Ask Beltrami SWCD...

June HydroClim Minnesota

2009-06-03T11:34:00.000-07:00

The June edition of HydroClim Minnesota is available on-line. Surprising how much of the state is already in abnormally dry conditions. /dps

One hundred questions...

2009-04-23T12:26:00.000-07:00

The journal Conservation Biology has an early on-line release of a fascinating multi-author essay entitled "One Hundred Questions of Importance to the Conservation of Global Biological Diversity". The essay is based on an extensive dialogue and survey process and it groups the questions identified into twelve sections: ecosystem functions and services, climate change, technological change, protected areas, ecosystem management and restoration, terrestrial ecosystems, marine ecosystems, freshwater ecosystems, species management, organizational systems and processes, societal context and change, and impacts of conservation interventions. I have posted a two-page, pared down Adobe pdf version of just the questions (which I originally developed as a hand-out for next week's final session of my Conservation Biology course).

The questions presented provide an interesting look over the horizon and suggest emerging issues and concerns. Because the five questions related to Freshwater Ecosystems (#54-58) are of particular interest to me, I list them in full below:

How can freshwater biodiversity and ecosystem service values best be incorporated in the design of water-provisioning schemes for direct human use and food production?
Which aquatic species and communities are most vulnerable to human impacts, and how would their degradation affect the provision of ecosystem services?
Where will the impacts of global climate change on hydrology be most extreme, and how might they affect freshwater species and the ability of wetlands and inland waters to deliver ecosystem services?
Which multinational governance, cross-sector cooperation arrangements, and finance mechanisms will make freshwater ecosystem management more effective and reduce international conflicts over water?
How does investment in restoration of wetlands and riparian areas compare with construction of dams and flood defenses in providing cost-effective improvements in flood management and the storage and retention of water for domestic, industrial, and
agricultural use?

The third question, related to climate change impacts on freshwater systems, is particularly relevant to those of use living in mid-continent, mid-latitude locations, a fact underscored by a feature article in today's Strib on water quality in west-metro lakes. Reduced rainfall last summer appeared to limit external nutrient loading thus resulting in clearer water. In contrast, and more locally, our data from Grace Lake suggest that longer hotter summers, which result in extended periods of stratification and consequent increased internal loading, will result in dramatic increases in mid-summer algal growth with corresponding shifts in fish communities and overall aesthetic appeal. In any case, a changing climate will fundamentally reshape the dynamics of ecological processes in our lakes and rivers (in ways we are only beginning to understand).

Note: The fifth freshwater question is also especially relevant regionally given the extent of northern Minnesota wetlands and the on-going flood related issues in the Red River Valley.

HydroClim Minnesota April 2009

2009-04-08T06:33:00.000-07:00

The April edition of HydroClim Minnesota is now available. While March was very wet in much of northern Minnesota, it was quite dry in other parts of the state (a few of which are in Moderate Drought status). There is also some interesting material concerning the Red River Valley flooding that is worth a look. Enjoy!

Ice out progress 2009

2009-03-18T06:24:00.000-07:00

Last spring I made a short post here linking to daily satellite imagery useful for monitoring ice-out progress. This University of Wisconisn based site has now been moved to http://ge.ssec.wisc.edu/modis-today/ and I have learned a bit more about how to get maximum utility out of the images. When you get to the site, first click anywhere within the boundary Minnesota which will open the USA3 image for the day. Next choose the '250m' scale to zoom in. Now for the cool part...select the 'false color' option and any open water will be immediately obvious! As another hint to anyone following ice-out progress on the Rainy River, toggle off the 'State borders' so as to not mask image data. Enjoy!

Urban metabolism and the pace of rural life

2009-03-17T12:02:00.001-07:00

In the course of looking for something else, I came across a fascinating paper on "urban metabolism" (see pdf of Bettencourt, L. and others. 2007. Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104(17): 7301-7306 ). Among many other interesting things, this article shows that mean walking speed increases as function of population (see top figure). For those not familiar with natural logarithmic scales, what the figure shows is that in a city of around 3000 people (~e⁸), average walking speed is about 1 meter per second (e⁰) . In a village of 400, average walker velocity slows to roughly 0.8 meters per second while in a city of 1.2 million the typical pedestrian is hustling along at 1.5 meters per second.

Two things are remarkable about this finding. First, and as is shown in the lower figure, metabolic rates of individual organisms typically decrease as body size increases. Somehow, cities as organic entities function in a way that is fundamentally different than what we see in individual animals. Second, the incredibly tight scaling of walking speed to city size is extraordinary. That such a basic human behavior is so closely tied to population density has profound implications for the way we perceive the world.

As I have worked with lakshore property owners from around Minnesota over the past couple years I have often been struck by the starkly contrasting perspectives of urban and rural residents. Perhaps this work offers a hint at why what we value here in northern Minnesota is so different than what is valued by residents of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. If population density can influence our mean walking speed is it any wonder that it might also influence more subtle attitudes and behaviors?

'...what that must do to their souls, how different they must be in their private concerns and evaluations and wishes.' -- Dean Moriarty, in Kerouac's 'On The Road'

Motorized Watercraft Effects in Aquatic Ecosystems

2009-03-05T11:17:00.000-08:00

As the intensity of boat traffic and typical horsepowers increase with demographically-driven(re-)development of lakeshore, we have reason to be concerned about adverse impacts of boat motors on aquatic ecology. Asplund (2000) provides an excellent and understandable 21-page review of relevant studies. Unfortunately, the trends revealed are more than a little disconcerting. Asplund's review deserves wide circulation among lake associations and others concerned with maintaining ecological integrity of our lakes and streams.

As the preceding fihure shows, adverse impacts are not limited to very shallow areas. A 100 HP motor can stir-up phosphorus-laden bottom sediments down to water depths of 18 feet! When the paper this figure is derived from was published in 1991, a 100 HP motor was near at the upper end -- now motors in excess of 200 HP are relatively common even on small lakes.

Prop wash can greatly increase turbidity, re-suspend algae stimulating phosphorus, and disturb critical spawning and nursery habitat for fish and other aquatic animals. Perhaps most critically, prop wash can destroy plant communities effectively "plowing" lake bottoms and opening sediments to invasive species such as Eurasion watermilfoil (EWM).

Want to reduce the likelihood and adverse impacts of EWM on your lake? Consider comprehensive educational campaigns or local ordinances to reduce damage to native plant communities caused by careless (though seldom malicious) powerboaters. That will, of course, be a very tall order since old habits die hard.

One excellent place to start would be to provide signage at accesses discouraging the now almost ubiquitous practice of power-loading (i.e., driving your boat on to the trailer) . Power-loading produces a pronounced scour hole and wide spread sedimentation at just the place where invasive species are most likely to enter a lake. In effect, power-loading is equivalent to putting out a welcome mat for Eurasion watermilfoil and other invasive plants. With spring just around the corner, it is time to think about such things...

March HydroClim Minnesota

2009-03-03T14:18:00.000-08:00

The March edition of HydroClim Minnesota has been posted. This past meteorological winter was 3-6 degrees F below the long term average and was the coldest since 2000-2001. Major flooding of the Fargo-Moorhead area appears to be a near certainty. Have a look!

DNR Restructures around Watersheds

2009-02-24T06:11:00.000-08:00

The Minnesota DNR announced last Friday that its Divisions of Waters and Ecological Resources will be combined into a new division focused on Watershed Management. This is definitely a step in the right direction. As I noted in previous posts and detailed in my paper submitted to the legislature, watersheds comprise natural landscape units and should become the jurisdictional boundaries not only for resource management but for other social and political functions as well. For example, I would like to see 50 watershed-based units replace our 87 arbitrarily delineated counties. We are at a unique historical moment and have an opportunity to fundamentally restructure natural resource management (and state-local governance) in ways that prepare us to participate fully in a global green ecconomy.

January HydroClim Minnesota

2009-01-08T07:16:00.000-08:00

The latest HydroClim Minnesota report is now on-line. Reports on snow depths and lake levels struck me as the highlights but, as usual, it provides an interesting and comphensive overview.

Loomis Beachley and a Lake Lorax?

2008-12-11T08:19:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, Minnesota Public Radio celebrated their long running Morning Show which was ending after a 26 year run. [my friend Kim Ode wrote a warm tribute in the Strib]. As a KAXE fan, I haven't been a regular listener to MPR for quite a few years but I remember that one of my favorite (ficticious) characters created by Dale and Jim Ed was Loomis Beachley, congressman from Minnesota's imaginary 9th district representing all the water surface area of Minnesota. While this ongoing spoof was never intended to be serious, I always felt that somehow Minnesota waters and the diverse denizens thereof deserved some kind of political representation.

By coincidence, a similar notion had surfaced last week in a conversation regarding some recently proposed plats for area lakeshore development. The upshot of the conversation was that we felt there was a need for someone to "speak for the lakes" -- a sort of Suessian "Lake Lorax" to assess likely long term ecological consequences of proposed developments (and most importantly, to propose strategies for minimizing adverse impacts). Unfortunately, at this point, such an advocate has roughly the same status as the mythical Loomis Beachley.

One of the things I really enjoy about my current position as an SWCD Aquatic Biologist is that it puts me in a place where I can "speak for the lakes," at least to a limited extent. With our abundant water resources in north-central Minnesota, it is very easy to take our lakes for granted. Consequently, we too often decide what to do about proposed developments based on short-term economic interests of a few individual stakeholders. As it currently stands, proposed developments that comply with the standards of relevant Shoreland and Subdivision ordinances are all but certain to be approved. This despite the fact that every lake is different and each has unique ecological features that merit special consideration.

What we really need is a broader scale, longer term perspective that holds ecological integrity as the ultimate value. Given regional demographic trends, we really need someone to function as a formally recognized "Lake Lorax" vested with the authority to make binding recommendations on proposed lakeshore developments within Beltrami County or, better yet, within our Mississippi Headwaters watershed. Realistically, such a position seems rather unlikely at present given our global economic problems. Ironically though, investing in "Lake Lorax" now would enhance both our ecological and economic prospects for generations to come.

Minnesota Star Lakes Program established

2008-12-03T07:51:00.001-08:00

The Minnesota legislature established a Star Lakes and Star Rivers program in the Spring of 2008 (the enabling legislation can be viewed at https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=103B.701&year=2008). According to Senator Mary Olson, who authored and carried the bill, the program is designed to encourage and reward citizen participation in lake and river management and protection. The program will be implemented by a Star Lake Board comprising various state agency representatives and citizen volunteers representing riparian property owners from around the state.

To attain a Star Lake or Star River designation, a citizen-initiated lake or river association must meet four basic eligibility criteria. First, a Management Plan addressing ten specific areas of concern must be developed by the association and approved the Star Lake Board. Second, at least 50% of eligible property owners must be members of the association. Third, the association must participate in a volunteer water quality monitoring program meeting Pollution Control Agency Standards. Finally, the association must meet annually to review and monitor their Management Plan which is to be formally updated every five years.

In addition to signage recognizing Star status, designated lake or river associations will be eligible for special project funding on a competitive basis. Potential project funding sources include the Clean Water portion of the recent constitutionally-mandated sales tax increase as well as private philanthropy dollars. In addition, Star Lakes and Star Rivers may receive special consideration by state agencies allocating financial and staff resources. Several Beltrami County lakes are already strong candidates for Star Lake status, based on past participation in the Healthy Lakes and Rivers Partnership program jointly administered by Beltrami SWCD and the Northwest Minnesota Foundation.

Beltrami County is well-represented on the 15-member Star Lake Board. Dann Siems, Beltrami SWCD Aquatic Biologist, was appointed by the Speaker of the House to represent organization that promotes clean lakes and rivers. Jim Jones, Bemidji-based Cultural Resources Director, represents the the Indian Affairs Council. The Star Lake Board is currently developing application and certification procedures and expects to consider initial applicants by late spring of 2009. If you are interested in finding out more about the Star Lakes program visit their website at http://www.starlakes.org/.

Ob Wells 2008 Year in Review

2008-12-03T06:41:00.001-08:00

Beltrami SWCD continues to monitor ground water levels in 19 observation wells scattered over the southern half of the county (for more details visit our webpage at http://www.beltramiswcd.org/ and click the "Services" tab). Changes in ground water levels reflect highly complex interactions between timing and intensity of precipitation events and the underlying geomorphology of the landscape. Consequently, great caution must be exercised in interpreting observed changes. With that said, some interesting trends are apparent and can be illustrated by considering a couple specific wells.

Well 4021 (upper figure) is near the north end of Lake Bemidji and is very closely tied to changes in lake level. Over the past five years there has a slight but consistent increase in annual minimum and maximum water levels. This is a bit puzzling given the very dry conditions in the summer of 2007 but relatively heavy rains this past fall have resulted in relatively high water levels. What we see for lake levels next spring will of course depend heavily on this winter's snow cover.

Well 4022 (lower figure) is located in an area of Eckles Township where high ground levels plagued residents in the late 1990s. Ground water levels in this area fell by roughly six feet from 2001 to 2004 but have been trending consistently upward for the past four years. Depending on winter snow melt and the intensity of spring rains, flooded basements could once again become a concern in coming years.

Aquatic Plant Management Proposed Rule Changes

2008-11-14T14:03:00.001-08:00

The Minnesota DNR is currently involved in revising its rules related to Aquatic Plant Management (click for details). The proposed rule changes are well conceived and would greatly enhance long-term ecological integrity and water quality ofMinnesota lakes. Perhaps not surprising though, the proposed rule changes are encountering some loud resistance. In particular, the deceptively named group Minnesotan's for Healthy Lakes is whining and wheedling about property rights. These folks are perhaps well-intentioned but they are certainly willfully ignorant and woefully short-sighted.

At this point in the process, the proposed rules are before an Administrative Law Judge who is expected to issue a formal opinion soon. The DNR is soliciting input through 1 December so I decided to send my thoughts along (here is a pdf of my comments). Here's to hoping the judge does the right thing and approves the rules as drafted.

Shoreland Rules Update Newsletter

2008-11-12T09:14:00.000-08:00

The DNR recently posted the November 2008 edition of its Shoreland Rules Update Newsletter. They also have a webpage that provides general background on the project.

November Hydroclim Minnesota

2008-11-05T10:49:00.000-08:00

The November issue of HydroClim Minnesota is now available. The image above was perhaps the most interesting to me as it shows the areal extent of the nice and badly needed fall rains we had in the second week of October.

Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment

2008-10-03T11:08:00.000-07:00

Several people have asked me about my take on the so-called Clean Water, Land, and Legacy Amendment. As one who works on water quality issues and is passionately committed to maintaining and enhancing Minnesota's natural resources, I suppose I should be excited about our coming opportunity to amend our state constitution:

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate funding to protect our drinking water resources; to protect, enhance and restore our wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat; to preserve our arts and cultural heritage; to support our parks and trails; and to protect, enhance, and restore our lakes, rivers, streams and groundwater; by increasing the sales and use tax rate beginning July 1, 2009, by three-eighths of one percent on taxable sales until the year 2034?"

A closer look at the details suggests that passing this amendment would pump more than $90 million dollars a year in water protection activities in Minnesota. What's not to like about that?

Well, for starters, the revenue generated by the sales tax increase apparently will be allocated by politically appointed commissions rather than by elected (and thus potentially unelectable) representatives. In the case of the dollars raised for water-related work, the responsible commission will be the Governor's Clean Water Council. So who is on this Council?

More importantly, let see where the appointees reside: Mayer (Carver Co), St. James (Watonwan Co), Coon Rapis, Duluth, St. Paul (2) , Ramsey, Redwood Falls, Minneapolis (2), Sauk Rapids, Buffalo, Woodbury, Dover, St. Charles, Stillwater, Burnsville...you get the idea. Not a single representative from anywhere in Minnesota lake country. No Brainerd. No Alexandria. No Park Rapids. No Grand Rapids. No Bemidji. Otter Tail County alone has almost ten percent of Minnesota's lakes and no representation! No Ely. No Detroit Lakes. What's up with that?

I am not necessarily opposed to the idea of increasing the sales tax rate to provide designated funding for something as vitally important to Minnesota's environment and economy as our lakes and rivers. However, I am more than a little suspicious of putting metro-oriented political appointees in charge of dividing up the pie. From a northern Minnesota perspective this smells of taxation without representation. In addition, I am concerned that passage of this amendment might also result in reduced funding for water through general fund allocations by the legislature.

On balance, I remain undecided as to my own vote. The fact that the wingnuts at The Taxpayer's League of Minnesota are against the amendment is almost enough to make me vote for it. Nonetheless, I encourage everyone to consider carefully the details and implications of this proposal, to weigh its relative merits and liabilities, and, most importantly, to cast an informed vote in November.

6 October Update: Strib poll numbers suggest strong but rather ill-informed support for the measure.

Current and Currants

2008-09-12T14:07:00.000-07:00

Last spring while out checking ObWells I took the upper picture of Grant Creek. Yesterday, while again checking Obwells I took the lower photo at the same site. What was striking yesterday was the high flows which followed locally heavy rains in the early morning hours of September 11th. The other things I found interesting in the contrast of the two photos was the bounty of rice in the background and tasty little currants in the foreground.

Lake Data

2008-09-09T11:56:00.000-07:00

In looking up some background materials on Eurasian milfoil, I came across a nice little primer on understanding lake data (from UWEX). Could be helpful for lake associations seeking to foster better ecological understanding among residents.

On a related note, tomorrow from 2:00-5:00 pm there will be a Healthy Lakes Forum at the Casino in Walker that will focus on citizen-initiated lake projects. For more details see this Bemidji Pioneer article.

Blastomycosis Natural History

2008-09-04T13:37:00.001-07:00

Yesterday afternoon we had an interesting discussion in our office about blastomycosis (see also), a fungal infection that is often lethal for dogs and is very challenging to treat in humans, especially in immunocompromised patients. Several of us knew local folks who had contracted the disease and many who had lost dogs so we were speculating about it is so common in our area. It turns out that incidence rates of 40/100,000 in humans and 1400/100,000 in dogs are typical in areas of high endemism.

As the image above suggsts, the geographic range of Blastomyces dermatitidis fungi is closely associated with the Mississippi River system. It is generally associated with decaying wood and, as noted in the preceding link, is most commonly found in soils "rich in organic material such as animal feces, plant fragments, insect remains, and dust. If the substrate is moist, lacks exposure to direct sunlight, contains organic debris, and has a pH of less than 6.0, isolation of Blastomyces dermatitidis is probable." That description applies to much of our local landscape.

One possible way to account for this distribution is an hypothesized association with beaver, although the relationship is far from conclusive. Restrepo et al 2000 offered a fascinating comparative review of environmental conditions favoring B. dermatitidus and several other pathogenic fungi. They noted that "if those fungal habitats that carry the largest risk of exposure could be defined, if seasonal variation in the production of propagules could be determined, and if their mode of transmission were to be assessed, it would be possible to develop protective measures to avoid human infection." Blatomycosis is most common in people involved in excavation, construction, hunting, fishing, and other activities that entail close contact with soils in riverine areas -- sounds like an occupational hazard for soil and water conservation workers!

It is also worth noting that chronic sub-clinical and/or latent infections are possible and that blastomycosis is frequently misdiagnosed or overlooked since its symptoms are share by a number of other diseases. If you or some one you know spends alot of time around rivers and has persistent pneumonia-like symptoms it would be a good idea to rule out blastomycosis. Early detection and treatment is critically important especially for immunocompromised folks (e.g., cancer survivors who had chemptherapy).

Update: for more on blastomycosis in the "Land of 10,000 Lakes" check out this link from the Minnesota Department of Health.

HydroClim Minnesota September 2008

2008-09-04T13:23:00.000-07:00

The September 2008 edition of HydroClim Minnesota is now available. One of the more interesting points is that nearly 25% of Minnesota is now in a moderate drought condition (see US Drought Monitor). Although there have been some locally heavy rains over the past month many areas in north central Minnesota remain very dry. Fire danger is increasing and burning bans are in place across the Arrowhead region.

Missing Moths?

2008-08-25T06:34:00.000-07:00

In conversation following the recent BCLARA annual meeting, Ron noted the apparent dearth of luna moths (top photo). For both he and I, seeing these spectacular insects was a highlight of summer. The more I thought about it, the more it seemed that "Polyphemus" (middle photo) and "Cecropia" moths (bottom photo) have also seemed pretty scarce of late. For me personally, it has been quite a few summer since I last saw any of these three. So what's up?

A quick search for "luna moth" on iSpecies was revealing. Seems that a nonnative tachinid fly, Compsilura concinnata, introduced to help control gypsy moths, takes a significant toll on large moths. Other native and non-native parasitoid wasps and flys further exacerbate the problem. In addition, ever increasing night-time lighting increases vulnerability of large moths to predation (see previous post on light pollution). If there is one hard it fast law in in ecology, it must be the law of unintended consequences.

Docks again

2008-08-20T12:42:00.000-07:00

I just received a pdf of a recent editorial on patio platform docks from the Park Rapids Enterprise. Pretty much sums it up...especially the last line. Hopefully the message will start to sink in with the property-rights zealots at P.O.P.U.L.A.R. (which seems to have gone mercifully silent this summer).

Shoreline Changes

2008-08-19T12:02:00.000-07:00

I am off to a meeting this afternoon about how to implement a DNR Shoreland Habitat restoration grant in the Paul Bunyan Park Library Park area of the Lake Bemidji waterfront. In preparing for the meeting I decided to have a look at old and current air photos. The B & W image at left is from 1940 and the color image on the right is recent. As you can see, the "point" area around the current Chamber of Commerce building an our famous statues of Paul and Babe has expanded considerably. This poses some interesting issues in the context of a "restoration" project.

Wolf Lake Secchi Disk Records

2008-08-15T10:03:00.000-07:00

Wolf Lake has had more than 100 Secchi disk readings collected over a period of three+ decades. Because Secchi disk transparency is a good indicator of algal productivity, these data provide a revealing indicator of the lake's recent history. As the figure below shows, mean transparencies were significantly lower in the 1970s than they are today. This is not surprising given the history of Bemidji's municipal sewage discharge. During the 1970s, Bemidji released essentially untreated sewage below the outlet of Lake Bemidji making Wolf Lake an almost direct recipient of large volumes of algae-stimulating phosphorus. Once Bemidji's state-of-art treatment plant went on-line in 1985 with discharges above Lake Bemidji, water clarity in Wolf Lake improved markedly. Unfortunately there were no data collected from 1980-1993 so we don't have a record detailing the exact timing of improvements. Because property values increase with increasing water clarity, the Bemidji sewage treatment plant improvements provided direct economic as well as ecological benefits to Wolf Lake.
It is also interesting to parse these data a bit more finely and look at month-to-month values over the decades. In the 1970s, transparencies were, on average, lowest in August. For the past two decades, lowest transparencies were recorded in September. June reading generally show the greatest clarity and appear to be improving slightly over time. What I find most intriguing is the fact that the range of values within a sampling period appears to be increasing. Compare for example the differences between June and September in the 1976-1980 time frame with those from 2000-2007.

At first glance, observed increases in clarity would appear to be a good thing. There is, however, one potential concern. Recent research suggests that variability of nutrient supply within a given year might increase the likelihood of successful establishment of invasive species (Davis, M.A. et al. 2000. Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. Journal of Ecology 88:528-534). The basic idea is this: relatively low level of phosphorus keep water clear in June and allow establishment of a baseline plant community. Then, when nutrient supplies increase rapidly in late summer, they offer an opportunity for 'weedy' colonizers to exploit. Species such as Eurasian milfoil are particularly responsive to increased availability of nutrients.
The bimodal (two "bumps") distribution of Secchi disk readings in the figure below shows that clarities in the range of 4.4 meters (~15 feet) are actually quite common, usually in June. The baseline plant community is established under these conditions. Later in the summer, readings around 2.4 meters (~8 feet) are most common indicating higher levels of phosphorus and more developed algal community. What is interesting is the relative rarity of readings in the 3.75 meter (~12 foot) range. These readings are relatively improbable because the transition from the clear water phase in June to the green phase later in the summer tends to be relatively abrupt (this is related the idea of regime shift discussed in several previous posts on this blog).

Dragon Boat Festival

2008-08-04T06:47:00.000-07:00

Bemidji hosted its 3rd annual Dragon Boat Festival this past weekend and once again it was a great event with sixty-four 21-person teams representing numerous groups and towns around the region. It is a very well run enterprise and is a highlight of the summer. Kudos to all the organizers and volunteers!

I paddled with the Wooly Irishmen and we managed a second place finish! The Bemidji Pioneer has details including video -- be sure to check out the clip of the championship heat. The winning Hydrahead team included of a number of Wooly Irishmen from past years so it made for prettty intense competition.

NRCS Rapid Watershed Assessment

2008-07-25T10:04:00.000-07:00

NRCS has released a draft of a Rapid Watershed Assessment of the Mississippi Headwaters Watershed which appears to have a wealth of potentially useful descriptive information concerning such things as patterns of land ownership and use, extent and nature of agriculture practices, and soils and physical features. According to the document:

"Rapid watershed assessments provide initial estimates of where conservation investments would best address the concerns of landowners, conservation districts, and other community organizations and stakeholders. These assessments help land–owners and local leaders set priorities and determine the best actions to achieve their goals ."

Most of the information presented is already available piecemeal from a variety of sources but this document attempts to integrate that information and to preovide a concise summary. At first glance, there appear to be a few errors but that is perhaps to be expected in draft document.

More on Minnesotan's for Healthy Lakes

2008-07-25T06:20:00.000-07:00

'Minnesotans for Healthy Lakes (MHL),' that exemplar of doublespeak mentioned in a previous post, claims to be interested in protecting lakes but their approach is fundamentally flawed and dishonest. Among other "resources" on their site there are a petition opposing proposed new rules for DNR's aquatic plant management program as well as a defense of phosphorus in lawn fertilizers. That piece is from the New Jersey Alliance for Environmental Concerns, another doublespeak advocacy group for the lawn and landscape chemical industry. Dr. Wayne Kussow, the UW-Madison scientist cited, has a related piece in the on the web entitled Phosphorus Run-off Losses from Lawns [2004. Better Crops 88(3) 12-13]. Interestingly enough, that site is hosted by the Potash and Phosphorus Institute and Kussow, a retired professor of soil sciences specializing in golf course turf grass, has long-standing ties to the fertilizer and lawn care industries. As is so often the case with contrarian positions, "following the money" can be illuminating.

The scientific consensus is clear in both of these matters. Maintaining a diverse and lush community of native vegetation within lakes maintains water clarity and also reduces the probability of success for invasive species. Similarly, diverse and lush no-mow zones in riparian areas reduces external phosphorus inputs to lakes. Kussow's comparison of phosphorus inputs from fertilized versus unfertilized turfgrass is incomplete at best and at worst is intentionally deceptive. An honest experiment should contrast phosphorus inputs from fertilized turfgrass with that from a broad and diverse swath of native vegetation. Such high-integrity plant communities are not 'leaky' with respect to phosphorus and other nutrients.

In my experience, it is clear that the vast majority of Minnesota lakeshore property owners want to do the right thing for the lakes that they cherish. Unfortunately, a self-serving minority of arrogant and (willfully?) ignorant blow-hards masquerading as concerned citizens are willing to place their misperceived short-term economic interests over the long-term ecological integrity of the lakes they claim to value. Minnesota State Senator Gen Olson (R-Minnetrista) is apparently taking the MHL case to the legislature; let her know that the selfish and short-sighted MHL position does not represent the view of most Minnesotans. Don't be duped by sham organization like MHL and POPULAR.

Missing the Milky Way?

2008-07-18T07:25:00.000-07:00

Julie Wilbert has an interesting piece in today's MinnPost concerning light pollution, specifically in the Twin Cities metro area. One of the most disconcerting points is that roughly 70% of th US population can no longer see the Milky Way. Fortunately, things are not quite so bad in Beltrami County (yet) but I am always surprised by how much light is back-scattered from Bemidji. Seems to me that local light pollution ordinance would be a good a good idea so I put together an initial draft of such an ordinance and am hoping someone else will carry it forward. Please let me know if you interested.

Catch any tagged fish?

2008-07-17T09:18:00.000-07:00

I caught a tagged walleye one night last week and Gary Barnard from the DNR's Area Fisheries Office pointed out that it is now possible for anglers to report catches of tagged fish directly through an on-line portal. Very straight-forward and user friendly process that should greatly enhance the utility and functionality of DNR's tagging program. If you happen to catch a tagged fish this is great way to let DNR researchers know.

HydroClim Minnesota July 2008

2008-07-10T11:26:00.001-07:00

HydroClim Minnesota's July 2008 edition is now available. No big surprises but the coupling of low soil moistures with intense and ocalized precipitation leading to flooding is interesting. As noted in the figure above, the current US Drought monitor puts much of Beltrami County in an abnormally dry status.

Interactive Google Maps

2008-07-08T19:58:00.000-07:00

Attended an interesting community journalism seminar related to the continuing development of MnStringer and learned how to make interactive Google maps. Here's my first attempt which I will continue to update to provide links to local points of interest and related blog post. The pointers are color coded with the darker blue indicating WaterBlog post, the lighter blue highlighting SWCD water projects, and yellow for miscellaneous other links. Pretty neat tool...

View Larger Map

Minnesotans for Healthy Lakes?

2008-07-02T13:19:00.000-07:00

John K recently emailed me a link for an organization called Minnesotans for Healthy Lakes(MHL). Sounds almost noble doesn't it? Nonetheless, John thought something smelled a bit fishy (and not in a good way unless you like scent of carp and bullheads!). After perusing the site for a bit it really looks like a classic case of doublespeak since little if anything advocated by this group is good for lakes. The bottom line is that in seeking to perpetuate their own dubious suburban aesthetic these folks champion chemical and mechanical control of lake 'weeds' and algae rather than control of nutrients and use of good shoreland practices.

They appear to be much more interested in seeking scapegoats than in critically re-evaluating their own destructive traditions. As their own 'Talking Points' document notes, "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!" Implicit in this statement is, of course, an admission that selfish pursuit of MHL's misguided "clean = weed free" agenda runs counter to a larger public good -- that of truly healthy lakes. On the other hand, maybe we should be encouraged since such refreshing 'honesty' could be viewed as a step in the right direction?

The bottom line here is really quite simple. In aquatic systems, biomasses of both rooted macrophytes (ie., 'weeds') and algae are limited primarily by the availability of phosphorus. Destruction and/or removal of 'weeds' necessarily makes more nutrients available to encourage rapid proliferation of algae. Proliferation of algae reduces light penetration and sets in motion a destructive cascade of events that ultimately degrade water quality and push fish communities toward bullheads and carp. In addition, where perennial macrophytes have been removed, the sediments they once occupied are opened to even "weedier" invaders such as Eurasian milfoil.

Yes, property values are at stake. Recent research in north central Minnesota has shown conclusively that property values increase with increasing water clarity. Unfortunately, removal of rooted vegetation leads directly and inexorably to reductions in water clarity. Do you want to maintain and/or enhance the value of your lakeshore property? If so, (1) protect and restore your lake "weeds," (2) naturalize your shoreline areas with broad no-mow zones, (3) limit the extent of the aquatic impact area adjacent to your dock, and (4) encourage the DNR to enact and impose more stringent aquatic plant managmenent rules.

If you are truly a "Minnesotan for healthy lakes" you will do everything in your power to maintain vigorous native plant communities in your lake and will welcome the DNR's efforts to limit the extent of vegetation removal. If not, you will resort to short-term, band-aid "solutions" like herbicides and harvesters.

Beltrami County Adopts 'Tweaked' Water Plan

2008-07-02T07:46:00.000-07:00

As reported in today's Bemidji Pioneer, the Beltrami County Board formally adopted the 2008-2013 Comprehensive Local Water Plan at yesterday's work session. As noted in the Pioneer, the language ultimately adopted by the county differs slightly from that in the document approved by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) in May (for highlighted deletions and modifications see this read-only Word document). As Commissioner Frost noted, changes in the adopted document reflect a desire to avoid public controversy concerning politically charged issues.

Perhaps the most significant modification concerned climate. The BWSR approved document noted that "the reality and most probable regional consequences of climate change have been broadly considered" -- an appropriate stance considering the pervasive consequences of temperature and preciptation for local water management. In contrast, the revised text as adopted reads that the "most probable regional consequences of climate fluctuations were considered." As Commissioner Heltzer put it, "Everywhere in the world we call it climate change but in Beltrami County we call it climate fluctuations." The term "fluctuations" suggest that observed changes are random and non-directional and this is unequivocally false.

In the end, such intentional obfuscation at the level of a local water plan is something of a tempest in teapot. Nonetheless, it is troubling that we continue to operate as if empirically verifiable claims are merely matters of political interpretation. The reality of climate change is not a political issue pitting conservatives against liberals or Republicans against Democrats. Ultimately, the only real conflict here is between the informed and the (willfully?) ignorant. Sadly, our collective unwillingness to accept and address empirical realities means that we are rapidly moving away from attempts to limit climate change and toward efforts to adapt to its consequences (see, for two regionally relevant examples, recent MN-DNR Conservation Volunteer articles on moose and cisco). [See also US EPA's recent document on adapting to the reality of climate change -- download and peruse SAP 4.4 -- it is 911 pages long but page 2-7 through 2-11 provide a concise overview of current climate science].

Beltrami County Water Plan Moves Forward

2008-06-30T12:42:00.000-07:00

The Bemidji Pioneer had an article yesterday on Beltrami's County's Comprehensive Local Water Managment Plan which will be presented to the County Board for adoption tomorrow. The water plan is result the result of a year long, statutorily mandated process that was coordinated through Beltrami SWCD. A copy of the document approved by the state Board of Water & Soil Resources (BWSR) last month is available here.

Lake Home and Cabin Kit

2008-06-05T08:08:00.000-07:00

University of Minnesota Extension has an interesting publication available that provides an abundance of useful information for lake shore residents. It includes materials on everything from indoor air quality to septic systems and shoreline vegetation. The cost of the 3-ring binder formatted book/kit is $29.99 and it looks like it would be a good addition to the library of any lake-lover.

June HydroClim Minnesota Update

2008-06-04T11:58:00.000-07:00

The June edition of HydroClim Minnesota is now available. Hven't had a chance to look it over yet but it is (almost) always interesting.

DNR to host Shoreland Rules Open House in Bemidji

2008-05-23T08:43:00.000-07:00

As noted in the previous post, the DNR will be hosting a series of public meetings regarding revisions of shoreland rules. Details concerning the Bemidji meeting are summarized on this Adobe pdf version of the announcement.

POPULAR goes on the offensive

2008-05-22T06:28:00.001-07:00

Sam Stern has an "interesting" new post on his POPULAR blog. With the DNR engaged in a long overdue revisiting of statewide minimum standards for shoreland rules, it seems that at least a few property rights zealots are getting very nervous about the propspects of maintaining their sense of entitlement to do as they please with Minnesota's public waters (note, for example, the "lawnscaping" and the recreation in the photo at the the foot of Sam's post).

The DNR is holding a series of "open house" public meetings around the state -- the Bemidji session will be on 24 June from 6:30-9:00 pm at the Bemidji High SchoolCommons Area, 2900 Division Street West. For more information contact Felicia Barnes at 651-259-5716 or by email at shorelandupdate@dnr.state.mn.us. Whatever your position on these matters, I encourage you to attend and make your views known. BCLARA will have an information table at the the Bemidji meeting. Hope to see you there.

May Wells

2008-05-19T06:24:00.001-07:00

Last Friday I finished monitoring our Observation Wells for the month of May. As the figure above shows, our shallowest wells showed the greatest rebound in response to spring snowmelt and precipitation. What is a bit surprising is how minimally water levels increased given our big April snows. My guess is that much of the recent melt either ran off or went into recharging near surface capillary moisture. Interestingly, six of our eleven shallow wells are lower than they were at this time last year.

Ice Out Progress

2008-05-07T12:52:00.000-07:00

Our conservation engineer came across a pretty neat web site this morning -- very detailed satellite imagery from UW-Madision Space Science and Engineering Center. The image above shows the ice remaining on L-O-W as of this afternoon. The site is updated with a couple of images daily at a resolution that allows easy interpretation of ice and snow cover. Be sure to click the image to zoom in and then up the resolution to 250 m. There are also archived daily images dating back to November of last year.

Hydroclim Minnesota May Issue

2008-05-07T12:50:00.000-07:00

The Hydroclim Minnesota May update is now available. It provides some good context for understanding our April (snow) showers.

2008 Cass Lake FIN

2008-05-01T14:05:00.000-07:00

I just received this pdf copy of the 2008 Cass Lake Fisheries Information Newsletter from DNR Large Lake Specialist Andy Thompson and thought I'd pass it along.

Growing Greener: BuildSmart Summit

2008-05-01T11:59:00.000-07:00

I had the opportunity to speak yesterday at the Central Minnesota BuildSmart Summit. I was the opening speaker of the day and my talk was entitled "Going with the flow(regime): enhancing water quality by naturalizing stay-on" (see my Cmap notes). The day's featured presenter was Randall Arendt of Greener Prospects who showed numerous examples of how to accomodate growth and development in ways that enhance quality of life while at the same time protecting ecological integrity. Arendt, a nationally known figure and and author of several books on conservation design, is an inspiring speaker who made a great case for rethinking traditional patterns of lakeshore development.

One of Arendt's most intriguing notions concerns use of local plans and ordinances to implement better practices on the ground (see book above available along with some excellent and free pdf publications on the Greener Prospects webpage). Some of his ideas admittedly seem a bit counter-intuitive at first but the end results looked great and functioned well so I think he is on the right track. As developmental pressures continue to intensify on area lakes, planning commissions and developers would do well to become familiar with Arendt's ideas.

2008 Minnesota (Ice?) Fishing Opener

2008-04-28T06:49:00.000-07:00

The weekend snowstorm and today's cold morning temperatures (we had 14 F) make it increasingly likely that at least some area lakes will not be ice free by the May 10th Fishing Opener. The Minnesota Climatology Working Group has put together an interesting webpage on Opening Day Weather -- the main thing that emerges there is just how variable our weather can be in early May. In 1950, lakes were frozen on opening day as far south as Detroit Lakes and Osakis; some lakes in northern Minnesota had opening day ice in 1966, 1979, and 1996 as well. In contrast, the temperature was 92 F in St. Cloud in 1987; it was 88 F in International Falls for the 1977 Opener. The extended forecast doesn't promise a dramatic warm-up anytime soon so my guess is that at bigger and deeper lakes like Cass, Bemidji, and Plantagenet will still have some ice floating around come the second Saturday in May.

Bemidji Downtown Survey

2008-04-24T12:08:00.000-07:00

A survey regarding future development plans for downtown Bemidji is available on-line. Take a few minutes to make you opinions known.

Overnight Rain

2008-04-24T07:21:00.000-07:00

We had some good, steady rain overnight. Although we had quite a bit of lightning and thunder, precipitation total across the area were quite low (as shown in the radar image above). Follow this link for radar-based estimates of 24 hour Minnesota precipitation.

DNR Burning Permits Available On-line

2008-04-21T06:43:00.000-07:00

Residents of Beltrami County can now get and activate burning permits on-line. There is an annual fee of $5.00 for the service but it saves trips to the local fire warden. I just registered and printed a permit in about five minutes.

ObWells in April

2008-04-18T09:27:00.000-07:00

Just collected ObWell data again on Wednesday. Ten of our eleven shallow (< 20') wells showed increases in response to our heavy April snows but the increases were smaller than I expected (averaging only 3.6"). Five of six medium depth (20-50') wells continued a three+ year declining trend although decreases were slight. I'd expect a bit of a rebound in these wells next month.

Docks Unlimited?

2008-04-15T12:22:00.000-07:00

A friend who is an avid waterfowl hunter read my preceding post and followed the link to the POPULAR blog...his emailed comment upon returning : they should change their name to "Docks Unlimited!" Makes sense to me...

Mr. Mallet returns

2008-04-08T07:12:00.000-07:00

Sam Stern has a new post on docks at POPULAR. More of same though even a bit more arrogant and paranoid -- the highlight?

"Speaking of “public”, this blog is now being read by a number of persons opposed to P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s agenda. While I welcome converts to our cause, I need to exercise caution in discussing strategies."

Wow, it must be very cool to be so important! Interestingly, POPULAR is a moderated blog so don't expect to read any dissenting viewpoints or discussions of evidence in comments there (As an experiment of sorts, I justed attempted to post a list of relevant papers there so we'll see if it shows up).

As usual, Sam is very short on engagement with the science and very long on entitled whining. Someone on the DAC (my guess would be Gene?) ludicrously asserts that I advocate a single 3' x 10' dock per property. This is of course sheer nonsense.

The argument boils down to this: On the one hand, docks are private intrusions on public waters and as such we should insist that they are minimal impact solutions to demonstrated needs (as under current rules). On the other, lakeshore property owners pay high taxes so we should be able to do whatever we want regardless of consequences.

The big April snow

2008-04-07T08:19:00.000-07:00

We had a pretty amazing 24 hour snowfall yesterday. At my house we had a solid 18" and Cass Lake just a bit to our east had an official 27"! Although amounts were quite variable locally it is safe to assume a twelve inch average over the western half of the the Mississippi Headwaters Watershed. Needless to say that brings quite a bit of water into our system. How much?

Because the Snow Water Equivalent of new snow typically varies across a range of 10-30%, conversions of snow depth to equivalent rainfall should be viewed with caution. However, because this snow fell with warm temperatures and is particularly heavy and wet we can safely assume a value of at least 15% such that every six inches of snow yields nearly an inch of water (I am currently melting a graduated cyclinder of snow to get a more accurate estimate. Update: Just completed my melt estimate -- 150 ml of unpacked snow yielded just over 30 ml of water -- about 20% -- so the estimates below are on the low side; 18 inches of snow X 0.20 = 3.6" inches of rain!).

Based on an estimated foot (~30 cm) of snow over the 1081 square miles (2,799,777, 147 square meters) of the Mississippi Headwaters Watershed above Knutson Dam on Cass Lake we can realistically guess that roughly 29,661,958,926 cubic feet (839, 933, 144 cubic meters) entered our watershed overnight! Because ground surface temperatures had increased somewhat before the snow while frost remains at depth, melt and run-off might be very dramatic over the next week or so. I'll collect some river stage data this afternoon and report back here over the next couple days (to keep an eye on flood potential see NOAA's River Forecast Center; note that the Red River at Grand Forks has already risen 2.5' since last Friday).

For purposes of the present discussion, the Mississippi River at the Power Dam east of Bemidji is currently discharging only 126 cubic feet per second (cfs) . Interestingly, this is an all time low instantaneous discharge reading for today's date. Even at such a low stage, daily discharge still totals 10,886,400 cfs. Given that this discharge integrates roughly 2/3 of watershed area noted above, it would take roughly five years to discharge a volume of water equivalent to that in yesterday's snowfall! That estimate is of course entirely unrealistic given that the instantaneous discharge rate often reaches 1200 cfs in late April and/or early May.

Algae as fuel?

2008-04-07T08:10:00.000-07:00

Just received an interesting link to a CNN video from Chad regarding cultured algae as a fuel source. Looks like an interesting investment idea (be sure to read the accompanying story).

Hydroclim Minnesota April 2008

2008-04-04T08:49:00.000-07:00

The April 2008 posting from Hydroclim Minnesota is now available.

Minnesota Lake Ice-Out

2008-04-03T07:01:00.000-07:00

Have a look at this site for updates on the progression of ice-out across Minnesota.

EPA on Water and Climate Change

2008-04-02T06:44:00.000-07:00

The US EPA just published this piece on water and climate change. I haven't had a chance to read through it yet but it looks interesting at first glance.

Global Drying? Or where is the missing water?

2008-03-20T09:27:00.001-07:00

Globally, average sea levels have risen by about 4 inches in the past fifty years. Recently reported research suggests that construction of dams has masked this effect and that without large reservoirs, sea levels would have risen another inch and half. Artificially constructed reservoirs worldwide store about 2,600 cubic miles of water — nearly equal to the volume of Lake Superior. What is puzzling is the source of the increased water volume in the oceans. As currently understood, melting ice and thermal expansion account for only about two inches of increase. Where did the other 2-3.5" of water come from?

One possibility is that urbanization, agriculture, and other changes in land-use have dramatically decreased the amount of time it takes for preciptation falling over land masses to return to the sea. On very localized watershed scales, we know that increases in the extent of impermeable surfaces, loss of wetlands, irrigation, and reductions in mass of plant cover have greatly increased run-off rates. If such localized effects are multiplied across the broader landscape perhaps in aggregate they might account for the otherwise unaccountable sea level increase. If so, such "global drying" could exacerbate the impending freshwater supply crisis. (Update: Just found this paper which suggests that on average terrestrial landscapes have been "drying out" though not at a rate sufficient to account for the observed increase in sea level).

MPR US Senate Candidate Survey

2008-03-17T08:34:00.001-07:00

Minnesota Public Radio has an interesting and brief on-line survey on candidates the Minnesota's Senate seat. Take a look...you might be surprised...I know I was.

Docks Update

2008-03-17T07:46:00.000-07:00

Spent a couple days in St. Paul last week testifying for Sen. Olson's SF3237 legislation which would compell the DNR to undertake a badly needed revision of dock rules by the end of 2009 (here is a pdf of my handout). On Wednesday, Mary's bill passed out of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee; Friday it passed out of State and Local Government. It will likely be heard in a Finance subcommittee later this week, bundled in an omnibus bill and moved to the floor. At this point, I am at least somewhat optimistic that the 'one-size-fits-no-one' General Permit window will close within about a year and a half.

For another "perspective," check out Sam Stern's (aka Mr. Mallet's) take on the POPULAR blog. I can't decide whether his ignorant arrogance is sad or just plain humorous. It would be funnier if the consequences of the the practices he advocates were not so detrimental to the ecological integrity of Minnesota's lakes.

Also, Merilee Meyers (President of BCLARA) and I had a Commentary on the patio platform permit in last Saturday's Pioneer. At this point, I've invested about as much time and energy on this issue as I can and now it is really in the hands of our County Commissioners. If you are interested in protecting Beltrami County lakes, take a few minute to contact your commissioner and encourage him to vote "Yes" on the BCLARA Resolution to opt out of the DNR's Patio Platform permit. If you live outside Beltrami County, you might also want to encourage your own County to adopt a similar resolution.

Dock Rules Legislative Hearing

2008-03-10T11:51:00.001-07:00

I just received the following from Sen. Mary Olson's office:

This Wednesday, March 12, at 12:20 p.m. in Room 107 of the Capitol, SF3237 (enforcing the DNR dock regulation), will have a hearing in the Environment and Natural Resource Committee. I will need people in the audience to show support for a bill that requires the DNR to do rule making on this issue in order for it to go forward. There will do doubt be a large contingent there from P.O.P.U.L.A.R. etc., many of which are pushing for unrestricted dock size. Please help by participating as an audience member. If there are not enough people present, the bill will not advance. It would be helpful to let my office know if you are planning on attending.

The bill in question would compell the DNR to initiate a (badly needed) legitimate and comprehensive rule making process concerning docks and accessory structures. The notice is short and the odds of success are rather long but I encourage anyone interested to attend. I am currently trying to clear the deck for a down-and-back road trip.

MapLight: Cool tool

2008-03-10T09:57:00.000-07:00

MapLight provides a very easy to use use tool for mapping connections between money and politics.

PEER Pressure

2008-03-10T06:52:00.000-07:00

Public Employees for Environmental Responsiblility (PEER) publishes a state-by-state report card on employee whistle-blower protection. The situation in Minnesota is pretty disappointing overall with a score of 47 of 100 and a rank of 32nd among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. One of the most discouraging components of our total is our 0 of 5 score for protecting employees who disclose alterations of technical and scientific findings.

Take your medicine?

2008-03-10T06:27:00.001-07:00

The Associated Press today begins an extended series on pharmaceuticals and other chemicals in US drinking water. The results are troubling although not especially surprising give the ubiquity of these meds and the cavalier modes of disposal. The bottom line is that most drinking water tested nationwide had detectable levels of a wide range of drug residues (from pain-killers to anti-depressants to synthetic hormones); of course most US drinking water goes entirely untested. Although measured levels were generally quite low, we don't really no very much about effects of long-term, chronic exposure or of synergistic interactions between different chemicals. Could be an interesting story to watch. For a wealth of information on this topic see the USGS site on emerging contaminants; also here's a story that provides some history. See this pdf for a summary of some relevant research within Minnesota.

Another set of dock perspectives...

2008-03-07T11:29:00.000-08:00

There is an interesting dicussion thread on the DNR's patio platform General Permit occurring on fishingminnesota.com. It is worth certainly worth perusing. The community of Minnesota anglers and other lake users who do not own lakeshore properties are rightly concerned by the long term implications of the GP.

Legacy docks? Another take...

2008-03-07T09:46:00.000-08:00

I just received this as an e-mail forward from an area lake resident who is also a Vice-President of a major insurance company and it is too good not to pass along...

In the business world a legacy system is only an inefficient system that nobody knows how to fix or maintain but it's too vital to scrap.

In the context of docks, I think they are spot on with the name of these docks; they, along with pollution and invasive plants, are the legacy we bequeath to our grandchildren.

That about sums it up!

DNR asks for advice -- but does it listen?

2008-03-06T08:09:00.001-08:00

Ron Way has a very interesting piece in today's MinnPost on politics and decision-making within the Minnesota DNR. Commissioner Holsten's commitment to issue a 5 year General Permit for dock patio platforms -- contrary to the advice of field professionals and a 19 member Docks Advisory Committee -- is just another piece in a disturbing pattern of responding to politcal demands of the few over the long-term interests of the many. In a larger context, it is also part of what Chris Mooney documented in "The Republican War on Science" -- when the science is contrary to your agenda (1) deny that the science exists, (2) ignore the science, (3) attack the supposed 'motives' behind the science, (4) stall by calling for further study, or (5) whine about the uncertainty of the science.

The fifth point is especially troubling as it underscores the sorry state of science education in this country. Scientific understanding is alway uncertain, probabilistic, and provisional. The only certainties we have in science concern once viable hypotheses that have now been conclusively eliminated by counter-evidence. Science advances through processes of conjecture and refutation. Moreover, the conjectures themselves are not mere wild-ass guesses but instead are predictions based on well-established theory. In the case of docks and accessory structures, probable adverse consequences stem directly from a large body of science concerning habitat fragmentation and shifts in productivity from rooted plants toward algae. All of the empirical evidence collected to date is consistent with the hypothesis that docks and accessory structures have adverse ecological effects. None of the science suggests otherwise.

Last evening I had an opportunity talk to a Honors class at Bemidji State University. The framing title of the course is Influence, Power, and Values so I talked about the dock platforms issue as a case study in how these three shape environmental decision-making (see concept map notes for my talk). It was an enjoyable evening and I want to thank two of my favorite and most stimulating BSU colleagues, Marsha and Mark, for inviting me to talk with their class.

What's in a name? Legacy docks? Patio platforms?

2008-03-05T10:58:00.000-08:00

Just got back from an extended visit to POPULAR (Property Owners Protecting Useful Lake Access Rights), a blog established to advocate for the rights of lakeshore property owners to install large dock platfoms (in particular) and to be unburdened by environmental regulations generally (see Sam Stern's initial post). [BTW, hello to any POPULAR people who might have accepted Thomas's call to pay WaterBlog a visit.]

Interestingly, POPULAR is now lobbying the DNR to recognize "legacy docks" -- an fine phrase but the concept could just as well be called an "I've got mine dock." A few folks at POPULAR (Hi Gene) and here on WaterBlog (Hi Thomas and Chris) feel that I am turning docks into a class issue. The fact is, it became a class issue when a few people with large, non-compliant docks began to push for special treatment (e.g., the right to due something not authorized by rules the rest of us operate under -- whether by choice or, less likely, by financial constraints).

I have also been taken to task for referring to 10.5' x 16' platforms as 'patio platforms.' I have heard from those who want them that they should be called 'family platforms' and have heard them called 'party platforms' by those who don't. I picked 'patio platforms' because it seems like a less contentious and more accurate descriptor for a room-sized private living space over a public water.

If we are truly interested in protecting water quality we should be insisting that the DNR initiate a comprehesive new rule making process for docks and accessory structures. Our collective decisions should be based on the best science available and where data are lacking it should be collected. Much of that science is already in place (e.g., see my previous post for some titles and links). Pretending otherwise cannot but make me question POPULAR's true motives. Pushing the DNR to "let us have whatever we want" seems selfish at best and recklessly irresponsible at worst. We can do better.

Peer Reviewed References

2008-03-03T12:48:00.000-08:00

For anyone interested, here are some papers relevant to the cumulative impacts of docks and accessory structures. There are also numerous additional references cited within these works.

Bryan, M.D. & Scarnecchia, D.L. 1992. Species richness, composition, and abundance of fish larvae and juveniles inhabitating natural and developed shorelines of a glacial Iowa lake. Environmental Biology of Fishes 35: 329-341.

Garrison, P.J. and others. 2005. Effects of pier shading on littoral zone habitat and communities in Lakes Ripley and Rock, Jefferson County, Wisconsin. Wisconsin DNR PUB-SS-1006 2005.

Genkai-Kato, M. 2007. Regime shifts: catastrophic responses of ecosystems to human impacts. Ecological Research 22: 214-219.

Jennings, M.J. and others. 1999. Cumulative effects of incremental shoreline habitat modifications on fish assemblages in north temperate lakes. North American Journal Fisheries Management 19: 18-27.

Radomski, P. & Goeman, T.J. 2001. Consequences of human lakeshore development on emergent and floating-leaf vegetation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:46-61.

Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS)

2008-03-03T07:53:00.000-08:00

Thomas from Minnetonka asked me to comment on a position paper on Aquatic Invasive Species. The paper was prepared by Dick Osgood, AIS Policy Committee Chair for Minnesota Waters, Executive Director of the Lake Minnetonka Association, and current President of the North American Lake Management Society. Osgood appears to have impeccable credentials and his warnings merit careful consideration. So, here goes, point by point...

[Note: My concept map on Aquatic Invasive Species may provide a helpful guide as we proceed. ]

"The threat is real." No real question about this claim. There are numerous examples highlighting both the presence and the spread of aquatic invasive species around Minnesota (see, for example, my AIS Risk Matrix for Beltrami County developed for our BCLARA AIS Taskforce). However, one statement merits a bit of clarification: "Aquatic invasive species (AIS), formerly called exotic species...." Exotic species are species occurring outside their historic range. Invasive species, on the other hand, are simply species that are particularly good colonizers of disturbed habitats. Some exotic species species are invasive, some are not. Similarly, some native species (such as Bushy Pondweed) can and do function as "invaders" under certain situations. As my concept map noted above shows, successful invaders are characterized by particular suite of life history traits: highly effective dispersal, short generation times, numerous but small propagules (typically with small genomes), broad ecological tolerances, and relatively high growth rates.

"The impact is extensive." Again there are numerous examples that make this all too painfully apparent. However, there is some very important context here that can enrich our understanding. Environments with relatively intact plant and animal communities are far less invasible than areas that have undergone large scale disturbances. In the case of eurasian milfoil, for example, it is very clear that milfoil establishes and flourishes most readily in areas where human activities have disrupted native plant communities. Activities such as power loading watercraft, heavy prop wash in shallow channel area, and intentional removal of 'weeds' all provide opportunities for invaders. Likewise, extensive development of dock and accessory structures can displace native species and open colonization opportunities for invaders.

"Managment Costs: Lake associations are shouldering the cost of managing AIS." This is also true to the extent that management involves control of established invaders. The problem here is that, given the life history traits of invaders, such efforts are likely to have limited value unless patterns of opportunity-opening disturbance are altered. The key to effectively limiting the spread and impact of AIS is to manage invasibility (see e.g., Lonsdale 1999).

"Impacts of Aquatic Invasive Species." Economically, ecologically, and socially the potential impacts of AIS are profound. Consequently, effectively minimizing impacts of AIS should be a high priority for Minnesota agencies and citizens. So the key question is really how to accomplish this task. In a presentation to BCLARA last summer I offered the following six suggestions (presented here in increasing order of importance).

#6. Aggresively attack established populations of AIS. This is very unlikely to succeed in most cases. AIS typically have much broader ecological tolerances than most other members of aquatic communities and have highly effective dispersal and establishment mechanisms. Indeed, attempts to control milfoil mechanically or chemically have frequently been counterproductive, at once opening new habitats and enhancing the rate of spread via fragmentation.

#5. Minimize opportunities to immigrate. This would necessarily involve inspection of virtually all boats arriving on a given lake. This is impractical to say the least. Because of the life history characteristics of AIS, a single introduction is quite likely to be sufficient to establish an invader. Use of highly motivated local volunteer inspectors makes some sense but whether such efforts are sustainable is doubtful. Self policing in response to high profile public education campaigns might help but certainly would not eliminate the problem entirely.

#4. Minimize opportunities for emigration. This involves inspection of boats leaving waters known to be infested by AIS. The problem here is that local incentives are all but gone once AIS are present. For such a program to work, paid staff would likely be necessary. Such an approach might still be cost-effective especially if targeted toward already infested "hub lakes" with heavy inbound and outbound boat traffic. Here again, public education is a step in right direction but effectiveness would be enhanced if there were some "sticks" to augment voluntary "carrots."

#3. Minimize additions of phosphorus (good lake management in general!). Because AIS typical have small genome and cell sizes with rapid reproduction and short life histories, they tend to respond relatively rapidly to increases in critical limiting nutrients. Moreover, phosphorus additions tend to favor more prolonged and intense blooms of blue-green algae which can shade out significant areas of native plant communities opening them to colonizing by more ecologically tolerant invaders.

#2. Minimize scope and extent of disturbance to native biota. Systematically work to reduce activities that open the door for AIS. For example, minimize or prohibit power boat traffic in sensitive near shore areas. Prohibit power loading of boats. Restrict impact areas of docks and accessory structures to that 'providing a minimum impact solution to a demonstrated need' (as indicated in current dock rules). Eliminate use of weed-rollers.

#1. Maximize biotic integrity of waters to minimize invasibility. This boils down to keeping aquatic communities as "natural" as possible and this is admittedly a tall order given current demographic pressures and patterns of lake use. As lakes become seasonal playgrounds to ever more intensive and extensive traffic of larger and more powerful watercraft, they unfortunately provide an environment highly hospitable to AIS plus a ready means of transport among lakes. Without addressing these trends explicitly, attempts to control AIS are unlikely to be effective.

Finally, with the central role immigration issues are playing in on-going presidential campaigns, I can't resist the temptation to put AIS in a broader context. Too often in human history, immigrants have been made scapegoats, viewed as disruptors of otherwise healthy economies. I am concerned that in the case of AIS, a similar process is occurring. We have (most often without malice and aforethought) gradually adopted practices that have severely compromised the ecological integrity of our lakes and streams, thus opening the door for immigrants from foreign waters. It is easy to blame immigrants, it is far more difficult to look in the mirror of our own practices. /dps

Dock Rules Legislation

2008-03-03T07:22:00.001-08:00

Sen. Mary Olson (4) and Rep. Frank Moe (4A) are to be commended for introducing legislation compelling the DNR to initiate and complete within one year a legitimate rule-making process for docks and accessory structures (see Senate File 3237 and companion House File 3496). This is the right approach to take as it restores some legitimacy and accountability to a process that has recently been characterized by the crassest sort of political cronyism. The bills are short and to the point: "By March 15, 2009, the commissioner of natural resources shall complete rulemaking under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 14, to update rules on structures in publicwat ers allowed and permit requirements for those structures under Minnesota Rules, chapter 6115."

Comprehensive rule making will necessarily address the the cumulative impacts of docks and accessory structures as well as the patio platforms "authorized" by the current (and illegitimate) General Permit. Under a formal rule-making process, scientific evidence for the adverse ecological consequences of very large docks and proliferating accessory structures will be given due consideration. In addition, advocates of patio platforms will be required to demonstrate a "need" to compromise a public resource (something that so far has not been done).

Thank you Mary and Frank for your efforts on behalf of Minnesota's public waters!

BCLARA Forwards Dock Resolution to County

2008-02-28T07:37:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-27T14:40:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-27T10:34:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-27T06:34:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-26T08:51:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-26T07:34:00.000-08:00

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...

2008-02-25T13:06:00.000-08:00

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...

2008-02-25T08:48:00.001-08:00

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

2008-02-20T11:59:00.001-08:00

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

2008-02-08T09:00:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-06T11:41:00.000-08:00

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

Docks in the News

2008-01-30T12:30:00.000-08:00

Docks are in the news again as media around Minnesota begin to report on and scrutinize the DNRs dubious decision to use a General Permit to authorize structures clearly prohibited by existing rules. Use the link above to monitor related stories as they emerge.

One possibility allowed under the new DNR General Permit is that counties may choose opt out and it looks like the Beltrami County Lake and River Associations (BCLARA) may soon ask Beltrami County to do so. Hopefully the commission will do the right and prohibit the use of the patio platform General Permit. Stay tuned for new developments...

New poll: raise my taxes?!?

2008-01-29T08:33:00.000-08:00

As part of my exploration of possibly establishing a local watershed district, I have added a new poll (see right hand column). Based on taxable market valuations within the proposed watershed district, the required tax levy would be roughly $1 per $10,000 taxable market value. Thus, the owner of a $100,000 home in the City of Bemidji would pay an additional $10 per year in property taxes. Likewise, the owner of a $500,000 summer home on Cass Lake would pay $50. Seems like a good investment to me but I'll be curious to see what kind of responses I get (if any!).

Phosphorus: Enemy of the Lake

2008-01-29T07:48:00.000-08:00

The Strib recently had a nice feature by Larry Baker on the role phosphorus plays in lakes...it is worth reading and passing along. He has some very interesting ideas about whole watershed phosphorus management and I think he is on the right track. /dps

DNR approves over-water patio platform docks?

2008-01-29T07:12:00.001-08:00

In late January 2008 Minnesota DNR Division of Waters issued a new, five-year General Permit which authorizes large patio platforms on private docks. Oddly, the decision to issue this permit was directly contrary the main conclusion of a DNR-convened statewide Docks Advisory Committee (DAC)! I had the opportunity to serve on this 19 member committee, which included eleven citizens, four dock industry representatives, and four DNR personnel. In the first paragraph of our final report, we “expressed significant reservations about the wisdom of re-issuing another general permit for dock platforms, feeling that doing so might be considered an after-the-fact variance for platform docks.” Such patio platforms are illegal under existing DNR rules. A majority of DAC members felt that recommending “any sort of General Permit for platform docks would make them complicit in the degradation of aquatic habitat, the further destruction of the natural shoreline character, and the erosion of the ‘public’ nature of Minnesota waters.”

The Commissioner’s inexplicable decision to disregard the recommendations of the Department’s own state-wide committee raises two major questions. First, why ask people to invest time and energy into serving on a committee only to ignore their carefully crafted conclusions? Second, are top DNR administrators acting in the best long-term interest of Minnesota’s public water resources or are they falling into a troubling pattern of responding to the whims and wishes of a politically well-connected few?

In response to the first question, it appears that DNR leadership was hoping that the DAC would legitimize an earlier dubious decision to issue a one-year general permit for those few docks which clearly violated existing dock rules. In several intensively developed areas of Minnesota, a growing number of private docks do not comply with current DNR dock rules. Rather than enforcing existing rules, the DNR is trying to use a General Permit process to grant after-the-fact variances for political allies. The DAC unequivocally rejected this abuse of the General Permit process and, as a result, our recommendations were disregarded. If existing dock rules need to be updated, and clearly they do, then the Department should immediately initiate a legitimate rule-making process as required by law.

The decision to issue a five-year general permit for patio platform docks is just the latest in a string of recent DNR decisions which suggest that the current DNR administration is more interested in rewarding political allies than in protecting Minnesota’s natural resources. Such short-sighted and self-interested policies do not bode well for the future. Our waters, in particular, are a public resource and the DNR should be working to maintain ecological integrity, natural aesthetics, and public accessibility. Instead, it seems that such worthy ends are secondary to the desires and financial interests of an influential few. The reality is, most Minnesotan’s do not own lakeshore and most who are fortunate enough to do so realize that private docks are privileged intrusions on a public resource. Consequently, a vast majority of Minnesota docks are ‘minimum impact solutions to demonstrated needs,’ as required by existing rules. Why reward a few people who seek to extend their private domain over public waters?

Issuing a five year General Permit for dock patio platforms can only result in the spread of such structures across broader areas of Minnesota. While sales of patio platforms may be good for the dock industry, their use is bad for Minnesota lakes. Ecologically, increasingly large over-water footprints of dock systems and accessory structures disrupt near shore aquatic vegetation critical for fish reproduction and development. They further serve to concentrate and increase the angling vulnerability of a variety of fish species. Perhaps most significantly, large dock systems unavoidably shift aquatic productivity away from rooted plants and toward algae which reduces water clarity and initiates a cascade of largely undesirable changes in aquatic communities. Aesthetically, ever expanding dock systems contribute to visual clutter which compromises the natural character of lakes and shorelines. Finally, and undeniably, patio platforms restrict public access to a public resource.

Therefore, given the DNR’s apparent unwillingness to act in the long-term interest of Minnesota’s water resources, what can be done? According to the cover letter accompanying the new General Permit, any county may prohibit use of this permit within its jurisdiction. Encourage your county to do so. If a county does prohibit use of this ill-conceived General Permit, existing DNR rules remain in effect. Perhaps the Association of Minnesota Counties might even ‘encourage’ the DNR to get on with a legitimate rule-making process instead of foisting resource protection on individual counties? Lakeshore property owners can do the right thing and forego the temptation to expand their dock systems (or, even better, to reduce current configurations). Individual citizens across the state can contact legislators and ultimately compel the DNR to initiate a legitimate rule-revising process. The stakes are high and the time is short. What happens in the immediate future will shape Minnesota shorelines for decades to come.

2007 Weather Review

2008-01-22T07:18:00.001-08:00

The Minnesota Climatology Working Group recently released its overview of our state's 2007 weather. Couldn't help but thinking how short our memory really is regarding specific weather events (at least speaking for myself). /dps

Join the CROWD?*

2008-01-18T12:31:00.000-08:00

Interested in helping to establish a local watershed district? For the past several months I have been exploring the possibility and will be facilitating an informational meeting at 7:00 pm Thursday 31 January at the Headwaters Science Center. See this pdf flyer for meeting details and proposal background. /dps

* Committee Requesting an Ozawindib Watershed District

Docks Comment

2008-01-02T12:14:00.000-08:00

I recieved the the following unedited (and unsurprisingly anomymous) response to an earlier blog posting on docks:

"There is no good science that proves that docks are harmful to the lake or organisms in the lake. The studies that you and the DNR use take the general public to be "Idiots". One such instatnce would be the argument that docks block out the sun, while this could be true if the sun was always at a 90 degree angle to the dock. We all know from elementary school that the sun is always moving from left to right when looking south and never at a 90 degree angle to the earth unless you are in the tropics. There are more weeds and fish of all species under my dock than you can shake a cane pole at. To summarize dont take opinions as fact and dont rely on biased junk science, remember the DNR is the same group that said Rip Rap and lottery Doe tags were the solutions not long ago."

Consistent with the Greek origins of the term, I take as "idiots" only those who choose to remain willfully ignorant while rushing eagerly into public dialogue.

Unfortunately, we are living in culture where the bluster of loud opinion has somehow attained the the same weight as sound evidence. In such a context, it seems that the only "good science" is science that is consistent with one's pre-existing biases. For anyone willing to look, it will be readily apparent that there is plenty of legitimate science documenting the adverse ecological effects of such things as habitat fragmentation, over-water shading, and vegetation removal. Moreover, it is well-established that docks concentrate fish and make them more vulnerable to harvest. Docks and associated structures also disturb critical near shore nursery habitat.

Finally, the dock issue involves far more than ecological consequences. Docks are, quite simply, private intrusions on public waters and according to current statutorily-authorized rules, they must be 'minimum impact solutions to demonstrated needs.' Patio platforms are a private trespass on public property. If you build your gazebo or your garage on state forest land you will be rightly expected to remove it. We have been granted a special privilege of putting our private docks in public waters...it is not some sort of inherent right. In addition, as lakeshore developmental pressure continues to intensify and property values correspondingly increase, an ever smaller fraction of Minnesotan's will be able to afford lakeshore. In the end, there is a class issue here. By allowing ever more expansive dock systems, we run the risk of catering to the well-heeled few at the expense of our average citizens. But that, of course, is merely only my own opinion...

Mercury Availability & Exposure

2007-12-12T06:58:00.000-08:00

Many area lakes have fish consumption advisories for mercury (see links from MN DNR Lakefinder for details on particular lakes). Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that has especially adverse consequences for developing brains (which is why consumption advisories are more stringent for young children and women of child-bearing age). Because mercury accumulates in muscle tissue there is no way to reduce exposure through cleaning or cooking techniques.

One of the puzzling things about these advisories is how different they are from lake to lake. Because most mercury enters lakes through atmospheric deposition of mercury released from coal burning power plants we might expect similiar mercury levels across all lakes in an area but this is not the case. Recently reported research from UW-Madison suggests at least a partial explanation for observed differences -- levels of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) apparently enhance the biological availability of mercury. Exact mechanisms are still not well understood but the pattern is undeniable.

From the standpoint of expectations or predictions, high DOC lakes often have a tea-stained appearance. Consequently, fish from such lakes are likely to have higher mercury levels. In addition, in more oligotrophic lakes fish generally grow slower and live longer and are thus likely to have higher mercury levels at any given size than fish from more productive waters. So, to reduce exposure to mercury you should in general (1) eat smaller specimens of (2) fish species lower on the food chain from (3) relatively productive lakes with (4) unstained waters. /dps

Honors Council Lecture

2007-12-06T07:45:00.000-08:00

I delivered a public Honors Council Lecture at Bemidji State last night. My talk focused on demographic and climatic factors predisposing some area lakes to regime shifts and I also talked a bit about the summer dissolved oxygen impairment in the Mississippi from Itasca to the Schoolcraft river. C-map notes for my talk are available on-line. /dps

Snow depth map

2007-12-06T07:36:00.000-08:00

Hydroclim Minnesota just emailed another update (should be posted to the web soon) and one of the most interesting features is a series of weekly snowdepth maps from this and past years. Given the seemingly continuous snowfalls of the past week it will be fun to compare current levels with those of recent winters. /dps

November Ob Wells

2007-11-26T07:48:00.000-08:00

I completed our monthly ObWell monitoring again last week. Nine of eleven shallow wells showed increases again this month but average only about an 1.5" rebound. Four of six medium depth wells also increased a bit although average increases were again less than 2 inches. Water levels in both of our deep wells near the continental divide continued to decline (as they have monthly since 2002). /dps

More on docks

2007-11-19T13:51:00.000-08:00

The DNR Dock Advisory Committee met for the third and final time last Thursday. Our draft recommendations should be available on the DNR Waters webpage soon. What follows below is a slightly edited draft of a piece I wrote for our forthcoming SWCD newsletter. The above photo shows the kind of over-water private patio systems that are becoming increasingly common usurpations of public waters in some areas (click photo for larger image). The patio portion alone has an overwater footprint of ~ 500 square feet!

Very large private dock systems pose signficant threats to public access, natural aesthetics, and ecological integrity of Minnesota waters. At this point, problems are occurring primarily in certain areas (e.g., Lake Minnetonka and the Brainerd-Nisswa corridor) and are highlighted by a few especially egregious examples. However, these expansive dock systems are proliferating across the state as demographic changes increase lakeshore property values and developmental pressures. Because many of these dock systems clearly violate existing dock rules, the DNR commissioner last spring responded to political pressure and issued a temporary one year general permit authorizing dock platforms up to 170 square feet. With that temporary permit set to expire at the the end of November 2007, the DNR earlier this fall established a 20 member state-wide Dock Advisory Committee to address the controversy. Through an odd set of circumstances, I served on that committee which met three times in November and submitted recommendations to the DNR.

Although a signficant majority of committee members felt strongly that extending another General Permit for non-compliant docks would be equivalent to granting an after-the-fact variance for blatant violators of existing rules, there was also a reluctant consensus that a two year General Permit with explicit size restrictions for dock platforms (ie., private over-water patios) would be better than nothing, particularly if it served as a bridge to appropriate new rules. Unfortunately, although there was virtually unanimous consent that existing DNR rules are badly in need of revision, there was also a sense that appropriate new rulemaking is unlikely to occur under the current commissioner. In effect, through its understandable unwillingness to enforce obsolete rules and its less justifiable reluctance to formulate appropriate new rules, the DNR is effectively abdicating its statutory responsibility to protect public waters. In any event, this problem is only likely to intensify and several legislation or legal challenges are likely on the horizon.

So, what now? The bottom line is that it is time for Minnesota citizens and, if necessary, the State Legislature, to insist that our DNR Commissioner carry out his statutory responsibility to formulate new and appropriate dock rules. Issuing General Permits after-the-fact to excuse blatant violations is an inexcusable breech of public trust and Minnesotans need to hold the Commissioner fullyt accountable for this travesty. /dps

Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy

2007-11-07T07:31:00.000-08:00

One of my colleagues on the MN DNR Dock Advisory Committee is affiliated with the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA), an organization which has been around since 1974 and looks to be doing some very good things. I don't know enough about the group to offer any sustantive comments but added a link on my homepage and plan to learn more in the future. Once potentially nice feature on the MCEA page is a link to Minnesota Environmental News. /dps

Mississippi River History

2007-11-06T06:55:00.000-08:00

Bob Melchior, an emeritus professor of geology from Bemidji State University, has studied the geological history of the Mississippi headwater region in rich detail. He introduced me to the wonders of paleontology in a course some twenty years ago. Yesterday, Bob stopped by and shared a powerpoint presentation that he used for a public talk earlier this summer. It includes some fascinating prehistory of our region. The two slides reproduced above (click to enlarge) are especially intriguing and are directly relevant to understanding the current dissolved oxygen impairment of the Mississippi between Itasca and the confluence with the Schoolcraft River.

The top image relates the establishment of the Mississippi River to a global temperature record from the Greenland ice sheet. As the Laurentide Itasca Phase Glacier begins a slow northward retreat during a warm period commencing roughly 14,500 years ago, the river flowed north through a tunnel valley laden with intermittent masses of glacial debris which acted as dams, forming a series of at least eight shallow lakes which exist as visible relicts even today.

As the second figure clearly reveals, these eight relict lakes comprise most of the Mississippi's course from Itasca to Lake Bemidji; modern day Lake Irving is situated in the last of these eight basins. Seems to me these relict lake should have some catchy names -- Bob simply uses the numbers 1 though 8 on one of his slides -- so how about (1) something mundane like the days of the week plus Irving, (2) something earthy like the eight spokes (sabbats) in the Wiccan Wheel of the Year, or (3) perhaps something really exotic based on the elements of the Eightfold Path or the Eight Great Bodhisattvas of Buddhism or the Eight Immortals from Chinese mythology. Just a thought -- for my purposes I think I'll adopt the sabbats -- Samhain, Yule, Imbolc, Ostara, Beltaine, Midsummer, Lunasagh, and Mabon -- as a nod to the cycles of change that gave rise to the river itself. In any case, I am looking forward to paddling this stretch of the river next summer with a new perspective.

The second slide also shows how the course of the Mississippi changed between 4000 and 8000 years ago from (1) an exit out the south end of modern day Lake Bemidji through the Necktie River then on to Leech Lake to (2) the modern course out the east side of Lake Bemidji though the Cass Lake chain. Interestingly enough this also relevant to a contemporary issue facing the city of Bemidji since the peat occlusion that re-routed the river are in the vicinity of the controversial former Georgia Pacific site, a prime piece of urban real estate. Fascinating stuff. /dps

Ads by Google?

2007-11-01T07:31:00.001-07:00

When I set up this blog I opted in to a feature called Ads by Google which automatically places topically appropriate ads on blogs and websites. I have found that, for the most part, the products advertised on WaterBlog are antithetical to sound lake and stream management -- they offer ineffective "band-aid" solutions and "magic bullet" fantasies that are a sorry substitute for appropriate land use practices and shoreland regulations. The Solar Bee is a case in point. Needless to say then, I do not endorse or encourage the products advertised. I have recetnly considered opting out of the program but have decided instead to monitor the ads and to comment on the shortcomings of specifics products and solutions. /dps

Reflections on the past week and a half

2007-10-31T07:46:00.000-07:00

It has been a while since my last post so I thought I'd justify the gap by summarizing a bit of what has happened lately. Last week I attended the Minnesota Water Resources Conference where I learned a lot about TMDLs, fluvial geomorphology, and modeling phosphorus dynamics in lakes. The meeting also provided a chance to catch up with old friends and colleagues and to put faces and personas with new names. I had some very stimulating conversations that I hope will lead to future collaborations. One of the most compelling talks was given by John O. Anfinson of the National Park Service. He provided an overview of his book 'The River We Have Wrought: A History of the Upper Mississippi' -- good stuff and I immediately ordered a copy which I will review here later this fall.

Yesterday I presented a talk to our local Academy of Lifelong Learning. My remarks attempted to put the mounting pressures on our lakes and river in the context of Garrett Hardin's classic 1968 paper "The Tragedy of the Commons." I also talked a bit about the likely origin of the dissolved oxygen impairment on the Mississippi from Itasca to Bemdiji and introduced the notion of regime shift (I'll be exploring this concept in greater detail as a public Honors Council Lecture at BSU on 5 December). Overall, it seemed like the talk went well as it stimulated some interesting questions.

Through an odd sequence of events, I now find myself on the Minnesota DNR's Docks Advisory Committee. We will be meeting for the first tomorrow night in Sauk Rapids and are charged with distilling citizen comments received over the past few months and then making a consensus recommendation to the Commissioner by Thanksgiving. Perusing the diversity of submittted letters and e-mails suggests that this might be a rather contentious process. Should be interesting in any case.

That's about all for now. Time to try to get back to the routine. /dps

Local history and water quality

2007-10-19T06:58:00.000-07:00

Over the past week or so I have been collecting background material to develop a proposal for a project intended to address the persistent dissolved oxygen impairment on the Mississippi River (from Lake Itasca to the Schoolcraft River). The most apparent consequence of this impairment is that for much of the summer, long stretches of river don't have enough oxygen to support most game fish species. A more subtle, but potentially far more significant consequence is that during low oxygen conditions, the river sediments release large volumes of phosphorus with adverse consequences for water quality in lakes Irving and Bemidji.

While this reach of the mighty Mississippi has been on MPCA's Impaired Waters list since 1994, the cause of the problem is still not well understood. However, one very likely contributing factor is the intensive logging practices and particularly the log driving techniques that were prevalent from the late 1890s through the first decade of the twentienth century. The raw volume of timber harvested and moved downriver is astonishing. Historian Harold Hagg (The Beltrami County Logging Frontier. Minnesota History 43: 137-149) noted that, "During the summer months the river drives down the Mississippi and the Schoolcraft brought millions feet of logs to Lakes Bemidji and and Irving. In 1900 about seventy-five million feet were hoisted from the lakes and shipped by rail to the sawmill centers."

To put the scale of these operations in perspective, the largest white pine ever harvested in Minnesota was cut near Cass Lake. It was estimated to be 425 years old and it yielded 6300 board feet of lumber (Larson, A.M. 1949. History of the White Pine Industry in Northern Minnesota. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, p. 8) If, for the sake of discussion, we take 2000 board feet per tree as a more typical (but probably still somewhat high average yield) this would suggest that the 1900 hoistings alone represent at least 37,500 trees. Looked at another way, with typical yields of 20,000 feet per acre this would require at least 3750 acres (5.85 square miles) of cutting. According to Hagg, "In the logging season of 1900-1901, about 4000 men were employed in the woods within a radius of ten miles from Bemidji: they were cutting a quarter of a billion feet of logs." Once cut, most of these trees were piled adjacent to streams and then floated downriver in the spring and early summer.

The sheer physicality of these log drives boggles the mind. Most began in the early spring to take advantages of the increased flow rates afforded by snowmelt. As the Mississippi River photo above (from the Minnesota Historical Society Visual Archives) shows, this had to be cold and grueling labor on an immense scale -- Hagg noted that "One of the largest drives ever taken to Lake Irving was that of the Brainerd Lumber Company in 1904, containing 40 million feet and employing 200 men."

One of the biggest problems encountered on these massive drives was that in low water stretches, logs would hang-up creating dangerous and often deadly jams. W.G. Rector (1953. Log transportation in the lake states lumber industry. Glendale CA: Clark, p. 96) noted that death among the so-called 'river pigs' was so common that a "drowning did not slow up the progess of a drive any more than it slowed the current of the river." (listen to Slaid Cleaves "Breakfast in Hell" for a colorful musical account of an attempt to break a log jam). To prevent jams, numerous sluice dams were constructed along even the smallest watercourses and tributary streams. These sluice dams were used to back up large volumes of water that could then be used in a 'controlled' release for moving logs over shallow areas. As the photo at the top of this post (of a sluice dam on the Nemadji) clearly shows, the resulting erosion and sedimentation problems were extreme.

Such dams were common on the Mississippi between Itasca and Bemidji and I am hoping that some careful research will be able document potential residual impacts on water quality. To be successful, this will need to be a very collaborative process involving not only the SWCD and the MPCA but also other agencies and university researchers. If the proposed study can demonstrate effects of logging practices it may be possible to develop a suite of remediation strategies that will greatly reduce the amount a nutrient loading impinging on Lake Irving and Lake Bemidji each year. /dps

New EPA Water Quality and Nutrients Resource

2007-10-17T06:38:00.000-07:00

The US Environmental Protection Agency recently updated their web resources on nutrients and water quality. At first glance, it looks like pretty good information that is well organized and readily accessible. I just did a couple queries for local data that worked nicely and the "What You Can Do" resources offer some useful tips for lake, river, and, watershed association newsletters. /dps

More on Docks

2007-10-15T06:12:00.000-07:00

The dock controversy continues to heat up in Minnesota this fall and so far it is not clear where the DNR is headed with proposed regulations. According to a recent AP story on the the WCCO website, the DNR is actually considering relaxed standards! With population growth and increasingly intensive shoreline development (see Strib photo above and accompanying story) it is clear that something needs to be done. Private docks are priviledged intrusions on public waters and using docks as an extension of a backyard is ecological irresponsible and aethetically unacceptable. To me it seems readily apparent that docks should be of minimal necessary dimensions only. As I noted earlier, the DNR is soliciting input on the matter with plans to issue new rules and regs soon but so far there has been little attention paid to means of enforcement. The next couple months should be interesting! /dps

Landcare, Australian style

2007-10-12T07:14:00.000-07:00

Just learned a bit about Landcare, a watershed based approach human-environment interaction that has become prevalent in Australia. Landcare emphasizes community partnerships and practical solutions and it looks like a model we might do well to import. For example, a Landcare-like strategy might provide a comprehensive context for addressing the the dissolved oxygen impairment of the Mississippi River from Itasca to Lake Irving. /dps