Milfoil & Curly Leaf Pondweed - Closed Public Accesses Put Forward

[Tom7227]

The problem with spraying is it kills all weeds in the area. They don't selectively just kill milfoil or curlyleaf. If the lake associations had there way they would spray all the weeds till the were none left. That would be worse than dealing with those weeds.

Again I have to disagree. The Bald Eagle Area Association (BEAA) has used the advice of the Lake Doctor for the 11 years that the effort to control CLP has been taking place. The three years that chemicals have been used have been very successful. The chemical that is used is applied very early, before the native species have started to grow. They are approved by the Federal and State governments and the amount of area that is treated is carefully controlled by the DNR permitting system.

The BEAA has had yearly presentations by Steve McComas - The Lake Doctor - and he has explained the science and the results to the group a number of times.

There is no doubt in my mind that EWM and CLP are both detrimental to lakes, the use of the resource, and to fish and native plant populations. Denying it can only be based on a lack of knowledge of the science involved.

[mixxedbagg]

Quote:

We could all probably agree that in terms of pure recreation, sugar sand and weed free would be best, but you might be hard pressed to find any fish in there.

I won't disagree with you there--I'm not interested in seeing lakes turned into big, sandy, weedless, fishless swimming pools for a few lakeshore owners to play in. However, isn't it a stretch to say invasive plants are beneficial or somehow an adequate substitute for native varieties?

If I misunderstood the intent of the original post--my bad--but I'll just make (or reiterate) the point that we have to do everything we can to prevent the spread. Invasive species are bad news for any aquatic ecosystem.

[usmcjsy]

I will have to agree most that say they are for invasive species are for not being responsible boaters as far as pulling drain plugs and cleaning off weeds. As far as treatment of the problem I dont think we need to use tax payer money to fund all this. Just the stiff fines that are imposed should help cover it. Make the irresponsible people pay for it. As far as lake shore owners are concerned they should care and should have a voice. After all they are the keepers of the lake a lot of times. Would you care if someone threw garbage in your back yard..? Kinda the same thing. A lot of people live on the lakes year round. They are there to pick up the trash that comes ashore from the casual fisherman who does not live on the lake and does not care about it. They are there to pick up the blocks of wood that will come to shore from fisherman blocking up there fish house and left the wood blocks froze to the ice. They are often times the people who will let you use there phone and dock when you are having troubles with your boat. My in laws live year round on the lake and I have seen it all. They are concerned more than anyone on the water quality, and the fishing. So I would not throw lake property owners under the bus on this one. As far as the DNR is concerned they often times tell lake shore owners what they can and cannot do on their own property. So I would not be concerned with the DNR doing what lake shore owners want. If that was the case you would find a lot more houses on the lake. You would find a lot more shore lines being weed raked. You would find a lot more trees on the shore line being cut down as to not block the view of the lake from the house. I am not from the metro so I cannot say what goes on, on those lakes. However in western MN (otter tail lake area) I can tell you without the DNR and its rules you would not have the view from the boat or the nice weeded shore lines you do find. As some home owners would want the sugar sand beaches etc. Personally I would like to see less Jet Skis on the lake. So I can spend a quite day fishing and enjoying it, with out the annoying jet skier who has to jet ski as close as he can even though he has a whole part of the lake where no one is fishing.

[solbes]

I have spent 3 seasons combatting CLP on our shoreline. First off, let me say that I am not someone who wants to eradicate all weeds from shorelines. I like and appreciate natural shorelines. Native vegetation plays a very important role in the water ecosystem. We have many fish and wildlife on our shoreline beceause there is a lot of native and DIVERSE vegetation (lillipads, eelgrass, cabbage, coontail, etc).

I think people might have a different opinion of CLP if they spent some time around it (at least those who don't think it's bad for fish/water quality). It is a very insidious weed as it is already up and growing before any of the native plants get going. It also will also spread easily by plant cuttings, from turions that are dispersed (seeds), and by root regeneration if the lake bottom is disturbed. The fact that it so effecively displaces the native veg is what makes it evil IMO. I've seen lakes where it was ignored until it was far too late. The weed keeps growing until there is a massive mat layer on the surface. Eventually the plants die off in high summer, the phosphorous spikes, and the D.O. plummets. I can't see that helping any species of fish, if there was native veg present before the CLP.

We will never get rid of this weed, but I believe we can effectively control it if we keep it contained as best we can. Treatment has been a combination of some hand pulling and spot treatments of granular chemical applied early before the native weeds are up and growing (w/ DNR permits).

I am in full support of trying to prevent the spread of this stuff. Checking boats and trailers before leaving the access is critical IMO.

[kobear]

Does it seem ironic to back up the statement:

"they are essential nursery fish habitat and in many lakes, especially southern MN, the only submergent vegetation available to obligate vegetation spawners. In eutrophic and hypereutrophic lakes where vegetation is scarce, it can be the only vegetation available."

With comments like "I just haven't seen the scientific evidence".

Where is there any evidence for the previous statement? "it can be the only vegetation available."??? Where is there any evidence to support these claims? Has observation supported these claims or could these weeds actually be avoided by "obligate vegetation spawners". I know perch prefer old bulrushes and submerged brush and pike prefer flooded vegetaion and not in-lake weeds.

Exactly which fish are you referring to here or is this just a Chicken Little generalization in reaction to a proposal you dislike similar to the comments by the Kandiyohi offical about Green Lake and property values?

Now invasives are our savior come to remedy all the damage we have done to our lakes? This belief exists out there and your completely unsupported comments have only encouraged those who have already stated their intention to purposefully transfer these species around the state to negate any possible control efforts which are seen as "unreasonable burdens" both in personal effort and potential costs.

Invasives Okay, how about Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia?

[Wayne Ek]

Kobear, since Rick lives in southwestern Minnesota and is an avid angler I feel confident that his statements are supported by frequent observation.

[caseymcq]

... I have found no official study of milfoil, curly leaf or mussels that show them degrading water quality or degrading a fisherie. ...

Not exactly sure any of these would be the type of study you would be looking for, but here are a few articles on the subject.

The influence of an exotic submersed aquatic plant, Myriophyllum spicatum, on water quality, vegetation and fish populations of Kirk Pond, Oregon. Madsen et. al. 1995

The biology of Canadian weeds Aiken et. al. 1979

Effects of aquatic plants on water quality in pond ecosystems. In: Proceedings, 26 Annual Meeting, Aquatic Plant Control Research Program, Report A-92-2. Honnell et. al. 1992

Eurasian water milfoil appears to have a negative impact on acquatic ecosystems. It is less valuable as a food source to waterfowl. When the mats get to higher densities it negatively impacts the abundance of aquatic invertebrates. EWM reduces the foraging space for large predators. Both EWM and curly leaf pondweed commonly result in elevated phosphorus levels which in turn leads to excessive agal blooms. As a consequence when these large algal blooms die they decay and in the process result in a greater depletion of dissolved oxyegen.

[Jig Master]

Rick,

excellent post! Bullhead master and bobby malone obviously haven't looked at the big picture. The point is that invasive species should not be spread, but once they are already in a lake it is IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate them using current methods. That being said, spraying a bunch of toxic chemicals (and yes they are toxic) into a lake to kill millfoil or CLP will kill all aquatic vegetation in the area. According to companies that profit by spraying vegetation, native plants will grow after the foil or CLP dies, but I was told by the DNR this is very rare. Not to mention usually spraying is done when many NATIVE fish are spawning in the shallows. This disrupts the spawning cycle, as I've seen fish leave their beds after the chemicals are sprayed. The main point is that any vegetation is better than no vegetation. This is a very slippery slope, and spraying can get out of hand quickly. We need to make our voices heard.

[pondhopper]

This is indeed a tricky issue for lakes with invasives. Like some have said, milfoil and curly leaf pondweed contribute to increased phosphorus loading and subsequent decreases in dissolved oxygen levels. However, using chemicals treatments may also lead to a decrease in dissolved oxygen levels due to a decrease in the total number of plants both native and non-native. Less plants means less photosynthesizing. This is truly a complex issue with no easy solution. I do believe that the biological health of the lake (including the health of fish populations) should take precedence over recreational concerns.

[bullhead master]

Toxic posions are not the only way to control milfoil the possibilities are endless through biocontrol. Infact right now they are testing the milfoil weevil at the Minnesota State University that parisites the milfoil plant. The bug is natvie and there is little or no negative impacts on other aspects of aquatic systems. What i'm trying to say is that we can't just throw in the towel and give up we have the most lakes in the country we should be the leader in new invasive controls. think of all the things we could do if we can make a pig fluorescent you'd think we could get rid of a weed.

http://milfoilweevil.com/

[solbes]

According to companies that profit by spraying vegetation, native plants will grow after the foil or CLP dies, but I was told by the DNR this is very rare. Not to mention usually spraying is done when many NATIVE fish are spawning in the shallows. This disrupts the spawning cycle, as I've seen fish leave their beds after the chemicals are sprayed. The main point is that any vegetation is better than no vegetation.

1) I've seen native plants take back their territory after applying granular chemicals early on in the year (early May before the natives are growing). CLP dies, natives take back territory as water warms up.

2) Early may is usually in the 50-55 F range on our lake, so the pannies have not moved in yet. The chemical is only active for 24-72 hours and fish can move back if they were displaced.

3) Not sure I agree with any vegetation is better than no vegetaion. If there is no vegetation present at any time of the year, then maybe the invasives can offer SOME benefits. If a lake in southern MN is already eutrophic or hypereutrophic, I guess the loss in water quality from massive plant matter dieoff will be less noticeable.

[Tom7227]

Couple of points -

Again the Bald Eagle Lake Association (BEAA) with contributions made by lake shore owners has funded a control mechanism for over 10 years. There have been some matching funds from local government agencies, particularly the Metro Sewer Commission after massive sewage spills in the lake two years in a row. The BEAA spearheaded a successful effort to get a tax levied against all shore land owners and with the voluntary approval of the owners a tax has been levied against all the lake property owners to continue to fund these efforts.

There has been a lot of bashing of the 'rich lake owners who only want to protect their lake and not let anyone else on it.' I doubt that lake shore owners are more than 30% of the people that use Bald Eagle lake.

The efforts have been very successful. Those who want to throw in the towel and give up on invasives simply fail to spend time to research what can be done, and perhaps are unwilling to help in the effort.

For those that don't know the science behind the CLP issue and the impacts on lake vegetation and fish please feel free to begin your research at these websites.

CURLYLEAF PONDWEED - State of Indiana HSOforum

http://www.in.gov/dnr/files/CURLYLEAF_PONDWEED.pdf

Potamogeton crispus - Wikiopedia HSOforum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potamogeton_crispus

Herbicide Risk Assessment for the Aquatic Plant Management Final Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement - State of Washington HSOforum

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0010044.pdf

Global Investive Species Database - Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) of the IUCN Species Survival Commission.

http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=447&fr=1&sts=

Invasive, non-native species - Curly-leaf pondweed Minnesota DNR HSOforum

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural_res...f_factsheet.pdf

Curly-Leaf Pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) Wisconsin DNR HSOforum

http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/fact/curlyleaf_pondweed.htm

Basic Information about Endothall in Drinking Water - EPA HSOforum

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/endothall.cfm

Control - Littoral Zone Endothall Treatment State of Washington HSOforum

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/management/EndothallStrategies.html

[Rick]

Very good discussion going here.

To be clear, the facts and observations stated in the first post I made are not my own and I clearly made that distinction.

As for phosphorous loading, first off the plants do not add phosphorous to the lakes. Much of the loading is contributed to by another invasive species, man (Just a little ironic humor there)

With respect to the loading comments in eutrophic and hyper-eutrophic lakes I see the opposite as true for ewm & clp. As the milfoil mats die-off the wind blows them and their phosphorous content to shore where much of it is gathered and disposed of out of the water.

I want to be clear on this matter...lake shore owners overall are a good thing and most are great stewards of our lakes. The point is we as anglers need to be watchful for those whose interest does not lie with the fishery and that is why we need to be sure to attend the meetings to ensure your viewpoint is heard.

No matter which way you slice it, it's a political process and in a democracy those with the most and loudest voices have weight. Priorities on where OUR money will be spent are put in perspective at these meetings. If you're not there your voice won't be heard and the decision on where to spend YOUR MONEY will be influenced by those who DO ATTEND.

So again, check the first post and attend a meeting in your area.

Thanks again for the great discussion. Your voice is heard here as well.

[solbes]

I agree great discussion for all who are passionate about fishing in the Midwest. We all play a role in this, so information is critical.

Rick, I agree that man is probably the main input to lakes with regard to phosphorous (fertilizer, malfunctioning septic systems, field run-off). But CLP die-off does add to the phosphorous levels in the lake. Taken from the MN DNR fact sheet on CLP:

"In spring CLP can form dense mats that may interfere with boating and other recreation on lakes. CLP also can cause eocological problems because it can displace native aquatic plants. In mid-summer, CLP plants usually die back, which results in rafts of dying plants piling up on shorelines, and often is followed by an increase in phosphorous, a nutrient, and undesireable algal blooms."

Thanks for providing THE best site on the internet!

[Wayne Ek]

Solbes, my understanding is that plants need phosphorous to stay healthy. But do not produce it. That phosphorous enters the system (lake,pond,river) primarily from erosion,farms,septic/sewer systems and lawns. The plant absorbs the element and then releases it back into the system when it dies. I know that this is a very elementary discription and I could be way off base, but thats my understanding.

[bobbymalone]

Wayne that's absolutely correct. Because the plants accumulate nutrients in the form of biomass, you can even remove phosphorus and nitrogen from the lake by harvesting the plant.

Bullhead master and bobby malone obviously haven't looked at the big picture.

I think the big picture is greater than fish habitat. I am pretty sure nobody is under the illusion that you can cure an infested lake from milfoil. I'm not sure where you live, but unfortunately for the metro there are some lakes that are literally (or littorally if your into bad puns ) choked to death with milfoil. Unusable for basically any recreational purpose and not doing any fish or wildlife any favors either. In those types of cases I'm for responsible use of chemicals or preferably other control methods.

I don't think public policy that even hints at embracing these invasive plants is a good idea. I'm fine with how it's handled now: Minimal concessions to help prevent the spread combined with an aggressive public awareness program. As far as the infested lakes, live with it until it becomes a severe problem and deal with it when it does.

I'm all for a higher stringency on chemical use, but I don't think that showcasing fish habitat is the right strategy to that end nor do I think chemical use is the issue behind this push to showcase increased fish habitat.

[JoeE]

Fish are a part of an entire ecosystem. When one focus's on a single or a few species we start to stray from what a healthy ecosystem is like. Yes, aquatic species are an important part of a lakes health. But there are dozens of native species of milfoils, pondweeds, and others that have formed a balance with any given body of water. And as stated by other posters who have a great understanding of what this means to the aquatic invertebrates all the way up to larger species of fish, amphibians, etc- non-native aquatic vegetation can and will change the structure of an entire lake very quickly! This will have a domino effect throughout the lake that can quickly change the already existing fish population structure. It might lead to more of one species and less of another. Each lake is very unique and will be altered in its own unique way.

A problem with these non-natives is that they are very good at outcompeting native species. And in many bodies of water there are sensitive, threatened and sometimes endangered aquatic species that can be wiped out by these non-natives. Aquatic invertebrates also have special niches to individual species of native aquatic plants and plant communities. The problem with introducing and having non-native aquatics is that there are often a lot fewer native invertebrates and other predators that have evolved to feed and utilize those plant species for breeding, etc. This is why when non-natives of any type, especially plants, enter an area they can often dominate and out compete the natives that exist- they have no natural predators to keep the plant in check!

In lakes, especially eutrophic lakes, we see problems with dissolved oxygen when a plant species becomes very thick. This can become very problematic with fish kills, especially in the winter when the stems and leaves of the plants are desiccating and actually consuming oxygen from the water which isn’t being replenished. The list of problems go on and on.

I think people who have a singular mindset towards fisheries and wildlife management with an interest in only a few species start to make waves and undermine work that biologists have worked very hard for actually do damage towards the greater good and work being done. Leave management to those who have been studying and working in this field to do their work. Invasive species management isn’t draining any budget and does a lot of good in not only reducing the impact of invasive species, but also educates and gets the public to take notice of these problems which your dedicated biologists have worked hard to address! No, sometimes solutions to these problems don’t do so well. But it is a process and there are many success stories along with the failures.

[MN Greenheads]

I have first hand experience watching the DNR-White Bear Lake Conservation District "OVER MANAGE" water millfoil. I am not pro invasive-exotics. There are many cases where they over run a lake and need to be treated.

White Bear Lake was not a lake that needed to be treated. I fished on the lake once a week in the spots that they said had the worst millfoil problems. What I observed first hand was simply Millfoil growing to within 1 ft of the surface in a small band offshore for two months a year. It was not a problem to boat around and the area was maybe 25 acres out of total 2400 lake acres. The area was great fishing as 3 walleyes over 8 lbs were taken out of there in one June. What I then saw was people carrying on that there were huge millfoil problems on WBL. THERE WASN"T, The area was a problem for large sailboats/yachts to navigate as their keels extend 5 ft below the water. This changed the race courses for the people at the White Bear Yact Club. They and lakeshore owners who like things neat and tidy on the lake got the conservation district to treat not only the 25 acres that were a problem exclusive to the yacht races but treat the maximum 15 % of the weeded area of the Lake. I saw the district first hand up the treatment acres not out of careful deliberation or biolgical consulting but on a 10 min discussion and a vote. The DNR rubber stamped the request as all you need to do is throw a grapple hook out and have a percentage of the weeds that come back be millfoil. Millfoil sticks to a grapple hook better than any other weeds so their sampling method is biased. I can tell you most of the areas treeated were a mix of weeds not millfoil exclusivly.

The area was then treated -It stunk like Ammonia for days, The treatment killed native millfoil as well as invasive, It also killed coontail as the millfoil that was killed had coon tail in it that the millfoil must have ripped out when it died. The tags said no drinking but said you could swim. I have a dock there and my children and I swim on the lake 4 times a week. I swam and was nauseated after swimming. The lakes clarity has been much much lower since the treatment and fishing on the east and peninsula area has been poor since ( my observation and others). The west side which wasn't treated has had some of the best fishing ever.

I am against over treating millfoil and other weeds as they are in balance in many lakes and provide many benefits. Treating a lake is something that should be done only when needed by the majority of interests and not because one or two special interests have some limits put on them for a short time by invasives.

Where are the meetings and when? Please let me know.

[Rick]

Check the first post in this thread for meeting places & times.

[Scott M]

I am against over treating millfoil and other weeds as they are in balance in many lakes and provide many benefits. Treating a lake is something that should be done only when needed by the majority of interests and not because one or two special interests have some limits put on them for a short time by invasives.

MN Greenheads gets it. I fished White Bear in college and I agree, there isn't enough littoral area to be worried about too much milfoil. To say it impedes boat traffic is going too far; the break lines come fast enough that it isn't long after you leave your dock that you are in 15-20 feet of water. The point of this thread is about finding the balance between control of nuisance levels and maintaining fish habitat.

The concern is treatment of these plants in some cases removes valuable fish habitat, like the plants available for vegetation spawning fish species as well as functional vegetation nursery habitat. In southern Minnesota where there already is less plant diversity and challenges with algal shading, these plants may be the only vegetation or cover for all fish species, so a large habitat component is lost with wide-spread treatment.

There are fringe benefits too. These plants may be the only plants available to buffer wind action from putting sediments in suspension and locking up phosphorus that might otherwise fuel algal blooms.

Nobodies saying that there aren't negative effects on lake ecosystems from invasive plants, there just needs to be a balance so the fish habitat side of the equation is considered too. That's why it would be nice if some of the folks that fish waters where Eurasian watermilfoil and curlyleaf pondweed are important plants to fish, could attend meetings or submit comments. See Rick's first post.

[harvey lee]

Seems from what I have seen on Washington where it was sprayed, all the old weed beds that were in numerous locations are now gone.

I do not want any chemicals dumped into our lakes to kill all weeds. Who knows the effect from all the chemicals that are dumped imto the lakes to try and control the weeds or exotics.

Could be that 10 years or more from now, fish will have knobs on them from the chemicals dumped into the lake.

[MN Greenheads]

I can only imagine how bad overtreatment would be on a S. MN Lake that has some depth and marginal water clarity. If you had weeds that only went out to a 8 ft depth, which would be typical in a southern MN lake. Then you have lakeshore property owners clearing their percentage of weeds.Then throw in the DNR helping with allowing groups to treat 15% of the littoral zone (15 ft. or less). You would have a quite large percentage of the weeds being treated.

That is a large portion of cover, O2 production and invertabrate life that fish need. Not to mention the fact that when you kill off weeds you are creating a massive compost heap that would accelerate "eutrophication" or in layman's term "mud-hole-ization".

The DNR needs to know that the use of large scale herbicide treatments should be done judiciously and only when called for by the majority of interests of which one of the most important should be fishing.

[Wayne Ek]

For those of you who think this issue is going to go away, please take note: In the Alexandria Echo Press today there is an article about the county board appointing a citizens committee to advise the board on options to "stop the spread of and possibily eradicate zebra mussels."

One of the appointees is also the President of the Lobster Lake Association and I believe a officer of the state association. In the article this appointee told the county board "they will likely be asked to support some radical zebra mussel containment ideas, including closing boat accesses. It is certainly time for people to take a close and rational look at the problem. But the article leads me to believe that these concerned folks have already taken a predisposed position, that is in fact extremely radical. The full article is on line at the Echo Press.

[Joe Pallardy]

My name is Joe Pallardy, I am a graduate student at MSU-Mankato. I believe CLP can be successfully harvested prior to senescence thereby reducing the contribution of phosphorus from CLP. I am trying to develop a grant proposal that would research the effects of different treatment options on the fishery of a given lake (Chemical vs. mechanical harvesting). I have done substantial work on investigating the potential for TP removal via mechanical harvest. My goal is to use CLP to provide valuable fishery habitat early in the year with a target harvest date prior to CLP senescence. If you would like to know more about my research and the grant I am proposing I can send you a copy of my thesis and a copy of the grant proposal. If we can get enough people on board, maybe we can get this passed. My research was conducted on the Jefferson German Chain, if you have fished the shallow areas of this lake in May and June you know how bad the CLP can get but also how much fish it possibly supports. I am not proposing a complete harvest of all CLP but rather the harvesting of channels that will ideally create feeding lanes for gamefish and ultimately ideally increase the size structure of panfish in these basins. By the way, I am an avid fisherman, spending as much time on the water as possible although that is not much as I am attempting to finish up this thesis and work full time at MSU. My email is [email protected], I welcome all comments good or bad.

[Joe Pallardy]

I will be presenting a poster highlighting findings from my research at the conference in Mankato on March 2nd from 6:30 to 8:30. Please feel free to stop by with any questions you have. The location is firestation #2 in mankato.