# Aquatic Invaders Lets do what we can to keep them out of ND



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

With the discovery of Eurasian Milfoil in ND at Dead Colt Creek I thought this article was appropriate.

Upper Midwest targets aquatic invaders
Citing federal inaction, states move to control foreign species that enter the Great Lakes in ships' ballast tanks and cause economic and ecological damage.
Tom Meersman, Star Tribune 
Last update: December 14, 2005 at 8:49 PM
Printer friendly E-mail this story Outdoors
Upper Midwest targets aquatic invaders

The Upper Midwest is getting serious about controlling the influx of foreign species into the Great Lakes. Federal efforts have been ineffective in eliminating aquatic hitchhikers, which enter ships' ballast tanks in foreign ports and are carried into Great Lakes ports.

Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle each voiced support recently for state regulation of transoceanic ships, and legislators in both states will address the matter next year. All eight Great Lakes states have scheduled a teleconference today to discuss the possibility of a regional coalition on the problems.

Michigan is spearheading the effort. Its Legislature overwhelmingly passed a law in April requiring ships from abroad to have a state permit beginning in January 2007. To receive that permit, the ships will need to have on-board equipment that removes or kills aquatic pests in their ballast water before the water is discharged into Michigan ports.

Industry officials have argued that tougher regulations will be expensive and will put a state or the region at a competitive disadvantage.

However, Ken DeBeaussaert, director of Michigan's Office of the Great Lakes, said his state had to act because foreign aquatic pests cause huge economic and ecological problems.

Zebra mussels, for example, have clogged water-intake pipes and screens to power plants, drinking-water plants and industrial facilities, costing companies and their customers millions of dollars for extra maintenance. Foreign fish, such as round gobies and Eurasian ruffe, have displaced native fish species, he said, harming commercial and sport fishing.

Although it's too late to eliminate those species, DeBeaussaert said, it's critical to stop additional foreign plants and animals from arriving.

Many came via ballast tanks

About 179 alien plants and animals have been detected in the Great Lakes since the 1800s, more than 40 percent of them since the St. Lawrence Seaway was opened to oceangoing ships in 1959. Although some invaders came by other means, most arrived via ship in ballast water or in sludge in empty ballast tanks. A new invader is identified in the lakes about every seven months.

"We are reacting to the vacuum that's been created by federal agencies' inaction," DeBeaussaert said.

Environmental groups and several Great Lakes states, including Minnesota, sued the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to regulate ballast water discharges from vessels that enter the lakes from abroad. EPA officials have argued that the job already belongs to the U.S. Coast Guard, which monitors incoming ships for safety equipment and inspects ballast water for invasive species.

However, about 70 percent of the roughly 400 ships that enter the Great Lakes in a typical year aren't inspected, because their ballast water tanks are mostly empty. Still, they contain thousands of tons of sludge and residual water that can harbor eggs and spores of invasive species.

"These ships don't have the right to foul our lakes," said Sen. Ann Rest, DFL-New Hope, who will sponsor a bill next year that is nearly identical to Michigan's initiative. Ships would be required to remove or destroy aquatic pests through filtration, biocides, ultraviolet light, heating or other methods, she said. Regulation by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency would be paid through permit fees, Rest said.

However, Charles Hilleren, owner of Guthrie-Hubner Inc., a shipping agent in Duluth, said state regulation of ballast water discharge would be a mistake. "You're talking about an impossible set of rules and restrictions that would literally shut the whole trade down," he said.

His firm represents most of the 150 to 200 oceangoing ships that visit Duluth each year. Many of them dump ballast water into the harbor as they fill with grain for foreign destinations.

Hilleren said that the problem has already been addressed adequately by the federal government and that if affordable technology existed to filter or treat ballast water, "ship owners would be the first to jump at it and make it work."

Environmentalists and Michigan state officials say that filtration technology to remove aquatic pests is already available for some ships, depending upon their size and configuration, and that other techniques are being tested.

Andy Buchsbaum, director of the National Wildlife Federation's Great Lakes office, said that ideally, a federal approach in concert with Canada would best protect the lakes. But currently, weak federal laws have done nothing to halt more species from arriving, he said, and proposed changes in Congress have gone nowhere for years.

Buchsbaum said the latest concern is that more foreign species will arrive as trade expands between the Great Lakes region and China. "Duluth harbor and Minnesota's North Shore now face new and bigger threats from invasive species than ever before," he said.

Tom Meersman • 612 673-7388


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Aquatic Invaders Lets do what we can to keep them out of ND.....when I read this the first thing that came to my mind was, "Oh, no!! Now the Minnesota guys are bringing submarines instead of boats!"


----------



## Canuck (Nov 10, 2004)

Interesting to hear that North Dakota does not want invasive species from other waters....and yet you insist on dumping Devils Lake water into the Red River basin and eventually into Lake Winnipeg, one of the largest inland fisheries in the world. Manitoba (and Canada) want a filter installed at the outlet of Devils Lake to prevent the inter-basin transfer of critters that are not presently found in our waters. North Dakota ( and the USA) will not play ball. You are telling us that if we want a filter...to install one ourselves. I appreciate the prolems suffered by people around flooded areas... we have built a lot of infrastructure on the floodplain as well!!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

:laugh: :rollin:


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Canuck,

Can you tell me what species are in Devils Lake that are not already in Lake Winnapeg?


----------



## Canuck (Nov 10, 2004)

The issue here is more one of non-cooperation between our countries. We had to fight just to get an assessment of Devils Lake underway before the pumping started. In fact, the assessment got underway after pumping started.The tests concluded none of 12 known invasive fish and plant species was present in the lake water. However, the test results did show four types of algae and three fish parasites that are not presently found in Lake Winnipeg.

The outlet, which was closed for the season in early November, operated for only 11 days after its opening in August 2005. Its operation was curtailed due to high sulfate levels in the water and low water levels in the Sheyenne River. The outlet won't be turned on again until the spring.

All I am saying is we ALL have to think before we act. If you have a problem that you want your neighbor to help you solve, then you should do your best to help alleviate your neighbors concerns. Here in Manitoba we are quilty of one or two inter-basin transfers of water within the province that have led to a number of problems, most noticeably the continued expansion of common carp.


----------



## Canuck (Nov 10, 2004)

Sorry for jumping on this post guys, I'm having a bad day and just wanted to escape for a few minutes reading posts at one of my favorite websites. Time to go to my happy place.....


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

It seemed to me that North Dakota wanted an assessment done a few years back and Manitoba balked on it and then when it came to kill time Manitoba then decided they needed more of a delay so they requested an assessment as a last minute tactic. Manitoba has not done any favors to North Dakota on water issues going back to Canadian concerns and the Garrison Diversion Project. That also involved "biota transfer." We really took it in the shorts on that one!


----------



## Canuck (Nov 10, 2004)

Water rights issues always tend to bring out the worst in people, always have and always will, I guess. We either have too much or not enough.

Not sure about all the Devils Lake history but I don't doubt you are right.

:beer:

Politicians..go figure!


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

"Whiskey is for drinking but water is worth fighting for..."

Seems you guys want to keep everything out of NoDak. Rooster's shot about "Minnesota guys" albeit in jest, says a mouthful.

Canuck summed up his take on it. You want a pristine NoDak but never think much about your impact on your neighbors. Jet skis and fishing boats in MN.

I remember helping to sandbag Fargo during the flood but all I am to you guys is an aquatic pest.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Bert, you should read the history of my posts and you will find that I am one of your friends on this forum. Some of the highlights of my season include "guiding" for my "scissorbill" friends on their trips to North Dakota. If you will understand the way that the hunting in North Dakota is evolving in this time of plenty you would understand why many people who are involved with these forums like to protect what is left of the hunting opportunities North Dakota has to offer. We seldom talk about our fishing in the same protective way we talk about our hunting because in my opinion it is a "apples" to "oranges" comparison. If you could own and restrict access to lakes for fishing I'm afraid the fishing would take the same route as the hunting is taking in both of our states. As far as the water resources, we are a semiarid state and if we don't protect our water resources in a wet cycle we will be hurting bigtime in a dry cyle. I bring up these issues because they "are" and I repeat "are" very important to our state. It is not because I dislike Canadians or "Scissorbills" form Minnesota. My best friends live in Apple Valley, Eagan, Ellk River, Brainerd, Madison and Duluth. My family is originally from Dalano. Do I hate Minnesota? Only when I pull up to hunt a spot and I see a Minnesota liscense plate sitting there and have to go to Plan B! I live in an area that has as many out of state hunters as any area of North Dakota and has a history of this going back many years so I understand the whole picture because I am from the inside looking out and not the outside looking in and believe me there is a difference.


----------



## goose nuker (Feb 28, 2005)

I agree with what you are saying about protecting your hunting. I hunt nodak only in the spring for snows. I quit going there when the license requirements changed and split areas and yada yada yada. You want to be able to fish our lakes but not let us hunt your land? If you think about the economic impact for both states I think nodak bit themselves in the [email protected]#, I have friends there, the people are for the most part very nice, and the landowners that I know are great. I know alot of people that quit going there because of restrictions on non-residents. But as far as dumping water out of devils lake I think that is a very touchy subject. I think Canada has every right to be very concerned about what is going to happen when you start draining the lake and sending water into canada. You might find that in future years without working together canadians might look at the nodak people the same way you look at minnesotans. That is just my thought, and like I said its a very touchy subject.....


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

We have been looking out for barge traffic downriver for many years and look where it has got us!


----------



## Canuck (Nov 10, 2004)

Canad Bashing....here is a recent quote from one of your right wing media types. one Carson Tucker..."Canada is a sweet country, It is like your retatrded cousin you see at Thanksgiving and sort of pat him on the head. You know he's nice but you don't take him seriously. That's Canada"

Hey...we are starting to get ****** off, eh!! :beer:


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

That's the way some people think when they hear you are from North Dakota! We are hill people without the hills! We know exactly how you feel! When we travel to some areas of the U.S. and people find out we are from North Dakota they are surprised at how normal we look!!


----------



## Canuck (Nov 10, 2004)

Good to hear DJ. I know from my experience ,North Dakotans seem more like us than the yahoos from Toronto!!


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Canuk: Just a couple of questions.

1. Why didn't Canada make a fuss when MN put 12 man made drainage outlets into the Red River?

2. MN lawmakers are in the process of making drain tiling much more feasible so that they can drain wetlands and get water to the Red River as quick as they can. How does Canada feel about this when the Red accounts for almost 40% of the Phosphorus going into Lake Winnepeg? We know this is linked to fertilizer.

I don't want to start a war here or anything, but it seems like MN can do anything they want and you won't do a thing to them, but you have all focussed pretty hard on DL. I have also tried to keep up with what your press writes and many times it is very similar to our press.......far from the truth....made only to stir the pot and get people excited.


----------



## Canuck (Nov 10, 2004)

No I don't want to get into a verbal hoohah over this either. I'll try to give you my take on your questions:

1) I can only guess that the reason is because Manitoba too has created hundreds of artifical drains that flow into the Red River!! The socio/economic function of these drains is to expand farmland, dry it out sooner in the spring, and to prevent summer flooding damage to croplands after heavy rains. Agriculture calls the shots. We have a ton of problems due to drainage...erosion problems, loss of fish habitat, increased peak flows, shorter duration of spring low, nutrient loading, etc. etc. No one here wants to dump more on the farmer. He already has poor prices, higher input, BSE and so on. It is all political at this point. The environment takes a back seat.

2)Again, Manitoba is trying to get a handle on drainage issues in their own jurisdiction. It is pretty hard to challenge Mn on this when the province is trying to do the same things for their farmers.

Back to Devils Lake....I have no problem with properly filtered water entering the Red River. In the end, I think WE will end up paying for the high-tech filter. If that is what it takes then I am fine with that...money well spent...solves everones problems.

One question... is there no other use for DL water in ND??


----------



## Canuck (Nov 10, 2004)

This just published in the Winnipeg Free Press

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crackdown on illegal drainage a key measure

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Laura Rance LAURA RANCE - RURAL REVIVAL The expression that "whisky is for drinking; water is for fighting over" comes to mind as the Manitoba government unveils new plans to crack down on illegal drainage.

These enforcement measures, announced this month by Water Stewardship Minister Steve Ashton, are long overdue. But on the rural scene they will go over about as well as the early drinking and driving laws once did.

Back in the 1970s, getting caught over the legal limit was a joke -- almost a rite of passage in some communities. It's not that the rules were bad; it's just that they applied to somebody else.

It wasn't good enough to make drinking and driving illegal. It had to be enforced before people started to seriously consider behavioural change.

So it goes with drainage. The belief that a landowner can do whatever is necessary to get rid of unwanted water runs deep in some parts.

You can hardly blame the farmers. Without drainage, many parts of Manitoba would be too swampy to farm. And just about every policy initiative of the past century has indirectly encouraged a throwaway mentality when it comes to water management.

Producers are encouraged from all angles to pursue production efficiency. The key to high yields is early seeding. You can't sow crops on land still soggy from a winter hangover.

So the field ditches are made ever deeper and wider. Sure, farmers are supposed to get a permit before they undertake such work, but the process is tedious and the province has rarely enforced the rules unless someone complains. That's unlikely as long as the downstream landowner is able to pass the problem water along.

So the land gets drained, the roadside ditches swell every spring, the crops get planted and the people pray for rain. If the rain doesn't come, they file for crop insurance.

Most years, it hardly hits the political radar screen.

The exception was last spring, when the province was repeatedly deluged with heavy rains. That's when the ugly side to these highly efficient drainage systems surfaced -- washed-out roads and bridges, flooded buildings and cottages knocked from their foundation.

Less graphic, but no less onerous or expensive, are the ditches and waterways clogged with nutrient-rich sediment carried in by the water flowing off farm fields. Those ditches must be repeatedly dug out at ratepayers' expense.

It was clear this past summer that farmers saw a year with no crop as a golden opportunity to pursue projects designed to make sure water doesn't stick around in the future. Provincial and municipal officials openly admitted much of the drainage was carried out without a permit.

Municipalities are fed up. At its annual convention last month, the Association of Manitoba Municipalities passed a resolution telling the province to get serious about enforcing its regulations.

The government responded with the Water Rights Amendment Act, which expands the authority of department staff to enforce the regulations, to conduct inspections and searches on private land, and offers them protection from liability while fulfilling their duties. Ashton warned fines for unapproved drainage would be more than a slap on the wrist or a "cost of doing business." The province has also committed to improving the permit process so people don't have to wait as long for assessment and permission to proceed with projects that have approval.

Forcing a more pragmatic approach to drainage can and will cause some short-term pain for farmers. Every production acre left unseeded in an annual cropping system represents lost cash flow.

But in the current environment, so does every acre seeded. It is currently costing some farmers more than they earn sowing every acre they own.

There is a host of reasons why it might be worthwhile for farmers to strategically hold water on their land. And it might not hurt production as much as they think.

Analysts came to an interesting conclusion when studying the potential merits of paying farmers for environmental stewardship practices, such as through the Environmental Goods and Services program currently being piloted in one southwestern Manitoba municipality. The program offers $15 to $25 per acre compensation for practices such as putting land under permanent cover crops, leaving potholes intact or establishing riparian zones.

Full producer uptake could remove as much as 20 per cent of the agricultural land in that area from production. But actual productivity would only fall by between five and eight per cent -- because much of the land eligible for this program isn't very productive anyway.

The same might apply to that low spot in the field, especially if the rest of the field is made more productive by draining into it.

What people in this part of the planet don't seem to realize is that most of the world worries about water shortages. Experts south of us are even considering cloud seeding as a way of introducing more water to the Colorado River, on which five states depend.

Manitoba has this resource in abundance. That's a good thing.

Let's keep it that way.

Laura Rance is associate editor of the Farmers' Independent Weekly (www.fiwonline.com). She can be reached at 792-4382 or by e-mail: [email protected].


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Canuk: I like the question. Wished I was smart enough to have an answer for you. I have asked it myself.

It would be nice if we could move it West, but it would be an uphill climb (400 feet up to Lake Sakakawea). Some think we should be using for irrigation purposes, but I still don't know if that would solve our problems.

I guess I would like to see some more revitalization of our wetlands in this area. Many have been drained. Farmers don't like that option though since many lost their land when the lake came up.

I appreciate your honest responses to my questions. Thank you.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

In the battle to try and whip Mother Nature into submission, any solution will ultimately be fruitless. The drain to Devils Lake will never give back the farm land lost until the old lady decides to change her ways. It was a band-aid brought on by Political Pressure and will not mean didly if this winters precip and next summers rains far exceed normal as they have in recent years. One of the prime reasons that devils lake is rising is because of all of the farm land that is drained either mechanically or naturally into it.

Devils Lake is just claiming what was once part of it's territory. the only thing that will change it back to the way it was is an extended dry cycle and with that we should be careful what we ask for because we may just get it. I feel sorry for the farmers that have been impacted but either they or the previous generations knew the lake once inhabited this area and much more. The pumps were not and will not be a solution to their/our problem. The lake, I am sure in a more pristine form, once flowed into Canada. It probably will again in the future, pumps or not.

Bob


----------



## Canuck (Nov 10, 2004)

livetohunt...you are more than welcome. If your location shown (DL) is what I assume it is then you are right in the middle of this. So that said...I appreciate your reasonableness (if that's a word?). To be honest I regretted my intital post to this topic as soon as I hit the submit button. This is a big issue with no fast simple answers and I was taking a break from work when I responded and really should not have been getting involved unless I had the time to put up or shut up.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

"reasonableness (if that's a word?). "

My dictionary says it is! 

Bob is right. One definite issue is our lack of wetlands. I can't how much, but I know many have been drained. He is also right in which DL once did flow north and is still part of the RR Watershed.

Thanks again.

Dan


----------

