RESULTS AND FEEDBACK PHASE II AIS MANAGEMENT STAKEHOLDER MEETING #1 (This piece was assembled by Stenquist with help from Welling, Enger, and Japs.

Transcription

1 RESULTS AND FEEDBACK PHASE II AIS MANAGEMENT STAKEHOLDER MEETING #1 (This piece was assembled by Stenquist with help from Welling, Enger, and Japs.) Meeting Summary On September 22, twenty stakeholders met with DNR staff to discuss their concerns and suggested actions about management of AIS infestations. All of the stakeholders were willing to identify and discuss their concerns, but many of them felt this was going over old ground. They felt the Phase 1 Report was quite clear about most of their concerns. (In this meeting, participants did list their 3-5 top concerns on flipcharts and presented them to the group. We have typed up the flipcharts and included them in this document.) Stakeholders are interested in hearing from the DNR about how it will address their concerns. They do not want to move forward with any more Phase II input meetings, until they hear from the DNR about what the agency will do in response to concerns already identified. Stakeholders who attended the September 22 meeting: John Barten, Kristen Blann, Barry Chouinard, Jeff Forester, Henry Erdman, Jay Green, Dale Gustafson, Tera Guetter, Barb Halbakken Fischburg, James Johnson, Steve Johnson, Matt Kocian, Kevin Kretsch, Ann Latham, Steve McComas, Robert Olsen, Peter Deuscher, Dick Osgood, Patrick Selter, Paula West DNR staff who attended the September 22 meeting: Henry Drewes, Steve Enger, Darrin Hoverson, Jim Japs, Dave McCormack, Sean Sisler, Brian Stenquist, Chip Welling Document Contents This document highlights some of the key concerns stakeholders have expressed to DNR so far. These highlights are drawn from the Phase 1 Report and from the first meeting of the Phase II process. We have also included in this document the raw flipcharts each participant created during the meeting. Next Steps DNR leadership (in the persons of DEWR Director Steve Hirsch and DFW Director Ed Boggess) will attend the second Phase II Management Stakeholder meeting in St Cloud on October 19 th. They will discuss with participants what the DNR will do to address identified stakeholder concerns. The intent of the meeting on the 19th is to have a good discussion among AIS stakeholders and DNR leadership, so that effective action is taken by the DNR and by stakeholders to address identified concerns about AIS management.

2 KEY QUESTIONS AND KEY TOPIC AREAS HIGHLIGHTED BY STAKEHOLDERS At this time, DNR leadership is planning to discuss with stakeholders the following key questions and topic areas during the next Phase II AIS Management Stakeholders meeting on October 19 th. PHILOSOPHY OF MANAGEMENT How will the DNR clarify its philosophy on managing both aquatic invasive plants and native aquatic plants in support of healthy aquatic ecosystems? PERMITTING How will the DNR address concerns about its organizational structure to be more effective in managing aquatic invasive plants and native aquatic plant populations in support of healthy aquatic ecosystems? How will the DNR enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of its aquatic invasive plant permit system? LAKE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLANNING (LVMP) How will the DNR enhance the LVMP development and implementation process? How will DNR make LVMPs more consistent statewide? GRANTS AND FUNDING How will the DNR improve the process of granting funds to manage infestations of aquatic invasive plants? How will the DNR address funding needs for aquatic invasive plant management (e.g., seek Legacy funds)? RESEARCH How will the DNR improve the monitoring and evaluation of aquatic invasive plant treatments? How will the DNR support and use cutting-edge research on aquatic invasive plant management? COMMUNICATION How will the DNR improve its communications on aquatic invasive plants? EDUCATION How will the DNR improve its education around aquatic invasive plants?

3 Flipcharts from AIS Meeting 1 9/22/11 JEFF 1. Permit streamlining One stop shop Timing 2. Confusion about DNR AIS. Philosophy should they be controlled? 3. Frustration Lakes/rivers are public until there is a problem, then cost is largely borne by local communities and owners/tax base. DALE 1. Establish what AIS plants are Habitat or AIS 2. Permit process One department Not Fisheries 3. Permits based on LVMP. 4. Patterned on whole lake. BARRY 1. Communication when public at large knows the question to ask, let s be clear and concise on who to turn for the answer. i.e., lakes = clear; streams = not so clear. 2. Effective boat/trailer decontamination options for the concerned sportsman. 3. Integrate recreation vehicle producers to design products that lend themselves to effective containment. KEVIN 1. Promote long-term intense AIS reduction vs. recreational management. 2. Accept that Do No Harm affects control. - Low dose may fail - Small treatment sites affect control. 3. Develop standards for permitted control. LVMP and permit application efforts are worth it.

4 KRISTEN 1. Education / communication: Need summaries 2. Updated results and synthesis of outcomes Both studies and anecdotal experiences What worked? What didn t and Why? (speculative) 3. What criteria / evidence do we use to judge whether the cure works / is worse than disease. e.g., fish, mussels, native plants 4. Can we ID conditions / lake types where different strategies apply? MATT 1. Permitting Management of AIS is split between AIS program and APM. Inefficient & cumbersome. Either: 1) merge AIS program into APM or 2) move permitting to AIS. 2. Permitting Loosen rules/regulations on management of AIS. 3. Communication Provide, as a service to local partners and lake associations, technical advice, recommendations, etc. Act as a guide in AIS management. 4. Communication - More effectively communicate results of research/management. - Current management direction? - Adaptive management - Collect results of research management from local partners. JAMES 1. Permit Process Too slow Too expensive with many properties Disorganized (lack of solid communication) DNR does not TRUST permittees to do the right thing. Signatures and additional fee for each individual property promotes illicit / unpermitted treatments. 2. Variance Permits 15% not enough to keep invasives at bay after successive lake-wide treatments. If selective herbicide / responsible applicator / organized lake group allow more (30-50%) without complex variance process. 3. DNR clearly define limits / motivations of underlying policies. These are likely the true source of the problems / perceptions. STEVE 1. Philosophy Can invasive plants be native plants? Can non-native plants be non-invasive? (Define invasive) 2. Permitting Base permitting on plant function and values. FOR EXAMPLE: Heavy growth of EWM CLP could be treated Light growth has functions of other native plants (does not have to be treated) 3. Miscellaneous What are the plans for managing hydrilla? 15% rule justify or adapt Financial which policies are limited by $? Define metrics for success.

5 JAY 1. Funding Shared costs by user groups (AIS vs. natural vegetation?) 2. Data Pre/post surveys Water quality Fish quality User group data collection opportunities Watershed / lakewide correlation of all treatments - when - where (GPS) - what - how much 3. Safeguards Identify criteria to alert of potential issues. 4. Education AIS vs. natives! ANN Permitting restrictions / policy has contributed to significant non-compliance. 1. Acknowledgement of the destructive results (caused by AIS) to water ecosystems / fisheries / water quality to MN lakes on which to base an aggressive aquatic invasive vegetation program; invasives are not to be. 2. Develop a control / management protocol / program separate from APM for native vegetation (which is now used for invasives) aquatic invasive vegetation control must be improved, brought up-to-date and enacted for control of existing and prevention of spread. 3. Under the umbrella of an improved AIV program, philosophy, admission of need these points: (from experience with permits/control): A. 150 Rule abolish lakeward is public water from any shore. B. 15% littoral rule abolish it is arbitrary and capacious treat all or none. C. Signage requirements streamline to access notification. D. Notification of treatment, verification of survey establish trust present ref. Eco and Fish redundant and costly impediment to treatment. E. STOP more harm than good experts and experience. TERA Statutes long-term ecological, commercial and recreational benefits. 1. Philosophy - Habitat vs. Invasive ecological pollutant A. AIS Researchers Harms native communities Lack of Will in Fisheries Division B. Precautionary Approach - Incomplete treatments - Containment / reduction goals can t effectively accomplish C. Accountability Fisheries vs. Eco/Waters - Fisheries Management - EW Prevention focused Internal Disagreement 2. Permitting - AIS vs. Native Same criteria Why? - Use LVMP s > 15% *200g ACOE Study Need 15% - 40% Fisheries - Impacts of incomplete treatment - Waste of $ - Encourages spread PAULA 1. Clarifying DNR perspectives of AIS Habitat (Fisheries) vs. ecological pollutant. 2. Move AIS permitting to one Division / one location = statewide consistency. 3. Trust your partners. 4. Lakewide management = all or none - LVMP s guide - Eliminate barriers - sigs - fees - partial treatment - risk analysis - 15% limitation / variances 5. Rapid response

6 JOHN 1. Need consistent criteria to assess effectiveness of AIS Management. Minimum data collection requirements. Acceptable level of non-target impacts. 2. Need coordination and facilitation of alternatives new BMP s to manage AIS. Distribute project results. Highlight differences in approaches to find best methods. 3. LVMP s need to include specific objectives / outcomes of AIS Management Program. Why is it being done?what constitutes success / failure? 4. More information distribution on ecological benefits of aquatic macrophytes. BARB 1. DNR cost reduction to admin process technology 2. Disconnect between Eco and Fisheries on Invasives 3. How are aquatic invasives viewed by Fisheries (habitat / harm to natives) 4. Lakewide treatment of invasives to protect native habitat. 5. Consistency statewide on variance LVMP s changes. 6. Trust lake association / applicators. 7. $$$ spent by lake associations / public waters Legacy $ 8. Old DNR Model 21 st Century Technology DICK 1. Philosophy - Lack a clear, consistent statement shaky underpinning. Recomm: By next meeting, present ONE 2. Permitting 3. Grants PATRICK He taped all of Appendix C from the Phase 1 Report onto his flipchart. We have included Appendix C at the end of this document to reflect this flipchart. 4. Best Practices idea is to guide planning and permitting [see submitted comments] 5. LT Reductions / Criteria - Subjective - No no-treat cases - Operational guidelines

7 The following pages were taped to Patrick Selter s flipchart during Meeting 1 of Phase II. From the Phase 1 Report APPENDIX C. Additional Comments Received from Stakeholder after Stakeholder Meetings (Table below are written comments from Ann Latham, Paula West, Tera Guetter and Patrick Selter) AIS Permitting Issue Two divisions are involved with AIS Management ( EcoWaters and Fisheries) and each has differing mission/goals relative to AIS. AIS permitting procedures/process limits effective AIS containment and/or results in incomplete treatment. MN statutes and rules have not kept up as more AIS have infested our lakes As it stands, AIS treatments are overwhelming financed by the riparian property owners (as part of an association or by assessment by local government) even though the waters are owned by the public and regulated by the state. Current regulations place the responsibility of near-shore (within 150 ft of shore) AIS treatments on the riparian property owners. Lakewide AIS treatment permit applications require a number of steps to be followed each year: 1) a vegetation survey must be conducted prior to treatment; 2) obtaining riparian owner signature cards (every year) providing consent to near shore treatments (no card, no near shore AIS treatment) even though it is public water; and 3) DNR may request additional monitoring requirements as part of permit approval. In addition to treatment costs, only a few AIS species are exempt from permit fees, not all AIS. The DNR s own requirements result in huge administrative burdens for AIS permitting and duplicative costs. Solutions Offered 1. Clarify AIS mission/goals within DNR divisions/offices over fundamental issues and objectives of lake management. A clear distinction between goals for native species management and AIS must occur. 2. Transfer AIS treatment permitting authority to AIS Task Force/Committee/Eco Waters from Fisheries Separate permitting for aquatic invasive species from native plant control permits (and streamline. Keep native plant control permitting in Fisheries, move AIS permitting to another entity (AIS Task force / EcoWaters). Require no permits, signatures, or fees for lakewide AIS control under an approved LVMP. Fishery gamefish management goals should be considered, but not superior to other goals when AIS are present. 3. Develop and implement Rapid Response Plans for new AIS infestations, and include aggressive control of existing infestations as a prevention measure. Requirements for EDRR: In general, lakes with new infestations seldom have LVMP s and/or point intercept surveys in place, responsibility for control measures fall to local cooperators with little or no experience. Responsibility for activation of Rapid Response control of new infestations, including Grant opportunity/applications must be undertaken by MnDNR. (Note: Approval of an LVMP can take up to 1 ½ years) Aggressively treat new infestations including areas intermixed with native vegetation to prevent infestation from reaching nuisance levels. Recognize and utilize best management practices, including approved herbicide treatments and new research protocols. Develop different permitting standards/criteria for AIS to allow for effective ecological management LVMP or similar mechanism. Substantiate the 85% littoral preservation requirement (15% limit) imposed on AIS lakewide treatments; this is the result of Fisheries pre-cautionary approach that has become out-dated with significant spread of AIS into littoral areas replacing native vegetation. Rather, apply a focus on optimal control and prevention of AIS, remove arbitrary size barriers. Allow treatment of intermixed stands (AIS/Native); both emergent/submergent. 4. Streamline AIS treatment permitting process Transfer AIS treatment permitting authority Taskforce/Committee/EcoWaters. Separate permitting for aquatic invasive species from native plant control permits. Eliminate doubling of costs for DNR permits; i.e. vegetation surveys, inspection, issuing of permits with Eco/Waters and Fisheries both calling the shots on permits. It is confusing to cooperators and doubles the cost to the state for the APM program. o Remove the confirmation inspection requirements if delineation is done by professional standards and/or DNR compatible GPS description by cooperator. o Review vegetation survey requirement for permits and subsequent monitoring. This is expensive and time consuming. Use sparingly. Develop alternative riparian notifications (public notice/hearing). Signature/notification cards should not be required for AIS treatments in public waters since near shore treatment should not be viewed for the purpose of providing access to open waters (native plant species application) but for treating an AIS infestation. No property owner should have veto

8 power for treating lakewide AIS infestations for public benefit. Remove permit fees for all lakewide/baywide AIS treatments. There should be no permit fees required for control of AIS in waters of the state. 4. Lakewide management falls between the cracks of rapid response and nuisance control grant programs. Lakewide management is the best containment strategy. It is not nuisance control; it is an approach to prevent the need for nuisance control. Lake Vegetation Management Plans (AIS) LVMPs are currently developed jointly by AIS Specialists and Fisheries, but approved by Fisheries. AIS Mitigation/Treatment Research Unwillingness to fund chemical treatment research Unwillingness to accept science-proven research from other states. No cost-risk analysis approach to AIS management. 1. Transfer plan approval authority to AIS Taskforce/Committee/EcoWaters. 2. Standardize LVMPs to provide consistency of permitting between regions and consistency of language and requirements. Develop consistent practices statewide minimize different approaches between Regions. 3. Train staff on writing LVMPs and relevant requirements. Currently irrelevant requirements are being included along with unnecessary additional costs requirements. Staff writing plans not aware of research results from CLP pilot project that are relevant to LVMP requirements. 4. Eliminate arbitrary requirements (in some LVMPs) of water quality monitoring annually for fully assessed lakes that already meet MPCA standards; periodic updating of water quality data is acceptable. 5. Eliminate variance requirements on lakes with an approved LVMP; it is the variance. 6. Establish a LVMP requirement for new infestation lakes. See #3, above. 1. Find additional funding sources. LCCMR, Clean Water Funds, Outdoor Heritage Funds should be sources of funding; AIS is an ecological pollutant and impairs native habitat. If AIS is not recognized and treated as such, then disband the AIS Program. There is little to no will to manage AIS with chemicals. The U of M is not geared for this type of research (WHY? 10,000 plus lakes). There are 8 full-time equivalent researchers in the US who work on this (Madsen 2011). 2. Old and outdated attitudes about new AIS management research prevents science-proven new treatment protocols from being used in Minnesota. Instead of saying We don t do that in Minnesota try new protocols; instead of live with it change to an attitude of embracing effective public/private mitigation of AIS. 3. Develop a cost-risk analysis approach to AIS management instead of the prevailing do no more harm than good attitude. For example, sacrificing a few native plants to the greater good of not destroying the whole native plant community of a lake may be the best prevention strategy in the long-run. AIS Grant Programs Grant programs favor highly infested waters managed for nuisance control not early response or small infestations or aggressive lakewide management. Grant programs are arbitrarily limiting and the application process is cumbersome and time consuming, thus discouraging lakes that would qualify from participating. Currently, lakewide management falls between the cracks of rapid response and nuisance control grant programs. Lakewide management is the best containment strategy; it is not nuisance control, it is an approach to prevent the need for nuisance control. The grant program is not consistent with best management practices. 1. Change Rapid Response grant criteria to allow more effective rapid response and treatment of new or small infestations. Current grant criteria may set up a project for failure ; AIS infested areas comprised of monoculture stands (Curlyleaf pondweed in entire lake) in a eutrophic lake (poor water quality) are not likely to increase water quality (research findings) in the short term. Treatments are more likely to be successful in a mesotrophic lake (good water quality) with a variety of plant species. Current grant acreage requirements are limiting, and requirement of 25% presence of milfoil on point intercept survey are unrealistic and limit participation in the grant program. Point intercepts are not routinely done and are not a good indicator of plant mass; the invasive can be present but not show up in a point intercept survey. 2. More $$ available for grant programs. 3. Water quality component should be eliminated. Adds unnecessary costs, especially in fully assessed lakes. As the pilot CLP research showed, water quality only improved in initial years and then leveled off; it is not an indicator of treatment effectiveness. 4. Change pilot CLP lakewide grant program to a broader Lakewide Management Grant Program for CLP, EWM, and Flowering Rush control. Current pilot projects are not pilot projects because there is no research. Pilots are only pilots if there is something to be learned from them. After spending a million+ $$ on the first five pilot lakes, the research is not being utilized or communicated to public or DNR personnel involved with AIS mgmt. 5. Any entity (lake associations and local governments ) doing lakewide management under a LVMP should have the opportunity to participate in the grant program, not just selective lakes who once they reach a threshold of effective treatment are eliminated from the grant program.

9 6. Minimize the use of grant funds for nuisance control; good lakewide management will be more effective in minimizing the spread and has the intent of preventing nuisance levels. Funding nuisance control should be the lowest priority of grant funding. 7. Streamline the grant application process and quicken agency approval response Eliminate doubling of costs for DNR permits; i.e. vegetation surveys, inspection, issuing o f permits with Eco/Waters and Fisheries both calling the shots on permits. It is confusing to cooperators and doubles the cost to the state for the APM program. o Remove the confirmation inspection requirements if delineation is done by professional standards and/or DNR compatible GPS description by cooperator. Either provide local DNR staff to delineate the invasive species or accept professionally contracted delineations without needing to field check for accuracy. Wetlands are delineated by professionals and not re-evaluated every time by SWCD staff. o Review vegetation survey requirement for permits and subsequent monitoring. This is expensive and time consuming. Use sparingly. Delays with vegetation surveys and permit approvals for treatments of AIS doesn t allow for proper timing to treat AIS at the appropriate time in its life stage. Most entities (lake associations, local governments) rely on grant funds in addition to their OWN funds to get control. This results in delaying applications past the optimal treatment time period, thereby reducing AIS reduction outcomes and getting less value for investment. 8. Recognize the importance of continual control of existing infestations as a prevention measure; Entities (lake associations, local governments) understand that eradication is not a goal in MN. Infested lakes will require continual control measures and must be on-going to avoid total nuisance infestation; this must be recognized in the grant process. AIS Messaging/Public Awareness Source - billboards, cards are NOT an effective use of funds. Ineffective and confusing/confounding messages to the media and partners by DNR staff i.e. Zebra Mussels clears up the water, ZM won t will have much impact on our lakes, there is nothing we can do, anglers are not a problem Can t contain areas Flowering Rush/EWM/CLP it s too far gone It s good habitat wait and see it s not that bad, Don t do more harm than good, Learn to live with it. Attitude of fisheries staff towards aquatic pesticide applicators needs to change. The portray applicators as not trustworthy 1. Use Social Media and other Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Recreational Websites/Blog (Angler chat rooms, hotel industry, boat/motor/dock manufacturer s, sporting goods stores (Cabela s, Scheels, Gander Mtn, etc), Outdoor News, Chamber of Commerce. 2. Provide up-to-date information on impacts, laws, etc. Pictures of impacts. Ecological impact of AIS is NOT understood by the general public. 3. Educate MnDNR personnel, employees. Provide a position paper on the negative impacts of ALL AIS on aquatic ecosystems, fishery habitat, recreational use of water resources to Fisheries (Species and Habitat), Eco Waters, Eco AIS, Parks, Trails (Access) employees for the purpose of a consistent message from all DNR Departments in their interaction with the public. This education should also include the DNR position on prevention of spread and control of existing infestations. NO DNR employee should minimize the importance of control and prevention of AIS in MN water resources!! (This does happen). 4. Use Correct Messaging Zebra Mussels: 1. Decline in gamefish; equipment fouling; water intakes (municipal,too), dam maintenance, beach fouling/hazard, etc. People want to help and be part of the solution. Anglers are not a problem, BUT anyone who moves their equipment (boats, docks, rafts) from one waterbody to another poses a threat for spread ACKNOWLEGE THIS and get messaging out. When explained to the angling community they are ALARMED and want to help out. Everyone wants the best for our waters. DNR has had de-contamination standards for their equipment for years, yet there has been little to no education for the public. Flowering Rush/EWM/CLP AIS is an ecological/biological pollutant; it is not habitat! 5. Foster Partnershipsa. The state does not have enough resources (staff, $$) to take AIS issues on alone. Recognize and embrace local partnerships and not alienate them. Treat partners as partners not adversaries, recognize their benefit

10 Lake associations are treated as adversaries not as partners; they collectively spend over $2 million a year on management more than the DNR. and foster a true atmosphere of trust and cooperation. For example, the number public access inspection hours funded last year (2010) amounted to 6-full time employees. Even doubling this figure is a drop in the bucket. This is not the answer. b. The State views herbicide applicators as simply a sector to regulate and does not acknowledge their scientific base (chemical, equipment, application research and techniques). This is a highly specialized field and applicators are more current on new products, technologies, and existing chemical/treatment methods than most AIS DNR staff. It is usually the applicator that proposes and designs the successful treatment proposals/programs (An example is the Lake Minnetonka Program; the most successful year was when the applicator designed the program in 2009).