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.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Is Anyone Listening?
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.
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.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
A Fresh Perspective
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.
“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.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Funding for AIS Prevention and Control
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.
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.
Friday, November 20, 2009
The Cities Should Get into the Milfoil Game
The Lake Minnetonka Association is gratified at the wonderful results of the milfoil herbicidal treatments in Grays and Phelps Bays this year. We are also proud of our members’ voluntary financial support – in fact, the majority of the financial support has come from lakeshore residents and businesses on the respective bays.
We are also grateful for the public support we have received. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the three cities abutting Phelps Bay - Mound, Shorewood and Minnetrista. The City of Greenwood also provided funding for the preparatory plant inventory conducted on St. Albans Bay this year.
As the milfoil control program is in its second of five years (of the demonstration), it is clear to us that the results are positive and the demand is increasing. Indeed, we are hoping to expand the treatments to Carmans, Gideon, St. Albans and perhaps and expanded area on Phelps Bays in 2010. We have also received inquiries from Carsons and Maxwell Bays.
This project is a demonstration project. We hope to demonstrate the viability of the method to control milfoil, protect native plants and restore the health of the lake. But, we also hope to demonstrate the viability of a public/private funding formula. Right now, most of the funding comes from private sources. While this makes the demonstration project viable, I do not believe this is sustainable (in these portions) in the long run.
Where do we go from here?
In a good way, the demand is outpacing the communities’ capacity to fund and manage this program and as a result, it is evolving somewhat piecemeal. We appreciate the demand reflects a good program and therefore this is a good problem; but now we must be more thoughtful and systematic in how we invest in managing this public resource. The community should take steps to be more strategic to avoid continuing in this manner.
Right now, the cities’ fund the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, which is charged with managing milfoil (and other things too). The LMCD’s milfoil program includes using mechanical harvesters. The LMCD funding of the milfoil herbicidal treatments is not public funding, rather privately-collected funds through their Save-the-Lake Fund. The result, with respect to Cities’ funding of the treatment project, is their funding is uneven – ranging from almost half of the Phelps Bay costs to none of Grays Bay costs. This ‘formula’ will become even more complicated as new bays are added.
While the Lake Minnetonka Association has managed the milfoil treatment project, we believe this is ultimately a public function.
We do not see the convergence of the two milfoil control programs as problematic, rather we see this as an opportunity to better manage and control milfoil in Lake Minnetonka and one day make it Milfoil-Free.
One way to meet this challenge might be for the LMCD and the Cities to work together to develop a long-term milfoil control program that integrates the best available technologies and tools and shifts to greater portion of public funding. We see this as a very strategic and sustainable path forward and think it should be started now.
If asked, the Lake Minnetonka Association will help with this program.
We are also grateful for the public support we have received. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the three cities abutting Phelps Bay - Mound, Shorewood and Minnetrista. The City of Greenwood also provided funding for the preparatory plant inventory conducted on St. Albans Bay this year.
As the milfoil control program is in its second of five years (of the demonstration), it is clear to us that the results are positive and the demand is increasing. Indeed, we are hoping to expand the treatments to Carmans, Gideon, St. Albans and perhaps and expanded area on Phelps Bays in 2010. We have also received inquiries from Carsons and Maxwell Bays.
This project is a demonstration project. We hope to demonstrate the viability of the method to control milfoil, protect native plants and restore the health of the lake. But, we also hope to demonstrate the viability of a public/private funding formula. Right now, most of the funding comes from private sources. While this makes the demonstration project viable, I do not believe this is sustainable (in these portions) in the long run.
Where do we go from here?
In a good way, the demand is outpacing the communities’ capacity to fund and manage this program and as a result, it is evolving somewhat piecemeal. We appreciate the demand reflects a good program and therefore this is a good problem; but now we must be more thoughtful and systematic in how we invest in managing this public resource. The community should take steps to be more strategic to avoid continuing in this manner.
Right now, the cities’ fund the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, which is charged with managing milfoil (and other things too). The LMCD’s milfoil program includes using mechanical harvesters. The LMCD funding of the milfoil herbicidal treatments is not public funding, rather privately-collected funds through their Save-the-Lake Fund. The result, with respect to Cities’ funding of the treatment project, is their funding is uneven – ranging from almost half of the Phelps Bay costs to none of Grays Bay costs. This ‘formula’ will become even more complicated as new bays are added.
While the Lake Minnetonka Association has managed the milfoil treatment project, we believe this is ultimately a public function.
We do not see the convergence of the two milfoil control programs as problematic, rather we see this as an opportunity to better manage and control milfoil in Lake Minnetonka and one day make it Milfoil-Free.
One way to meet this challenge might be for the LMCD and the Cities to work together to develop a long-term milfoil control program that integrates the best available technologies and tools and shifts to greater portion of public funding. We see this as a very strategic and sustainable path forward and think it should be started now.
If asked, the Lake Minnetonka Association will help with this program.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Shielding Lake Minnetonka
In the fight against aquatic invasive species (AIS), there is a new jargon being used to frame strategic prevention approaches. We are now speaking of ‘containment’ and ‘shields’ – referring to containing AIS within waters already infested with AIS and shielding un-infested waters to keep unwanted AIS out.
With respect to Lake Minnetonka and zebra mussels for example, we hope and expect the state will keep them contained in Mille Lacs Lake, Prior Lake and the other waters they have infested, but it is a local responsibility to shield Lake Minnetonka.
Research has clearly shown that the containment strategy is by far the most effective, efficient large-scale approach. Unfortunately, Minnesota is way under-invested in this strategy. Indeed, Minnesota Waters, a state-wide advocacy group, has found the AIS management system in Minnesota to be ‘broken.’ We see much evidence of this. There have been about a half dozen new zebra mussel infestations this season, with probably more to be discovered. Minnesota law requires boaters leaving zebra mussel infested lakes to immediately drain all water upon exiting the lake; yet a Fox 9 investigative report documents boat after boat leaving Prior Lake this summer without draining. Tick, tick, tick …
What this means for Lake Minnetonka is – if we want to protect our lake from zebra mussel, hydrilla, viral hemorrhagic septicemia, Brazilian elodea, spiny waterflea, rusty crayfish, Asian carp, and on and on – we had better adopt the shield approach.
That is exactly what is being developed right now.
The Lake Minnetonka Association is facilitating a multi-agency effort to develop an AIS prevention plan for Lake Minnetonka to include meaningful protection actions. Other agencies are partnering to develop the plan, including the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the MN Department of Natural Resources, Three Rivers Park District, Hennepin County Environmental Services and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. We expect the draft plan to be completed in December, then the respective organizations will review and be asked to adopt and implement the plan.
It should be no surprise that a comprehensive protection plan will be challenging and expensive to fully implement. The technical committee developing the plan has adopted a goal of reducing the risk of an AIS introduction by at least 90%. We have identified 13 discrete pathways for AIS to get into the lake, but the main (over 50% of the overall risk) pathway is public boat ramps. We know already that voluntary cleaning actions and signage, while important, will not be nearly enough to reduce the risk of AIS introductions.
While specific prevention actions have not been recommended at this time, it is clear that substantial investments will be required to meet the 90% reduction goal. As a community, we will need to decide soon – can we, should we, how do we make the investments that will be necessary to protect our lake?
This year, prevention activities on Lake Minnetonka include inspectors at four public accesses during weekends and holidays and video monitoring at two accesses. That coverage has a budget is about $50 to $60 thousand dollars, yet represents a fraction (about 9%) of the 90% goal.
The Lake Minnetonka Association thinks that local leaders must contemplate and actualize real protection for the lake. We need serious new thinking and investment if we want to protect the lake that is the economic engine for our community. Furthermore, we think these investments will need to arise locally, as there are practically no state monies available.
We hear, often actually, that fees assessed to boaters would be a logical and fair way to raise money for protection actions. We agree. However, the reality is that the political hurdles are enormous so this is not likely to happen any time soon. We have also heard that the constitutional amendment money is for clean water, so why not go there? Again, it has become clear that AIS protection activities are out of bounds for those monies.
It will boil down to local investment and commitment – Are we there?
With respect to Lake Minnetonka and zebra mussels for example, we hope and expect the state will keep them contained in Mille Lacs Lake, Prior Lake and the other waters they have infested, but it is a local responsibility to shield Lake Minnetonka.
Research has clearly shown that the containment strategy is by far the most effective, efficient large-scale approach. Unfortunately, Minnesota is way under-invested in this strategy. Indeed, Minnesota Waters, a state-wide advocacy group, has found the AIS management system in Minnesota to be ‘broken.’ We see much evidence of this. There have been about a half dozen new zebra mussel infestations this season, with probably more to be discovered. Minnesota law requires boaters leaving zebra mussel infested lakes to immediately drain all water upon exiting the lake; yet a Fox 9 investigative report documents boat after boat leaving Prior Lake this summer without draining. Tick, tick, tick …
What this means for Lake Minnetonka is – if we want to protect our lake from zebra mussel, hydrilla, viral hemorrhagic septicemia, Brazilian elodea, spiny waterflea, rusty crayfish, Asian carp, and on and on – we had better adopt the shield approach.
That is exactly what is being developed right now.
The Lake Minnetonka Association is facilitating a multi-agency effort to develop an AIS prevention plan for Lake Minnetonka to include meaningful protection actions. Other agencies are partnering to develop the plan, including the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the MN Department of Natural Resources, Three Rivers Park District, Hennepin County Environmental Services and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. We expect the draft plan to be completed in December, then the respective organizations will review and be asked to adopt and implement the plan.
It should be no surprise that a comprehensive protection plan will be challenging and expensive to fully implement. The technical committee developing the plan has adopted a goal of reducing the risk of an AIS introduction by at least 90%. We have identified 13 discrete pathways for AIS to get into the lake, but the main (over 50% of the overall risk) pathway is public boat ramps. We know already that voluntary cleaning actions and signage, while important, will not be nearly enough to reduce the risk of AIS introductions.
While specific prevention actions have not been recommended at this time, it is clear that substantial investments will be required to meet the 90% reduction goal. As a community, we will need to decide soon – can we, should we, how do we make the investments that will be necessary to protect our lake?
This year, prevention activities on Lake Minnetonka include inspectors at four public accesses during weekends and holidays and video monitoring at two accesses. That coverage has a budget is about $50 to $60 thousand dollars, yet represents a fraction (about 9%) of the 90% goal.
The Lake Minnetonka Association thinks that local leaders must contemplate and actualize real protection for the lake. We need serious new thinking and investment if we want to protect the lake that is the economic engine for our community. Furthermore, we think these investments will need to arise locally, as there are practically no state monies available.
We hear, often actually, that fees assessed to boaters would be a logical and fair way to raise money for protection actions. We agree. However, the reality is that the political hurdles are enormous so this is not likely to happen any time soon. We have also heard that the constitutional amendment money is for clean water, so why not go there? Again, it has become clear that AIS protection activities are out of bounds for those monies.
It will boil down to local investment and commitment – Are we there?
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Grays and Phelps Bays Are Milfoil-Free
Based upon late-season inspections of Grays and Phelps Bays, they are free of Eurasian watermilfoil (technically there are small amounts of milfoil, but they are operationally milfoil-free). These results are especially gratifying, as milfoil was problematic throughout the rest of the lake this season.
Recall, these two bays were treated in June to selectively kill milfoil, while protecting native plants. Representatives from several state and local agencies as well as the manufacturer of the herbicide used in this year’s treatment inspected both bays recently. The overall result – milfoil was controlled throughout the bays and there were abundant native plants.
These results are informal and the final technical results will be forthcoming later this autumn. But at this point, we are very pleased and I have received numerous calls and emails from residents of these bays who are similarly pleased. According to Mike Mason, a Phelps Bay resident, “In the 18 years that we have lived on Phelps Bay, this by far is the best that the bay has ever looked. The water is clearer, people are skiing in the open water that was once choked with milfoil, I have spent minimal time on cleaning the beach and my kids can actually swim around my dock. I also can fish off my dock without reeling in weed after weed.” According to Paul Pedersen, a long time resident of Grays Bay, “I am highly encouraged by what I see. We were told to expect the milfoil would be gone – that is what happened. I am looking forward to more seasons without milfoil.” Terry Bryce, a resident of Grays Bay since 1980, says “Marvelous! Since milfoil has been in Grays Bay, no other treatment has come close to the results this year. I can enjoy boating without milfoil clogging my prop.”
We have also been working with representatives of St. Albans and Gideon Bays, who have visited Grays or Phelps Bays and are excited about the possibility of being included in the treatment program. Indeed, lakeshore residents, businesses and the City of Greenwood have contributed to plant inventories of these two bays, which is a prerequisite step to participating in the treatment program in 2010. Other steps also need to occur, such as securing funding and permits, and these are being pursued in the next few months.
These treatments are part of a five-year demonstration project, supported by the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA), Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and other agencies. The objectives of the program are to control milfoil in a safe manner throughout the respective bays, protect and improve native plants and minimize lakeshore clean up of milfoil fragments. We believe we are on track to satisfy those objectives and soon be able to offer a safe, effective and comprehensive milfoil control option for Lake Minnetonka that is sustainable and restorative.
Recently, concerns have been raised regarding the safety of the herbicides used in this program. We point out that all agencies involved in the demonstration project and program have approved the plan that prescribes their use. In addition, the LMA, LMCD, MN DNR and several cities have provided funding for this project; the MN DNR approved the plan and provided permits; and the herbicides are registered for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Indeed, the regulatory agencies and scientists involved in the project found these herbicides were the only feasible management tool that could accomplish the project’s objectives.
The Lake Minnetonka Association is concerned with any management approach that compromises the health of Lake Minnetonka. In this case, we believe these herbicides are safe and restorative. We know that untreated, milfoil diminishes the health of the lake ecosystem by displacing native plants and diminishing plant diversity, so even not controlling milfoil has negative consequences.
Overall, we are proud of the leadership and support provided by our members – over half the financial support was provided by private, voluntary contributions. We are pleased with the results. We are grateful for the funding support provided by the Save-the-Lake Fund, a MN DNR grant, and the Cities of Minnetrista, Mound and Shorewood.
Recall, these two bays were treated in June to selectively kill milfoil, while protecting native plants. Representatives from several state and local agencies as well as the manufacturer of the herbicide used in this year’s treatment inspected both bays recently. The overall result – milfoil was controlled throughout the bays and there were abundant native plants.
These results are informal and the final technical results will be forthcoming later this autumn. But at this point, we are very pleased and I have received numerous calls and emails from residents of these bays who are similarly pleased. According to Mike Mason, a Phelps Bay resident, “In the 18 years that we have lived on Phelps Bay, this by far is the best that the bay has ever looked. The water is clearer, people are skiing in the open water that was once choked with milfoil, I have spent minimal time on cleaning the beach and my kids can actually swim around my dock. I also can fish off my dock without reeling in weed after weed.” According to Paul Pedersen, a long time resident of Grays Bay, “I am highly encouraged by what I see. We were told to expect the milfoil would be gone – that is what happened. I am looking forward to more seasons without milfoil.” Terry Bryce, a resident of Grays Bay since 1980, says “Marvelous! Since milfoil has been in Grays Bay, no other treatment has come close to the results this year. I can enjoy boating without milfoil clogging my prop.”
We have also been working with representatives of St. Albans and Gideon Bays, who have visited Grays or Phelps Bays and are excited about the possibility of being included in the treatment program. Indeed, lakeshore residents, businesses and the City of Greenwood have contributed to plant inventories of these two bays, which is a prerequisite step to participating in the treatment program in 2010. Other steps also need to occur, such as securing funding and permits, and these are being pursued in the next few months.
These treatments are part of a five-year demonstration project, supported by the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA), Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and other agencies. The objectives of the program are to control milfoil in a safe manner throughout the respective bays, protect and improve native plants and minimize lakeshore clean up of milfoil fragments. We believe we are on track to satisfy those objectives and soon be able to offer a safe, effective and comprehensive milfoil control option for Lake Minnetonka that is sustainable and restorative.
Recently, concerns have been raised regarding the safety of the herbicides used in this program. We point out that all agencies involved in the demonstration project and program have approved the plan that prescribes their use. In addition, the LMA, LMCD, MN DNR and several cities have provided funding for this project; the MN DNR approved the plan and provided permits; and the herbicides are registered for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Indeed, the regulatory agencies and scientists involved in the project found these herbicides were the only feasible management tool that could accomplish the project’s objectives.
The Lake Minnetonka Association is concerned with any management approach that compromises the health of Lake Minnetonka. In this case, we believe these herbicides are safe and restorative. We know that untreated, milfoil diminishes the health of the lake ecosystem by displacing native plants and diminishing plant diversity, so even not controlling milfoil has negative consequences.
Overall, we are proud of the leadership and support provided by our members – over half the financial support was provided by private, voluntary contributions. We are pleased with the results. We are grateful for the funding support provided by the Save-the-Lake Fund, a MN DNR grant, and the Cities of Minnetrista, Mound and Shorewood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
