka from other exotic plants, animals and viruses, which while not as imminent, are also coming this way. Each new aquatic invasive species that gets into the lake will magnify the impacts.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Zebra Mussel - One Last Chance
Open water is about a month away and the stage is set. Zebra mussels are coming to Lake Minnetonka – fast.
Zebra mussels in Mille Lacs Lake exploded in 2008. Zebra mussels in Mille Lacs Lake were found at densities of 1 per square foot in 2008 and the DNR expects they will increase to hundreds per square foot this year. Virtually every boat in Mille Lacs Lake will come into contact with zebra mussel and Mille Lacs Lake receives about 400,000 boating visits each year. About 1% of all boats entering Lake Minnetonka come from Mille Lacs Lake.
Lake Minnetonka is inadequately protected, so we consider this an emergency situation. Unless quick and comprehensive steps are taken before the open water season, we believe Lake Minnetonka is at extremely high risk.
The Lake Minnetonka Association has been bringing this issue to the communities’ attention since 2001. We fear, unless quick and decisive action is taken, zebra mussels will soon be in the lake. The results will be devastating. We have developed plans, risk analyses and recommendation for what to do. However, the authority for implementing these actions rests with various other agencies.
Once zebra mussels are in the lake, it will be too late to ask, “Could we have done more?”
Zebra mussels in Mille Lacs Lake exploded in 2008. Zebra mussels in Mille Lacs Lake were found at densities of 1 per square foot in 2008 and the DNR expects they will increase to hundreds per square foot this year. Virtually every boat in Mille Lacs Lake will come into contact with zebra mussel and Mille Lacs Lake receives about 400,000 boating visits each year. About 1% of all boats entering Lake Minnetonka come from Mille Lacs Lake.
Lake Minnetonka is inadequately protected, so we consider this an emergency situation. Unless quick and comprehensive steps are taken before the open water season, we believe Lake Minnetonka is at extremely high risk.
The Lake Minnetonka Association has been bringing this issue to the communities’ attention since 2001. We fear, unless quick and decisive action is taken, zebra mussels will soon be in the lake. The results will be devastating. We have developed plans, risk analyses and recommendation for what to do. However, the authority for implementing these actions rests with various other agencies.
Once zebra mussels are in the lake, it will be too late to ask, “Could we have done more?”
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Inspection Fees
The Lake Minnetonka Association’s Milfoil-Free Minnetonka Vision and Plan recommends inspection fees as one way to help pay for the aquatic invasive species (AIS) protection and control programs we recommend. The access fee issue has raised some healthy discussion. Here I would like to add further clarification.
First of all, the Lake Minnetonka Association believes Lake Minnetonka is a public resource and that no method ought to unreasonably restrict access to this public resource. While fees are a departure from our past practice, we believe we must change the game if we are to protect Lake Minnetonka. We liken these fees to fees required to enter state parks, both would be used to manage and protect the public resource people come to enjoy.
Secondly, I am not aware anyone disagrees with the notion that AIS – those now in Lake Minnetonka or those yet to arrive – pose serious, real and irreversible threats. The potential damage caused by zebra mussels, VHS, spiny waterflea, hydrilla and many more is so great that prevention is the first and sometimes the only line of defense.
Thirdly, we have recommended a comprehensive management and protection program with an annual budget of $600,000 – and the Lake Minnetonka Association has committed to contributing 25% of this. While this may seem to be great, let’s put it into perspective. Lake Minnetonka is large, comprised of dozens of interconnected bays. Therefore, Lake Minnetonka ought to be considered as more than a single, small lake. Lake Manitou (Indiana) spends $500,000 per year to control a single species, hydrilla. Lake Manitou is only 700 acres (Lake Minnetonka is 14,000 acres). Lake Minnetonka has numerous access points, special events and is a regional resource.
Finally, the key element to a comprehensive protection program involves inspections to assure boats and trailers arrive dry inside and out. It has been suggested that AIS could evade inspections, because they are often small or inconspicuous. However, most AIS will not be introduced when there is not water carried from a contaminated lake or river. So, inspections can be effective. Since AIS move by watercraft, the likelihood of an AIS introduction is proportional to the mode of movement. Therefore a fee associated with the boat launching is appropriate.
The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has released a statement saying “Thus far, the LMCD Board does not support the concept of user fees at public accesses.” In the same statement, the LMCD says they “…will be seeking alternative funding sources…”
The Lake Minnetonka Association notes however, that LMCD Executive Director was recent quoted as saying, “Can more be done? Yes. We are willing to do more. But we have budget constraints.” In addition, the LMCD’s “Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka” includes policies and recommendations for inspections of watercraft at all public and private accesses, and further, they recommend inspections should be paid for by fees assessed to watercraft owners at the time of inspection.
There appears to be no argument that more AIS prevention is needed and that inspections are a key element to that program. At issue is how to fund such a program. Some have argued the state should support these protection activities. However, the reality is the state’s grant program for AIS prevention is $100,000 per year – for the entire state! With these numbers, we are not even in the ballpark to help Lake Minnetonka.
The Lake Minnetonka Association is open to any source of funding that is adequate to protect Lake Minnetonka from AIS. We have considered alternatives and have recommended inspection fees as one source because these are equitable and proportional to how AIS enter lakes. Further, we have recommended that fees collected at Lake Minnetonka be dedicated to protecting Lake Minnetonka.
The Lake Minnetonka Association’s underlying interest is to protect the lake. In that vein, any viable method to accomplish meaningful and comprehensive protection should be on the table. We hope and expect that our proposals will be critically scrutinized and if better alternatives are available to protect Lake Minnetonka, they should be brought forward and considered. Until that time, we are in a situation where there is a recognized and legitimate need for protection and we must find new ways to address that need.
We know that the proposed access fees will be controversial; but inaction or inadequate action is also at issue. The AIS threat will not go away. We believe the inspection fees we propose are justified and appropriate. While this proposal should continue to be discussed, we hope that discussion will occur in the context of the comprehensive vision and plan we have put forward.
First of all, the Lake Minnetonka Association believes Lake Minnetonka is a public resource and that no method ought to unreasonably restrict access to this public resource. While fees are a departure from our past practice, we believe we must change the game if we are to protect Lake Minnetonka. We liken these fees to fees required to enter state parks, both would be used to manage and protect the public resource people come to enjoy.
Secondly, I am not aware anyone disagrees with the notion that AIS – those now in Lake Minnetonka or those yet to arrive – pose serious, real and irreversible threats. The potential damage caused by zebra mussels, VHS, spiny waterflea, hydrilla and many more is so great that prevention is the first and sometimes the only line of defense.
Thirdly, we have recommended a comprehensive management and protection program with an annual budget of $600,000 – and the Lake Minnetonka Association has committed to contributing 25% of this. While this may seem to be great, let’s put it into perspective. Lake Minnetonka is large, comprised of dozens of interconnected bays. Therefore, Lake Minnetonka ought to be considered as more than a single, small lake. Lake Manitou (Indiana) spends $500,000 per year to control a single species, hydrilla. Lake Manitou is only 700 acres (Lake Minnetonka is 14,000 acres). Lake Minnetonka has numerous access points, special events and is a regional resource.
Finally, the key element to a comprehensive protection program involves inspections to assure boats and trailers arrive dry inside and out. It has been suggested that AIS could evade inspections, because they are often small or inconspicuous. However, most AIS will not be introduced when there is not water carried from a contaminated lake or river. So, inspections can be effective. Since AIS move by watercraft, the likelihood of an AIS introduction is proportional to the mode of movement. Therefore a fee associated with the boat launching is appropriate.
The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has released a statement saying “Thus far, the LMCD Board does not support the concept of user fees at public accesses.” In the same statement, the LMCD says they “…will be seeking alternative funding sources…”
The Lake Minnetonka Association notes however, that LMCD Executive Director was recent quoted as saying, “Can more be done? Yes. We are willing to do more. But we have budget constraints.” In addition, the LMCD’s “Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka” includes policies and recommendations for inspections of watercraft at all public and private accesses, and further, they recommend inspections should be paid for by fees assessed to watercraft owners at the time of inspection.
There appears to be no argument that more AIS prevention is needed and that inspections are a key element to that program. At issue is how to fund such a program. Some have argued the state should support these protection activities. However, the reality is the state’s grant program for AIS prevention is $100,000 per year – for the entire state! With these numbers, we are not even in the ballpark to help Lake Minnetonka.
The Lake Minnetonka Association is open to any source of funding that is adequate to protect Lake Minnetonka from AIS. We have considered alternatives and have recommended inspection fees as one source because these are equitable and proportional to how AIS enter lakes. Further, we have recommended that fees collected at Lake Minnetonka be dedicated to protecting Lake Minnetonka.
The Lake Minnetonka Association’s underlying interest is to protect the lake. In that vein, any viable method to accomplish meaningful and comprehensive protection should be on the table. We hope and expect that our proposals will be critically scrutinized and if better alternatives are available to protect Lake Minnetonka, they should be brought forward and considered. Until that time, we are in a situation where there is a recognized and legitimate need for protection and we must find new ways to address that need.
We know that the proposed access fees will be controversial; but inaction or inadequate action is also at issue. The AIS threat will not go away. We believe the inspection fees we propose are justified and appropriate. While this proposal should continue to be discussed, we hope that discussion will occur in the context of the comprehensive vision and plan we have put forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
