A Vision for Aquatic Invasive Species Protection

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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.