Lake Weed Spraying Feed Back...

[Team Otter]

Additional questions, concerns and comments will be addressed here following tonight's gathering.

Gotta run!

[gunderson21]

Tonight was a great learning oppertunity. We definately need to incorporate the lake owners in to the discussion more to find a better balance. Hopefully this will also educate lake owners who are currently modifying their own shorelines for improved access, look and/or convenience. Anyways, I thought tonight was quite beneficial and look forward to the next meeting! Good job T.O.

[Matt C]

That was great info, as a lake shore owner and as a fisherman. It really enlighted me, and hopefully it did to others.

Thanks TO!

[Team Otter]

Thanks to all who attended. I would have liked to seen a larger group of people but those that did attend made up a diverse crowd. Those that attended, beyond the general public, were Jacquelyn Bacigalupi (Region 4 Habitat Specialist - MN DNR), Mark Bacigalupi (Fisheries - MN DNR, Waterville), Jack Lauer (Regional Fisheries Manager - MN DNR), John Cross (Columnist - Mankato Free Press), members of both the Lake Washington and Tetonka lake associations and members of Muskies, Inc.

Several topics were discussed, questions were fielded and concerns were raised, etc. Although there are many, some of the highlighted topics include:

1. Chemical Application and Alternate Options

2. Chemical Effects on Lake, Fish and Mammal

3. History of Curly Leaf Pondweed

4. Treatment Plans

5. Permitting and Lake Surveys

6. Plant Management and Habitat

7. Clarification of Rumors

8. Field run-off and/or tiling and its effects

9. Native and non-native vegetation definition

10. Government, lake association, property owner, sportsmen and women and general public influence

11. Different types of milfoil

Again, I would like to thank the DNR officials and lake association members that I have worked with, now, and in the future.

We all need to get educated on this subject and tonight it was apparent that some are and some are not quite there yet. These types of gatherings are intended to assist in the education of such an important topic.

Moving forward, I plan to actively attend lake association meetings from time to time, hold similar gatherings to the one tonight and ultimately pull together one voice that will be heard at the level it needs to be heard.

[Quetico]

I didnt attend the meeting but people really need to look at how their lake shores effect the lake. I am landscape designer that studied lakescaping. The way your lake shore is landscaped effects significantly effects the lake. Change your lake shore and you can improve your lake.

[MPH]

I missed the meeting because of forgotten prior commitments. Is there a way to sum it up? I would like to know whether or not to waste my money paying for spraying in front of my place.

[Hookey]

Shoot me a email and I will call you.

[email protected]

[Team Otter]

It depends if you're spraying for "curb appeal", lake access and/or convenience.

Ken will get you the information you need. If you need anything else, just let us know. Thanks.

[MPH]

It was basically for all 3 of the above. I talked to Ken and he confirmed everthing that I thought about the situation. I will be saving my money this year and using it for some boat accessories.

[Muskiefool]

Thank You for putting together a greatly needed forum last night Jamison, I'm not convinced that pouring toxic chemicals into our lakes that are already suffering is going to help in light of the fact that it will not eradicate the weed and will kill over 50% of the native plants, cutting clearly is just spreading the problem further, it's time for a biological impact assessment on lakes that have been Poisoned Cut and left alone, if there is a lake thats been left alone with this Curly Leaf Pond Weed to find out exactly what these treatments are dong to the fish, the people, the other aquaculture, birds and mammals, maybe our efforts and resources would be better spent reducing phosphates and creating buffers for agricultural drainage to archive a truly healthy lake, once again Thank You.

John Underhill

[Bigeye30"]

First and foremost, thank you Jamison for putting this together, this gathering certainly brought out a few opinions that may or may not have ever been heard, from what I gathered last night, is that there is a positive outlook among sportsmen and women to finally get involved with some of the issues that surround our interests, as many of us learned the we as sportsman like to lay low, keep quiet so to speak, people the reality is the gov't, dnr, lakes associations etc all want the most amount of information,opinions, debates, concerns, comments,etc available. I believe that last night was the start of many more postive results, these sort of issues take an enormous amount of time and dedication to keep pursing for the greater good, fortunately it finally seems like there is an overall interest for once to continue forth, as far as the overall topic was concerned, I certainly learned a bit and will add that no matter what, one cannot say that the spraying of a toxic chemical into a water chain system is beneficial, it's just one of those simple concepts, toxic chemicals and flowing water, hmm. I also was a bit suprised to see that the amount of back data research to confirm the overall effects of this chemical were not quite known, but the biggest concept that I feel was brought out is the issue of the sportsman and women having no say where the decisions are made, only due to their own self behavior, the other key idea that I noticed is that we were all on the same page with the exception of one or two in the regards that education amongst ourselves is vital to survive, we need to stay informed and up to date, so when an issue does arise we have solutions to common problems. To find a perfect balance amongst a large population is nearly impossible, however to find a neutral agreeance is achievable, as a human one can adapt to change if they so choose,As a sportsmen I feel we have a long road to trudge, but the future will be bright, I look forward to additional gatherings, Thanks again Jamison Ken I'm sending an email

[Hookey]

One of messages I took away from the meeting is that the DNR grants permits based on demand and LAW not by what they personally feel is best.

A well organized group creates demand and as a result changes law. Laws grant rights and rights in this case change the Lake.

Why should you care?

Presently property owners are granted the right to wharf out to navigagable depth. My understanding is they have the right to eliminate weeds that restrict their access to the lake.

Recently a Bill was introduced to the Senate that would grant property owners the RIGHT to mechanical and chemical control of submerged vegetation and algae for 100 feet of shoreline by 150 feet lakeward. (Senate Bill SF0506) This bill was defeated and I must have been sleeping or out fishing when it was written.

Personally I am under the impression that chemical control is not a long term solution but it appears to slow the spread of pondweed which may be better than doing nothing at all, I do not know.

I do understand the Lake Washington Associations position on the matter and truly appreciate the time Greg has spent helping Jamison and I understand their course of action. He truly cares about the health of Lake Washington.

My fear is that the secondary effects of herbicide use due to weed destruction, decomposition and loss of habitat for invertebrates may affect aquatic life more than the herbicide itself.

While curly leaf is not the “best” habitat for game fish it may better than nothing at all.

I thank everyone who took the time to attend the discussion .

Ken

[Team Otter]

Moving forward, OUR involvement, collecting historical data and the continuation of experimenting will play a key role.

[Team Otter]

Doing your homework and getting educated will get you to a position where Ken is now if you want to. Great post buddy; well said.

[smnduck]

Thank you T.O. and others for your time and reports from the meeting.

[Team Otter]

No problem. Look for a similar gathering to take place in late June or early July.

[Hookey]

For those who have requested additional information. My in box is a bit cluttered but I believe I have replied to all. If I missed you send me another note (email addr above) and I will send it.

Thanks, Ken

[1lkstage]

Thanks Hookey, Got the info today. I have alot of reading to do.

TO, Jacquelyn, and others, Great job on passing on all the info.

Jacquelyn,and Greg, I feel sorry for you, seems like you took the blunt of everything with ease. Seems as your doing your jobs to the fullest. My hat is off to you.

My biggest disappointments, I could not believe the voice of the sportsmen. These people are looking for our input, and no-one give them it, they are doing what they are told, But their opinions only come from others, unapposed. We, as sportsmen, need to give the DNR, Lake Associations our point of view. Whether heard or unheard!

Is the lake spraying wrong? My opinion would be the timing of the physical spraying. With the water temps in shallow at 55-60 deg. Which is Perfect spawning temps! Pushing fish out at such a critical time of the year. (Although Washington has kept it to only 9% of feaseible spray area). I have not read the info yet, but does the pond leaf only grow in a specific bottom structure? Mud,Sand,Etc.?

The hardest thing for me to believe, "In this world of science" Scientist find cures for everything under the sun that has little or no effect on anyone, yet our own DNR cannot tell us the long term effect to the spray. One would exspect them to find a different spray to only kill off the pond leaf, or even milfoil, but not the fish. Even our farmers figured out a way to use Roundup- on their corn/soybeans without killing it, but helping them to produce more.

After reviewing the survey from the Tetonka Lake [PoorWordUsage]., Why spend money on a research team to tell us what problems we know already exsist. Instead, have the DNR/scientist research new chemicals to treat the problem,and kill it, not put a blanket on them.

All in all, I'm still open minded, I'm sure that everyone involed are doing the best they can with what they are given.

Look forward to the next one.

Lonnie

[Hookey]

1lkstage

I understand your frustration but think that many of the people attending such as myself are still learning and may not have formed a opinion I think as we learn more most everyone will be to the point where they can express a concern with conviction.

The subject of displacing the residents of the weed beds needs to be researched. It appears studies are aimed more at is the chemical safe vs what are the secondary affects of burning down the village. (even if it isn't the best village)

I am not sure if fish would be spawning in "these" weeds nor do I know if they move out to the middle of the lake when the weeds are sprayed. Someone did make that comment but was it theory or fact ?

These are the types of things we need to establish as fact then write our letters.

As far as the DNR not knowing the long term effects of endothol or the chemical I will talk to them more about this as I am not sure they all had time to respond at our meeting.

I have spent a few hours trying to find long term studies on the internet from unbiased sources but unbiased people have no reason to do a study. ya know what I mean ?

You can find tons of information on LAB studies of Endothal on the Web and EPA. According to the EPA and other reliable sources the chemical is the safest when tested in the lab, "the chemical itself, will not kill fish" and when applied properly is safe according to the EPA.

ltr

[Hookey]

In case anyone is interested in more information on Minnesotans for Healthy Lakes. You can find them on a direct link from the chemical companies website, killakeweeds. Surprised ?

As well as a copy of SF506 and sample letters they sent in support of the bill.

Minnesotans for Healthy Lakes MHL Talking Point Summary

March 22, 2006

1.) MHL was formed by lakeshore property owners due to concern over DNR practices regarding management of aquatic vegetation and algae, especially nuisance/invasive species

2.) Repeated meetings and correspondence with DNR to understand their concerns and to express ours, have transpired

3.) When the proposed rules were revealed in December, 2005, they contained none of the provisions presented by MHL and other constituents.

4.) The new rules were applied in the field in 2004 and 2005 even though the changes have not gone through the rule-changing process, which started officially in December, 2005

5.) We believe that these new rules continue to provide over-protection to invasive species, thus allowing them to continue to spread across an ever-increasing number of Minnesota lakes.

6.) In addition, while making it even more difficult to maintain clear and clean shorelines, these proposed rules will lead to increased non-permitted and non-regulated shoreline management (“vigilantes”)

7.) These new, more restrictive rules will require a higher level of DNR inspection and enforcement of routine permit applications, while the threat of new invasive species (e.g., zebra mussels, the next generation of Eurasian Water milfoil, etc.) comes into our state with inadequate attention by the limited DNR staff.

8.) MHL is appealing to our state legislators to represent the interests of Minnesota lakeshore property owners to enable them to maintain their shorelines in a clean and healthy state. A fairer balance between the interests of the general public, and lakeshore property owners, is requested. Property values are at stake!

9.) In addition, we are asking our legislators to require future proposed rule changes to be submitted and approved by the appropriate committees of both houses. Greater legislative oversight is needed.

[Team Otter]

Hookey,

Thanks for posting the additional information.

Send me an e-mail when you have a chance.

[Team Otter]

Received this e-mail from Jacquelyn Bacigalupi, Region 4 Habitat Specialist, MN DNR, yesterday. She was also in attendance at Gander Mountain on Tuesday, February 5.

Thanks for organizing a good discussion last week. We appreciate

hearing from the angler in forums such as these, and I will bring your

concerns up as our APM rule revision continues. The DNR has been

attempting to make rule changes in the current revisions to reduce the

amount of vegetation allowed for destruction at properties, and prevent

large stretches of denuded sediments. As you may be aware, rule

revisions only happen about every decade or so, so this is an opportune

time to get involved.

You as an organized group of angler have more power than I do in

getting your positions heard and incorporated into rules regarding

aquatic plant removal. I encourage you to stay involved.

Here is the website for the current rule revision:

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/input/rules/apm/index.html

look under process for current status: The DNR is currently in the

process of developing the draft rule and SONAR. Once the proposed rule

and SONAR is drafted it needs to be reviewed and approved by the DNR

Commissioner and Governor's Office. If approved the proposed rule is

published in the State register and a 30-day comment period follows. All

of the persons who were notified of the proposed rule during the request

for comments period as well as those people who have commented or

expressed an interest in the rule changes will receive notification and

information on how they can receive a copy of the proposed rule.

I just spoke with Steve Enger, our program supervisor about your

concerns last week, and he assured that there is still plenty of

opportunity for comment and input.

You can sign up on our site to be on a list-serve so that you are made

aware when the next comment period opens.

Could you please share this opportunity with other interested anglers.

Tell me this isn't good to hear...

[smnduck]

I am not trying to start a fight but when your post includes comments

#6 "clean shoreline" ?

Past the waterline is the general publics and should not be altered and what you do on your yard also effects the public resource.

#8 "Property values" ? Come on that is a joke!

When you by a lot that is in a muddy bay you have to expect that there will be weeds.

No one made you buy lakeshore. It was your choice.

Remeber that you are a steward of a public resource when you are a lakeshore lot owner and with that comes a responsibility not to alter it beyond recognition.

I grew up on a lake and my parents still own lake property so yes I do see both side of the fence.

I do see some of these invasive speices as a threat but to get rid of them by the means that are being used seems to be worse that leaving them be.

To put it into an intersting perspective, what will your great granchildren think of your actions when they are adults.

[250XB]

smnduck I am glad that someone out there thinks like I do. The group MHL are a bunch of rich lake home owners wanting to kill all the vegetation in lake if they could. They always want to use invasive species as an excuse to kill more. The people that are fighting to be allowed to kill more vegetation do not care about the lake and for the most part do not fish. This is why it is so important for the fisherman to get their voice heard. Please if you all care about our lakes call Steve Enger and let him know that you want the rules more restrictive.

[Team Otter]

This is why education is at the forefront of most of this. Your comments are not out of line and should be transpired into the right ears (i.e. Steve Enger). The time is now for the sportsmen to step up and make a difference.

Organizations that support a more liberal treatment plan have a much different definition of "healthy lake" than most. Unfortunate but true.

Be sure to communicate your concerns all the way to the top.

[Team Otter]

I plan to attend the Lake Washington Lake Association meeting this evening and present some concerns, etc. to the association members about the current treatment plan. I will update the group when I return.

Thanks.

[Team Otter]

I was at the Lake Washington Association meeting last night. I presented the following concerns and comments to Association members:

Historical Data on Chemical Use

Aquathol K (Liquid) and Aquathol Super K (Powder) is currently what is being used to chemically control the spread of curly leaf pondweed. There is ZERO historical data on long-term effects from the chemical being used on mammals, fish and water quality. An "unknown" is being applied.

Lake Washington has 19 native species of vegetation; one of the most diverse lakes in the area. Nearly 60% of those native plants have a moderate to high suspectibility to Aquathol K and Aquathol Super K. Being that native vegetation is allegedly not trying to grow until the curly leaf pondweed dies off in late June or early July, what's to say there isn't some negative effect on the native's chance to grow and survive?

Chemical Application Period

In order for Aquathol products to be effective, the chemical must be applied at or near 55 degrees F. This is also prime-time spawning temperatures and post-spawn recovery temperatures for nearly every species of fish in the lake. Chemical application potentially forces fish from their habitat and thus, poor spawn and/or recovery.

Environment and Native Vegetation Relationship

Curly leaf pondweed dies off in late June or early July. This is also when native vegetation should be thriving and ultimately attempting to "replace" the curly leaf pondweed. However, Mother Nature has a say in this; wind and water clarity often gets in the way. Native vegetation needs light to survive; in southern MN, water clairty and algae bloom is common-place in late June and early July. Is native vegetation getting a chance?

Treatment Areas and Suspect Activity

Property owner education is a must. Don't treat just to treat.

Modifications to individual properties beyond what regulation allows. What happened to the pencil reeds in The Narrows?

Active follow-up with MN DNR on lake surveys, etc.

There are 17 - 18 tiles that funnel into Lake Washington from surrounding areas. If chemical is applied to a treatment area where a tile is also coming in, does current carry the chemical to an area where it shouldn't be?

NOTE: The Lake Washington Association has applied for grant money that would potentially fund educational seminars on this very topic that would be open to property owners and/or the public. The Association is also set to reduce the amount of area treated on the lake by 20% each year, when applicable. In 2008, 2 lake surveys will be performed; one in May that will target curly leaf pondweed and one in August that will target native vegetation. One of the surveys will be done by the DNR Fisheries Department and the other will be done by a private consultant hired by the Association. There will be ~58 acres treated as compared to 93 acres treated in 2006.

Assocation members were very receptive to the discussion. I plan to regularly attend meetings to be sure and keep the topic in front of them.

[eyepatrol]

I don't want to stray too far off course from the original topic here, because it's a good one, but other factors to consider too are the watershed and what drains into these lakes. They can be about as damaging as any spraying chemical. Not only that, but chemical applications to lawns on homes that border the lake, leaky septic systems if they exist within the watershed, any oils or greases that make their way to the lake, etc. It seems in today's world there are more chemicals entering into lakes more than ever. Proper management of chemical applications both direct and indirect are crucial.

One of these days in the not too distant future I'm going to catch up and read up on what's being discussed here. And if there's any info to be gathered, I'll contact you TO about that. With the company I work for, I got people who I can talk to about things like this to try and gain further information and understanding.

[Team Otter]

That's not straying; it's all part of it. Phosphorous levels in lakes is a big deal, which is a result of some of the factors you list above.

Specifically, on Lake Washington, the Association is working on setting up a "buffer zone" for lawn fertilizing, etc. The property owners are also into their second year of a new septic system. There is more information on this on their website; http://www.lakewashingtonmn.com

[Team Otter]

Take two minutes to read the failed bill and understand what/who we are up against !

http://wdoc.house.leg.state.mn.us/leg/LS85/HF0893.0.pdf