Tag: Lake Minnetonka Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dick Osgood

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

Now, with the regular legislative session over, the policy-related elements of the AIS bills have been enacted.

However, the funding elements are in limbo along with most of the rest of the state funding matters. For now, here is a summary of some of what has been enacted into law:

• All water-related equipment, including boats and bait containers, must be drained before leaving any waterbody.

• Criminal citations may be issued for violations of laws pertaining to the transport of aquatic vegetation or failure to comply with the drain plug law.

• Watercraft owners must obtain and display an AIS sticker provided by the DNR.

• Authorized inspectors can now visually and tactically inspect watercraft.

• Inspections now include removal, drainage, decontamination or treatment to prevent the transportation and spread of AIS.

• Authorized inspectors may prohibit the launching of watercraft if the owner refuses an inspection or does not remove and dispose of aquatic vegetation prior to launching.

• Refusing an inspection or a removal order may result in a civil citation and the suspension of the watercraft license for a year.

The governor’s proposal also included additional funding for AIS as well as increased penalties. Various funding sources had been included in the House and Senate versions, but all funding bills were vetoed by the governor.

I would expect once the budget impasse is resolved, some additional AIS funding will be provided to support the policy bills. What were not included in any of the legislative versions (but had been included in the original policy bill) however, were the increased penalties.

The Lake Minnetonka Association has recommended increased penalties are critical for an effective AIS prevention program – so this is a disappointment.

So, what does this mean?

First of all, we are grateful the governor, legislature and the DNR are taking the AIS concerns seriously and have finally taken a significant step to improve the overall AIS management system.

DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr, in the press conference announcing the governor’s AIS proposal, said he knew the proposal did not go as far as many people would like. And, I suppose that will always be the case due to the nature of the AIS Aquademic.

That day, we were reminded by a stakeholder involved in the process, “Let’s not let perfect get in the way of good.”

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

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

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

Finally, a significant statewide focus will be on zebra mussels, which makes sense from the state’s perspective.

Unfortunately, now that zebra mussels are in Lake Minnetonka, we will not benefit from the extra attention. Indeed, we remain exposed to additional AIS like quagga mussels, spiny waterflea, VHS, hydrilla, etc.

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

Dick Osgood is executive director of the Lake Minnetonka Association, which is the voice for Lake Minnetonka lakeshore owners and businesses. See http://www.lmassociation.org.

Guest columnist Dick Osgood.

Zebra Mussel’s Ugly Cousin

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

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

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

So what could be worse?

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

Here is the issue – despite these being two distinct species mussel genus with different, severe impacts, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has classified these as the same animal.
Now that Lake Minnetonka has zebra mussel, more protection efforts are being focused on boats leaving the lake to help keep zebra mussel from spreading, meaning less attention will be spent on boats entering Lake Minnetonka. Because zebra and quagga mussel are classified as the same animal, the quagga mussel is not recognized as a separate threat.

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

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

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

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