BCLARA Forwards Dock Resolution to County

At last night's quarterly meeting, the Beltrami County Lakes and Rivers Association (BCLARA) forwarded a resolution to the Beltrami County Board encouraging them to exercise the option to opt of the DNR's General Permit on Dock Platforms (link opens an Adobe pdf file). As the text of the resolution reveals, opting out the General Permit would mean that the current, legitimately promulgated rules would continue to be in force in Beltrami County until the DNR completes a badly needed comprehensive revision of rules on docks and accessory structures. The Beltrami County Board may consider this resolution as early as next Tuesday. If you think your County might be interested in opting out, the text of the BCLARA resolution provides an excellent model.

MinnPost

Came across MinnPost a few days ago and am intrigued. Growing up in a newspaper family I have been saddened by the decline (and demise) of local print media. MinnPost looks to be an interesting (and potentially even viable!) alternative that offers the immediacy of on-line media coupled with the journalistic standards of traditional newspapers. I've been checking in daily and find the depth, breadth, and scope of the reporting very encouraging. I haven't ponied up any $$$ yet but am at least thinking about doing so... /dps

Dock and Accessories Structure Model

In preparing for tonight meeting of the Beltrami County Lakes and Rivers Association (BCLARA) I developed a simple model to assess potential ecological impacts of docks and accessory structures. Based on typical dock configurations as provided to the Dock Advisory Committee by DH Docks, I calculated the total coverage of the shallow water littoral area for 1 mile of shoreline on a General Development lake with 75' lots (click image to enlarge). The bottom line: if configured as indicated, docks and accessory structures cover 1/4 of the shallow littoral area.

At least as important ecologically as total area of coverage is the relationship between perimeter and area. As nearshore habitats are fragmented by docks and accessory structures, predation corridors are opened providing access to shallow water nursery habitats (this is why actively feeding largemouth bass are frequently found around docks). Because fragmentation linearly increases perimeter length while simultaneously decreasing area as a square function, vulnerability of young of the year fish increases dramatically. As a preliminary and conservative working estimate, typical dock configurations reduce the ratio of nursery area to predatory perimeter from 70 to 19 square feet of refuge per foot of perimeter. /dps

Overwater coverage: last one for Minne-Tom-Ka

Tom seems to think that 25-40% coverage of the nearshore littoral is unrealistic. Think again. This sort of configuration is not rare and is in becoming increasingly common in some areas of the Minnesota.

Minne-Tom-Ka II

In a comment on my previous previous post Tom wrote:

Many of us Minnetonka lakeshore owners are happy with our lake, the way it is, that's why we choose to live here. Property values are proof that many people feel this lake is worth paying for in it's current state. Our main concern is invasive species, excessive boat traffic and the like. Our dock policy is being dictated by non stake-holders such as you, with little knolwdge of our concerns.

My reply: With milfoil and excessive boat traffic you really don't sound that happy. And with respect to dock policy, it is actually the other way around. In the case of the recent DNR General Permit, dock policy across the state is being dictated by the whims of a few people who have already adopted ecologically destructive practices. Many of the problems with Lake Minnetonka are directly a result of these practices. Large boats and high levels of motorized boat traffic disturb lake sediment providing colonizing opportunities for milfoil. Attempt to control milfoil chemically and/or mechanically are band-aids at best, temporarily alleviating the problem in one area but exporting vegetative fragments around (and out of the lake). Limitations on boat and engine size, prohibition of boat traffic in sensitive nearshore areas, and protection of native vegetation might have prevented some of these problems but that opportunity appears to be gone.

Tom: Government agencies such as the the DNR and Hennepin County have encouraged the heavy traffic on our lake by making public access a priority above all other factors. If theses agencies had spent more resources on IAS prevention rather than maximizing public usage, we may very well have ended up with a better lake for public usage.

My reply: Public access to public waters seems to me to be an entirely appropriate priority. Moreover, IAS prevention is of limited value since invaders by definition are highly prolific. Unless you are suggesting careful inspections of every entering boat the effects of such labor-intensive policing are likely to be negligible. In the end, the most effective means of controlling invasive plant species is to minimize invasability by maintaining native plant communities and limiting the extent of disturbed sediments in near shore areas.

Tom: Your disdane and sarcasm for lakeshore owners with differing views from yours really has no place in a public discourse. Despite your confidence, there is nothing that makes your view more "right" than anyone else.

My reply: Tom, I have no disdain for lakeshore property owners as a group -- I am one myself after all -- and as to perceived sarcasm I can only say "if the shoe fits, wear it." I am weary of political bluster and a sense of entitlement masquerading as 'sound science.' Finally, there is in fact something that makes my view "more right" than yours and that is the fact that I and many others have taken the time to understand some things about the ecological dynamics of aquatic systems. While our understanding is far from complete and there are many uncertainties, the consequences of habitat fragmentation and changes in phosphorus cycling are well established. If we want the best for Minnesota's public waters, let's get rid of politically appointed commissioners and put resource decisions back in the hands of resource professionals.

Reply to Minne-Tom-ka

Written in response to comments from Tom from Minnetonka:

Hi Tom:

Using Lake Minnetonka as a model for what is desirable in Minnesota lakes is really pretty funny if you think about it for a moment. Minnetonka is in many ways a poster child for seriously messed up lakes.

Tom wrote: "Have you seen all the vegetation in Minnetonka?? Rooted vegetation has taken over the nearshore areas of the lake "

Yes, and much of that vegetation is eurasian milfoil, with its introduction and spread enhanced by heavy boat traffic and shoreline area disturbances. Like most invasive species, milfoil is a good colonizer but a relatively poor competitor...it flourishes mainly in heavily disturbed habitats (like Minnetonka). The flourishing milfoil locks up quite a bit of P and is the most likely cause for any observed increases in water clarity since the late 1980s.

By the way, a review of the most recent PCA water clarity data and DNR fisheries data do not support your earlier assertion that things are improving on Minnetonka. The last few years have shown declines in clarity in most areas and other than milfoil-philic LM bass and yellow bullheads the fishery is relatively unimpressive.

Tom wrote: Wouldn't sound science dictate that cleaning up ground water runoff does far more to eliminate algae than reducing platform size. Platfrom size is just too small an area in relation to the total, size of a body of water. Reducung the size of platforms would have a neglible effect on alge production. Where is your science on this??

Yes. Controlling phosphorus inputs is the primary means to enhancing water clarity. Ironically, Minnetonka property owners generally have resisted the vegetative buffers that would accomplish this end. As to platforms size and impact, I have done the math. Light penetration required for photosynthesis declines exponentially with depth so near shore areas are particularly effective at capturing and locking-up phosphorus (ideally in diverse and undisturbed native plant communities rather than eurasian milfoil). In many heavily developed areas, dock and accessory structures cover 25-40% of habitat less than one meter deep. The consequences for phosphorus cycling are actually quite dramatic.

With respect to so-called 'sound science,' decisions about platforms (as well as docks and accessory structures) need to be taken out of the politically-driven commissioner's office and put back in the hands of resource professionals in the field. If that were done, few if any large platforms would receive individual permits. What we have seen in the playing out of this dock platform issues is just another small sidebar in the larger Nordquist-Rove orchestrated Republican war on science.

Tom wrote: Spending funds on platform restrictions & enforcemts seems to be an inefficient waste of our tax dollars. Tax dollars could do far more good for water quality in our state if spent where they accomplish the most good.

I agree that it is unfortunate that we need to spend limited resources attempting to control the (ignorantly?) destructive nearshore practices of a few reckless and selfish shoreline property owners. One would hope that their vested interest in their investment would steer them in the right direction but that does not seem to work (at least in a growing number of cases). Think again of the proposals for vegetative buffers noted earlier.

Time for me to get back to more productive work. Thank you again for your comments. /dps

More on docks...

Anonymous left another comment on my previous post "Docks again...":

Dann, Sorry to be anonymous before. I don't know why that bothers you. I simply don't have a blogger account, so I chose "Anonymous." My name is Mark, if that helps. You replied that you have "consistently tried to made the distinction between "the well-heeled few" and "a well-heeled few."You are QUOTED in the Tribune:The agency "caved in to the wishes of the well-heeled few and compromised its mission to protect the public waters,"

Siems said. Looks like "THE" instead of "A" to me!

I replied:

Hi Mark,

Anonymity itself is really no problem with me...it just makes it difficult to initiate a dialogue. Anyway, remember that in the newspaper business what is quoted is not always exactly what was stated (although I think Tom Meersman captured the essense of my comments well). As a member of the Dock Advisory Committee, I made the point repeatedly that the vast majority of property owners (regardless of relative wealth) have compliant docks. However, the few non-compliant docks that sparked the current abuse of the General Permit process were in fact owned by relatively wealthy whiners. The point remains the same -- a well heeled few with some hazy sense of personal entitlement feel it is their right to usurp a public resource and complain when they are held accountable.

Minnesota lakes are a public commonwealth. If a person attempts to extend his real estate by building a shed (or seasonally storing a fish house) on public land, they will be expected to remove it. Same goes for docks and lakes. Dock are by definition priviledged intrusions on a public resource and, according to legitimately promulgated rules, are therefore limited to structures that impose minimal impact solutions to demonstrated needs. No need for large platforms has been demonstrated or even attempted. Attempts to slide platforms toward legitimacy through a back door General Permit is inexcusable. The size of platforms authorized under this General Permit would seldom, if ever, be authorized by an Individual Permit. Let's have a legitimate rule making process work toward a badly needed comprehensive revision of dock rules.

Chris had some different objections:

I would argue that the key phrase is "to provide outdoor recreation opportunities"

[My reply: For whom? Lakeshore residents only? We are a small fraction of Minnesotans.]

Dann, I personally take offense to your terminology. My platform has never hosted a party, it does however provide enough space for the family fish and swim. I would prefer if you used "Family Platform" from now on. I have also asked Sen. Mary Olson to use the term "Family Platform".

[My reply: Family platform? Party platform? I actually prefer the more neutral term "patio platform" since they are essentially room size structures. In any case, the fact remains that they are unnecessary private intrusions on a public resource.]

I also took offense to the Bemidji Pioneers' editorial stating that many people "skirted the rules". when they constructed their docks pre 2002.

[My reply: The did skirt the rules. See MN Rules Part 6115.0210 and also 6115.o170 Subpart 7 for the definition of a dock].

Finally Tom L from Lake Minnetonka wrote:

You say you have the science to back up your desire to restrict dock platform size. But the anecdotal evidence does not back you up. Despite the introduction of many large docks and platforms on Lake Minnetonka over the last 20 years, the fishing is better than ever, and the water quality has been improving steadily. This runs exactly counter to your argument. The only thing that seems to be suffering is the lakeshore owners themselves, who are taxed more than ever, while the use and enjoment of their property is under constant attack.

My reply:

Unfortunately for Tom, the science is solidly counter to his anecdotal evidence. Habitat fragmentation and shift in productivity away from rooted vegetation and toward algae are inevitable consequences of proliferating docks and accessory structure. If the fishing and the water quality on Lake Minnetonka have improved it is in spite of docks, not because of them.

Docks again...

I have been getting mail regarding my comments in Tom Meersman's piece in today's Strib. To save duplication I'll post sample messages and my replies here.

John H of East Gull Lake wrote:

I did not appreciate your following comments in today's Star Tribune; The agency "caved in to the wishes of the well-heeled few and compromised its mission to protect the public waters," Siems said. Twenty years ago lakeshore owners typically had a narrow dock that could accommodate one or two boats, said Siems. Today it's not uncommon for wealthy lakeshore owners to have a fishing boat, a pontoon, a speedboat for waterskiing, and a couple of personal watercraft, he said, some or all of them covered by canopies.

Nothing in the 2008 General Permit prevents property owners from installing docks to accommodate a fishing boat, a pontoon, a speedboat for waterskiing, and a couple of personal watercraft. The 2002 DNR regulations also allow sufficient dockage to accommodate such a fleet, with canopies. I don't appreciate your injection of "class warfare" into the discussion.

I have a lake home in the Brainerd area. Whether you consider me and my neighbors "well-heeled", I can assure you, we all are very concerned about the quality of the water and shoreline in and surrounding our lakes. If the rules are going to be changed regarding dock size, they should be based on sound science and not anecdotal ramblings from one political side or another.

Your comments in today's Star Trib do not contribute to a fact based solution but rather serve to enflame the situation, expose your envy-based agenda and diminish your credibility in participating in a solution that is fair to all interested parties.

My reply:

Mr H:

I concur entirely that the dock decision should be based on science. The relevant scientific facts are these:

(1) Docks and accessory structures fragment nearshore habitat increasing vulnerability of young of the year fish to predation. This is well established in the scientific literature for anyone who takes the time to look. By the way, this is also why docks and accessory structures tend to concentrate predators (e.g., largemouth bass).

(2) Docks and accessory structures reduce the extent and coverage of nearshore rooted vegetation necessarily shifting primary productivity toward algae which reduces water clarity and compromises ecosystem function. This also is a fact well established in primary, peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Because of these two facts and other related ecological concerns, current DNR rules dictate that docks must provide 'minimum impact solutions to demonstrated needs.' No need for party platforms has been established, only a sense of entitlement based on ability to pay. Therefore, one can only conclude that the Commissioner 'caved' to the wishes of a well-heeled few (over the objections of both the state-wide Dock Advisory Committee and his own resource professionals).

The continuing expansion of docks and the the proliferation of accessory structures threatens ecological function, public accessibilty, and natural aesthetics of Minnesota waters. As we on the Dock Advisory Committee recognized, Minnesota dock rules are badly in need of revision. Instead of taking that legitimate path, the DNR Commissioner instead chose to abuse the General Permit process by authorizing structures that would have never been allowed under Individual Permits. Moreover, the Commissioner's decision to force counties to opt out of the provisions of this ill-conceived General Permit only serve to export the dock problems from your area to other parts of Minnesota.

I am sorry you feel that my comments enflame the situation. My intent is only to bring some legitimacy to a process that has, to this point, ignored science in favor of politics. By the way, I have no "envy based agenda" as you so smugly assume. I am fortunate enough to own lakeshore property; my sole interest is in protecting Minnesota lakes for all Minnesotans, for generations to come. From my pespective, the interests of advocates of large dock platforms look like nothing more than short-term self gratification.

Sincerely,

Dann

An anonymous poster here on WaterBlog wrote:

Your continued reference to lake property owners as the "well-heeled-few" is getting on my nerves. There are many of us who make less than you! This is not about rich against poor.

Since the above response was anonymous, I could not reply directly so note that...

I have consistently tried to made the distinction between "the well-heeled few" and "a well-heeled few." Most Minnesotans lucky enough to own lakeshore don't abuse the priviledge. Unfortunately, a rather loud and arrogant few feel that connections, wealth, and, yes, property taxes paid, somehow entitle them to flaunt clear and explicit rules regarding dock size. I happen to disagree.

As to vaporous speculation about our relative incomes, I seriously doubt that there are many platform dock advocates that make less than I do. For what it is worth, I didn't set out to frame this as a class issue, it simply is a class issue. The vast majority of Minnesotans do not have sufficient discretionary resources to purchase and maintain such structures but they do have a right to expect that the DNR will protect the integrity and accessibility of public waters. I agree that this matter is not fundamentally about rich versus poor. It is, however, about short-sighted self interest and a sense of priviledge on the one hand versus long-term ecological integrity of lakes on the other.

In the Strib article, DNR Division of Waters Director Kent Lokkesmoe suggested
that the agency came up with a reasonable compromise:

"Typically when there's lots of people unhappy on both sides, we may be on the right spot."

My reply:

A General Permit for platforms may be a "reasonable compromise" but that is not the job of the the DNR. According its own website, “Our mission is to work with citizens to conserve and manage the state's natural resources, to provide outdoor recreation opportunities, and to provide for commercial uses of natural resources in a way that creates a sustainable quality of life.” The key phrase here is 'to conserve and manage the states natural resources....in a way that creates a sustainable quality of life.' On that score, compromises that 'compromise' the ecological integrity of Minnesota waters are simply wrong and represent a miscarriage of mission.

There is no virtue in a compromise between right and wrong. As to what is right, Aldo Leopold summed it up nicely when he wrote: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise."

Beltrami County Considers DNR Dock Permit

At yesterday's work session the Beltrami County Board decided not to opt out the DNR's recently issued General Permit for platform docks. The headline on Brad Swenson's article in today's Pioneer suggests that the Beltrami County Board 'steers clear of lake dock issue.' However, that is not an accurate assessment. In reality, by tacitly affirming an ill-concieved and probably illegal General Permit, the county effectively chose to wade directly into the docks controversy. If and when the General Permit is challenged in court, it will almost certainly be overturned because the relationship between General and Individual Permits is clear and explicit. General Permits are allowed only to streamline the bureaucracy in cases where Individual Permits would be routinely authorized. Individual permits are authorized based on demonstrated need. As Dan Thul explained at yesterday's session, no need for large platforms has ever been demonstrated and it is indeed difficult to imagine what might constitute a need sufficient to usurp public access to a public resource.

If there is a successful court challenge, as appears quite likely, any platforms authorized under the General Permit will need to be removed. Does Beltrami County really want to be party to that controversy? I emailed the commissioners encouraging them to consult with the County Attorney concerning potential county exposure if and when the General Permit is overturned in court. Might the decision not to opt out of the General Permit be a construed as county-specific approval of large dock platforms? It seems at least conceivable that a shrewd and effective lawyer might successfully make that case.

LakeTides

The University of Wisconsin Extension Lakes Program publishes an excellent newsletter called LakeTides and all issues are available on-line in both pdf and html formats. There is a wealth of sound and easily readable information there that would be great for lake association newsletters.

February HydroClim Newsletter

The Feburary edition of the HydroClim newsletter is now available online.