APPENDICES
GPS coordinates of treatment areas:
Harvested Area:
UTM: Upper Left: X: 297674.21, Y: 4927539.46 m
Lower Left: X: 297674.21, Y: 4927515.62 m
Upper Right: X: 298176.79, Y: 4927573.51 m
Lower Right: X: 298172.03, Y: 4927560.57 m
Degree minute seconds:
Upper Left: 89 degrees, 32’37.90”W
44 degrees, 28’22.27”N
Lower Left: 89 degrees, 32’37.84”W
44 degrees, 28’21.44”N
Upper Right: 89 degrees, 32’15.19”W
44 degrees, 28’23.79”N
Lower Right: 89 degrees, 31’15.42”W
44 degrees, 28’23.41”N
Chemical Area:
UTM: Upper Left: X: 297421.22, Y: 4927500.10 m
Lower Left: X: 297408.49, Y: 4927450.98 m
Upper Right: X: 297660.25, Y: 4927559.40 m
Lower Right: X: 297674.80, Y: 4927512.47 m
Degrees minute seconds:
Upper Left: 89 degrees, 32’49.24”W
44 degrees, 28’20.09”N
Lower Left: 89 degrees, 32’49.76”W
44 degrees, 28’19.09”N
Upper Right: 89 degrees, 32’38.53”W
44 degrees, 28’22.84”N
Lower Right: 89 degrees, 32’37.81”W
44 degrees, 28’21.33”N
GPS coordinates and methods from 2006 Golden Sands aq. plant survey
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education,
February 2007
1
Appendix A. Springville Pond Introduction PowerPoint
Springville Pond
Portage County Wisconsin
Current Conditions
What do aquatic plants and algae need
to prosper?
What is the quality of water in
Springville Pond?
Are all lakes created equally?
How do lakes age?
Where is the water coming from?
What is the “role” of aquatic plants in a
lake?
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education,
February 2007
2
Aquatic Plant and Algae Needs
•
•
•
•
Proper substrate
Fertilizer/Nutrients
Sunlight
Warm Temperatures
What Influences Water Quality?
Land Use Practices within
Groundwater and Surface Watersheds
Near Shore Activities
Lake Type
Natural Geology, Soil, and Topography
Seasonal and Environmental Changes
Water Quality Measures that are
Directly Related to Plants
ƒ Water Clarity
ƒ Nutrients (fertilizer)
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
3
Water Clarity
Measure of light
penetration in water
Effected by
Suspended Sediment
Water Color
Algae
Controls depth
aquatic plants can
grow
Water Clarity in Springville Pond
TYPE= Impoundment
8
7
Secchi (meter)
6
5
4
2537
3
2
1
2477
0
N=
5
6
4
6
6
6
Amherst
Bently P
Jordan
McDill
Rosholt
Springvi
SITE
Nutrients
Phosphorus and Nitrogen
Grow plants and algae
Can occur naturally
Can be significantly increased by
Exposing soil
Lawn/garden/agricultural fertilizer
Animal waste
Septic systems
Re-suspending bottom sediments
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
4
Ja Be
cq ar
So uel
ut ine
h
Tw
in
W
Se o l
ve f
rs
Su on
n
Th set
om
as
Li
on
Sk s
u
Fo n k
un
ta
O in
nl
an
Sp d
rin
Co g
llin
Bo s
el
t
Ad er
am
s
Em
Ri ily
ne
Am
h
he P ar
rs ick t
tM e
ill rel
Po
nd
Eb
er
t
Be
T
nt re
ly
e
Po
Ro nd
sh
o
J o lt
rd
an
Li
m
e
Jo
na
M s
Sp cD
rin il
gv
ille
He
le
n
Chloide (mg/L)
B
e
cq ar
ue
S line
ev
er
so
n
S
un
se
t
W
o lf
B
S oel
ou te
th r
Tw
in
Li
on
O s
nl
an
d
S
ku
Th n k
om
as
Jo
na
s
Li
m
e
H
el
R en
in
eh
P ar t
ic
ke
re
l
E
m
il
A y
da
m
C s
ol
lin
s
T
F o re e
un
ta
R in
os
ho
lt
B J or
en d
tly a n
P
on
d
M
A
cD
m
he
i
rs S ll
t M pr
i
ill ng
P
on
d
E
b
S
pr er t
in
gv
i ll
e
Ja
NO2+NO3-N (mg/L)
Am
Th
om
a
he
rs On s
t M la
ill nd
Po
Ri nd
ne
ha
r
Eb t
Fo er
un t
ta
in
Jo
n
Pi as
ck
er
el
Em
il
Su y
ns
Ad et
am
s
Li
on
s
W
Se o lf
ve
rs
on
Sk
un
Jo k
rd
an
Be He
nt
l
ly en
J a Pon
cq d
ue
lin
e
Be
a
Co r
llin
s
Tr
Ro e e
sh
ol
t
Li
m
Sp e
rin
g
M
So cD
ut
i
h ll
Sp Tw
rin in
gv
i
B o ll e
el
te
r
Chlor a (mg/L)
Ad
am
O s
nl
an
d
Jo
na
s
Eb
er
Em t
ily
Li
o
Ri n s
ne
h
Fo art
un
ta
in
Sk
un
Su k
ns
Pi et
ck
Se ere
ve l
r
Th s on
om
as
W
o lf
Be
a
H r
Ja e l
cq en
ue
lin
e
Tr
e
Co e
llin
s
So Lim
ut
h e
S p Tw
rin in
Am
gv
i ll
he
rs
M e
t M cD
ill ill
Po
nd
Jo
rd
Ro a n
sh
ol
Be Sp t
nt rin
g
ly
Po
n
Bo d
el
te
r
TP (μg/L)
Phosphorus added here
- More rough fish, less game fish
- More algae & vegetation
- Obstructed navigation
- Less attractive for swimming
- Less oxygen
70
Median Total Phosphorus
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
20
Median Chlorophyll A
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
7.00
Median Nitrate
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
25.00
Median Chloride
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
5
Types of Lakes
Where/how are water, sediments, and
nutrients moving in/out?
How long does water stay in the lake?
What kind of water quality can be
expected?
Impoundment
INPUTS
• Surface Runoff
• Groundwater
• Direct Precipitation
OUTPUTS
• Outlets
• Groundwater
• Evaporation
Lake Aging Process
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
6
Where is Water Coming From?
Near shore runoff and groundwater
Surface watershed
Groundwater shed
Water flows from higher to lower
elevations
Above ground
Below ground
Springville Pond Watersheds
Springville Pond Watersheds
Legend
Springville Ground Watershed
Springville Surface Watershed
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
7
Land Use Within Springville Pond
Surface Watershed
Land Use Within Springville
Pond Ground Watershed
Residential
Commercial/Utilities
Industrial
Irrigated Cropland
Non-Irrigated Cropland
Forested
Water Bodies
Mining and Resource Extraction
Recreational
Hay or Pasture
Herbaceous Cover and Scrub Land
Road
±
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
8
rin
eh
s
La
ke
s,
La
Se
ke
ve
rs
on
La
ke
O
nl
an
d
La
ke
Pi
ck
er
el
La
ke
Li
m
e
La
Fo
ke
un
ta
in
La
ke
Jo
na
ak
e
e
ke
La
k
La
La
ke
ar
L
Li
on
s
Be
o lf
s
e
ak
e
La
k
ut
Eb
er
ke
ke
e
ke
ak
La
ke
ke
La
La
ke
ke
ke
La
La
La
ke
ke
La
La
ak
e
La
tL
in
rt
e,
ha
in
s
d
ke
La
La
ee
Tw
ne
el
h
Ri
cq
u
ke
ke
Po
n
La
ke
ke
La
La
La
ke
ke
% E xcellent Habitat
N u t r ie n t y ie ld ( lb /a c /y r )
0.022
So
Ja
llin
Tr
Co
n
ar
ve
rs
o
Be
La
La
,L
s
en
o lf
am
He
l
W
et
as
ns
om
Ad
Se
d
re
l
an
e
s
gv
i ll e
Su
ri n
Th
Sp
nl
m
on
ck
e
O
Pi
Li
Li
s,
ta
in
na
un
Jo
Fo
Lawn
W
am
as
ak
e
La
ke
ns
et
L
om
Ad
Th
lin
Tw
in
Su
h
ke
d
La
ke
La
Po
n
% Adequete Habitat
0.050
So
ut
Co
l
ke
La
ke
La
tL
ar
t
e,
Eb
er
Ri
n
in
gv
il le
ee
en
,
Tr
Ja
cq
ue
l
Sp
He
l
Total nutrients delivered to lakes
0.150
0.100
Nitrogen (TKN)
Phosphorus (TP)
0.003
0.000
Forest
Shoreland Vegetation/Land Use
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Excellent Shoreline Habitat - Green Frog
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Adequete Shoreline Habitat - Green Frog
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
9
Poor Shoreline Habitat - Green Frog
100
90
% Poor Habitat
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Eb
er
tL
ak
Fo
e
un
ta
in
La
k
Lim e
e
So
La
ut
ke
h
Tw
in
La
Se
ke
ve
rs
on
La
Pi
ke
ck
er
el
La
ke
On
la
nd
La
ke
Jo
na
s,
La
ke
Be
ar
La
ke
Lio
ns
La
ke
W
olf
La
ke
Ad
am
sL
ak
Th
e
om
as
La
Ri
ke
ne
ha
rt
La
ke
Su
ns
et
La
ke
Co
llin
sL
Ja
ak
cq
e
ue
lin
e,
La
ke
Tr
ee
La
Sp
ke
rin
gv
ille
Po
nd
He
len
,L
ak
e
0
Aquatic Plants
Benefits:
•Produce Dissolved Oxygen
•Provide
•Habitat
•Food
Water
Quality
Fish and
Aquatic
Organisms
People
Lake
Ecosystem
Land Use
in
Watersheds
Wildlife
Sounds
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
10
Springville Pond Depths
Legend
12 feet
10 feet
8 feet
6 feet
4 feet
2 feet
0 feet
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
11
Appendix B. Springville Pond Survey and Results
Springville Pond Survey2006
About You
1. How long have you lived in the Springville Pond Watershed or visited/recreated on Springville
Pond?
years
Length on Pond (years)
5
Number of People
4
3
2
1
0
0.92 1
2 2.5 3
4 5.5 6
7
10 11 13 14 15 18 20 21 22 23 24 26 28 29 30 45 55
Years
2. What best describes the time you spend on Springville Pond?
O Year-round resident
O Summer-time resident
O Weekends, year-round
O Weekends, summer
O Weekends, occasional
O Vacations/holidays
Time Spent on Pond
40
30
20
10
0
Year-round
3. Do you own or rent property
O On the pond
Summer-time
Time Spent on Pond
Weekends
O 1/2 mile to 1 mile of the pond
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
12
O Within 1/2 mile of the pond
O more than 1 mile from the pond
Own or Rent Property
40
30
20
10
0
On-Pond
Own or Rent Property
Water Quality and Quantity
4. In general, since you have lived near the pond, do you feel that the pond water quality has:
Improved
Stayed the same
Declined
Pond Water Quality Changed?
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
Same
Declined
5. How would you rate the water quality in Springville Pond this past year?
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
13
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
How would you rate the water quality in Springville Pond this past year?
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Very-Good
Good
Fair
Poor
6. The presence of native aquatic plants is essential to maintaining the water quality and water clarity
of Springville Pond.
Strongly disagree
Mildly disagree
Neutral
Mildly agree
Strongly agree
The presence of Native aquatic plants is essential?
20
15
10
5
0
Strongly-disagree
Mildly-disagree
Neutral
Mildly-agree
Strongly-agree
7. Which of the following do you think are the major water quality problem(s) facing the pond?
(check all that apply)
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
14
O Algae/Scum
O Smell/Odors
O Litter
O Weeds
O Water Clarity
O Other__________________
Major Water Quality Problems Facing Springville Pond
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Alge/Scum
Smell/Odors
Litter
Weeds
Water Clarity
Other
8. Skip to the next question if you did not identify a decline in water quality.
If you indicated that the water quality has declined, please indicate which of the following issues, in
your opinion, may have contributed to this decline. IDENTIFY YOUR TOP 3 CHOICES
O Development Pressures O Fertilizer Use
O Heavy Recreational Use O Water Level/ Low Inflow
O Livestock Agriculture
O Vegetable Agriculture
O Soil Erosion
O Herbicide/Pesticide use
O Other____________________
Contributors to Water Quality Decline
30
25
20
15
10
5
th
er
O
us
e
id
e
es
tic
Er
os
io
n
So
il
H
er
bi
ci
de
/P
rti
liz
er
W
U
at
se
er
Le
ve
l/L
ow
In
Ve
flo
w
ge
ta
bl
e
Ag
ric
ul
tu
re
Fe
D
ev
el
op
m
en
tP
re
H
ss
ea
ur
vy
es
R
ec
re
at
io
na
lU
Li
se
ve
st
oc
k
Ag
ric
ul
tu
re
0
Fishing
9. How long have you fished in Springville Pond? _________ years
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
15
How long have you fished in Springville Pond?
3
2
1
0
0
1
2
3
4
6
7
10 11 14 15 18 20 25 26 28 29 30 40 45
Years
10. How would you rate the fishing on the pond?
O
Excellent (I catch fish every time I go out and they are often big enough to keep)
O
Very Good (I catch fish almost every time I go out and most are big enough to keep)
O
Average (I catch fish sometimes and some of them are big enough to keep)
O
Fair (I sometimes catch fish and most are too small to keep)
O
Poor (I rarely catch fish and when I do they are often too small to keep)
How would you rate the fishing on the Pond?
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Average
Fair
Fair-Poor
Poor
Fish Rating
11. In general, how has the quality of the fishing on Springville Pond changed since you started:
Improved
Stayed the same
Declined
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
16
Has the quality of the fishing changed since you started?
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Same
Decline
12. Healthy native aquatic plants beds improve the quality of fishing.
Strongly disagree
Mildly disagree
Neutral
Mildly agree
Strongly agree
Healthy NATIVE aquatic plant beds improve the quality of fishing?
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Strongly-disagree
Mildly-disagree
Neutral
Mildly-agree
Strongly-agree
13. Skip to the next question if you did not identify a fishing decline.
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
17
If you indicated that the fishing quality has declined, please indicate which of the following issues, in
your opinion, may have contributed to this decline. IDENTIFY YOUR TOP 3 CHOICES
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Development Pressures
Heavy Recreational Use
Livestock Agriculture
Overabundance of Weeds
Fertilizer Use
O Soil Erosion
Water Level/ Low Inflow O Herbicide/Pesticide use
Vegetable Agriculture
Other____________________
Contributors to Fish Decline
25
20
15
10
5
id
e
bi
c
id
e/
P
es
tic
O
th
er
us
e
on
os
i
Er
So
il
H
er
ul
tu
re
Ag
le
Ve
ge
ta
b
el
/L
ow
ric
In
flo
w
se
U
Fe
rti
liz
er
at
er
Le
v
nd
a
O
ve
ra
bu
W
nc
e
of
W
ee
ds
ul
tu
re
Ag
ric
k
oc
Li
ve
st
re
R
ec
H
ea
vy
D
ev
el
op
m
en
tP
re
s
at
io
na
lU
su
re
s
se
0
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
18
Wildlife
14. How important is wildlife habitat and wildlife (ducks, geese, squirrels, songbirds) to you?
Very important
Some what important Not very important
Not important
I dislike wildlife
How Important is Wildlife Habitat and Wildlife?
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Very-important
Some-what-important
Not-important
15. How would you rate the overall wildlife habitat near/in the pond?
O
Excellent (Wildlife can go anywhere to find food and shelter)
O
Very Good (There are a few places that wildlife can’t go, but most places provide food and shelter)
O
Average (There are parts of the area where wildlife can’t find food and shelter)
O
Fair (Most areas are not fit to provide food and shelter for wildlife)
O
Poor (There is no place for wildlife to go)
How would you rate overall wildlife habitat near/in pond?
20
15
10
5
0
Excellent
Very-Good
Average
Fair
Poor
16. How has the quality of wildlife habitat in Springville Pond changed since you have been around:
Improved
Stayed the same
Declined
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
19
Has the quality of Wildlife Habitat changed?
25
20
15
10
5
0
Improved
Same
Decline
17. Skip to the next question if you did not identify a wildlife decline.
If you indicated that the wildlife quality has declined, please indicate which of the following issues, in
your opinion, may have contributed to this decline. IDENTIFY YOUR TOP 3 CHOICES
O
O
O
O
Development Pressures
Heavy Recreational Use
Livestock Agriculture
Overabundance of Weeds
O
O
O
O
Fertilizer Use
O Soil Erosion
Water Level/ Low Inflow O Herbicide/Pesticide use
Vegetable Agriculture
Other_______
_____________
Contributors to Wildlife Decline
12
10
8
6
4
2
th
er
O
D
ev
el
op
m
en
tP
H
re
ea
ss
vy
ur
R
es
ec
re
at
io
na
Li
lU
ve
st
se
oc
k
O
Ag
ve
ra
ric
bu
ul
tu
nd
re
an
ce
of
W
ee
ds
Fe
rti
W
liz
at
er
er
U
Le
se
ve
l/L
ow
Ve
In
ge
flo
ta
w
bl
e
Ag
ric
ul
tu
re
So
H
il
er
Er
bi
os
ci
io
de
n
/P
es
tic
id
e
us
e
0
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
20
Aquatic Plants
Following are questions about the aquatic plants in Springville Pond. The first group of questions
refers to the native aquatic plant community in the pond (think about conditions in summer 2004). The
second group of questions relates to the exotic aquatic plant Eurasian milfoil and some of the options
for controlling this plant.
18. Which statement best describes your opinion of a desirable amount of aquatic plant growth in
Springville Pond?
O Light growth (Very little, less than optimum for fish and wildlife)
O Moderate growth (Just the right amount for fish and wildlife)
O Heavy growth (the plants may limit my use of some parts of the lake and diminish attractiveness)
O Dense growth (the plants may limit my use of much of the lake and are unattractive)
O Choked with growth (the plants may ruin my ability to enjoy the lake)
Opinion of Desirable amount of Aquatic Plant Growth
40
30
20
10
0
Light-growth
Light/Mod.-growth
Moderate-growth
Heavy-growth
Choked-growth
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
21
Native Aquatic Plants
19. Please rate you level of familiarity with issues related to native aquatic plants and pond ecology.
Not at all familiar
Slightly familiar
Moderately familiar
Very familiar
Rate level familiarity on issues related to NATIVE aquatic plants & pond ecology
20
15
10
5
0
Not-at-all
Slightly
Moderately
Very
20. Native aquatic plants serve important functions that maintain the health of Springville Pond.
Strongly disagree
Mildly disagree
Neutral
Mildly agree
Strongly agree
NATIVE aquatic plants serve important functions
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Stongly-diasagree
Mildly-disagree
Neutral
Mildly-agree
Strongly-agree
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
22
21. Abundant floating and emergent native aquatic plants are signs of an unhealthy pond.
Strongly disagree
Mildly disagree
Neutral
Mildly agree
Strongly agree
Abundant floating & emergent NATIVE aquatic plants are signs of unhealthy pond
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Strongly-disagree
Mildly-disagree
Neutral
Mildly-agree
Strongly-agree
22. Removal of native aquatic plants is harmful to the pond’s health (water quality, biotic balance)
Definitely false
Probably false
Unsure
Probably true
Definitely true
Removal of NATIVE aquatic plants is harmful to ponds health
20
15
10
5
0
Definitely-false
Probably-false
Unsure
Probably-true
Definately-true
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
23
23. Native aquatic plants add to the scenic beauty of Springville Pond.
Strongly disagree
Mildly disagree
Neutral
Mildly agree
Strongly agree
Native aquatic plants add to scenic beauty of Springville Pond
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Stongly-disagree Mildly-disagree
Neutral
Mildly-agree
Strongly-agree
24. Native aquatic plants reduce the economic values of the pond in the long-term.
Definitely false
Probably false
Unsure
Probably true
Definitely true
Native Plants reduce economic values of pond long-term
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Definitely-false
Probably-false
Unsure
Probably-true
Definitely-true
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
24
Exotic Aquatic Plants
25. Abundant floating and emergent exotic aquatic plants are signs of an unhealthy pond.
Strongly disagree
Mildly disagree
Neutral
Mildly agree
Strongly agree
Abundant floating & emergent EXOTIC aquatic plants signs of unhealth pond
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Mildly-disagree
Mildly-agree
Strongly-agree
26. Removal of exotic aquatic plants is harmful to the pond’s health (water quality, biotic balance)
Definitely false
Probably false
Unsure
Probably true
Definitely true
Removal of EXOTIC aquatic plants is harmful to pond's health
25
20
15
10
5
0
Definitely-false
Probably-false
Unsure
Probably-true
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
25
27. I believe the use of an aquatic plant harvester for the control of Eurasian milfoil in Springville Pond
an acceptable management tool.
Strongly disagree
Mildly disagree
Neutral
Mildly agree
Strongly agree
I believe in the use of a Plant Harvester to control EM
14
12
Count
10
8
6
4
2
0
Strongly-disagree
Mildly-disagree
Neutral
Mildly-agree
Strongly-agree
28. I believe the use of a winter drawdown for the control of Eurasian milfoil in Springville Pond an
acceptable management tool.
Strongly disagree
Mildly disagree
Neutral
Mildly agree
Strongly agree
I believe in use of Winter Drawdown to control EM
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Strongly-disagree
Mildly-disagree
Neutral
Mildly-agree
Strongly-agree
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
26
29. I believe the professional application of chemicals for the control of Eurasian milfoil in Springville
Pond an acceptable management tool.
Strongly disagree
Mildly disagree
Neutral
Mildly agree
Strongly agree
I believe professional application of Chemicals to control EM is acceptable
20
15
10
5
0
Strongly -disagree Mildly -disagree
Neutral
Mildly -agree
Mild/Strong-agree Strongly -agree
30. Low flows in the Little Plover River can create conditions that enhance growth of aquatic plants in
Springville Pond.
Strongly disagree
Mildly disagree
Neutral
Mildly agree
Strongly agree
Low flows in Little Plover create conditions that enhance growth in pond
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Strongly-disagree
Mildly-disagree
Neutral
Mildly-agree
Strongly-agree
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
27
31. To help prevent the spread of exotic plants into Springville Pond, do you clean your boat, trailer
and fishing equipment before using it in Springville Pond after it has been used in another lake?
Yes, all the time
Yes, some of the time
No, never
To prevent spread of EXOTICS I clean my boat, trailer & equipment
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Yes,always
Yes,sometimes
No,never
Shoreline Residents
32. Removal of native aquatic plants increases shoreline erosion.
Definitely false
Probably false
Unsure
Probably true
Definitely true
Removal of NATIVE aquatic plants increases shoreline erosion
20
15
10
5
0
Definitely-false
Probably-false
Unsure
Probably-true
Definitely-true
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
28
33. Pond shorelines are more beautiful when lawns are turf grass and mowed to the edge.
Strongly disagree
Mildly disagree
Neutral
Mildly agree
Strongly agree
Pond shorelines more beautiful lawns are turf grass & mowed to edge
20
15
10
5
0
Strongly-disagree
Mildly-disagree
Neutral
Mildly-agree
34. Pond shorelines are more attractive when they have an abundance of native vegetation.
Strongly disagree
Mildly disagree
Neutral
Mildly agree
Strongly agree
Pond shorelines more attractive with abundance of NATIVE vegetation
20
15
10
5
0
Mildly-disagree
Neutral
Mildly-agree
Strongly-agree
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
29
35. What best describes the location where your property meets the pond?
O Undeveloped natural landscape
O Lawn
O Landscaped trees and shrubs
O Rock riprap
O Retaining wall
What best describes location where your property meets the pond
25
20
15
10
5
0
l
ra
tu
a
n
d/
e
p
lo
ve
e
d
Un
p
ra
ir p
ck
o
R
Re
ta
-w
ng
i
in
l
al
l
n
p
al
ra
w
aw
ir p
L
g
d/
in
ck
in
pe
o
o
a
R
el
et
d/
ev
/R
pe
d
d
o
e
Un
el
op
ev
el
d
v
de
Un
Un
d
pe
a
sc
nd
a
L
36. If you have undeveloped natural landscape or a combination of un-mowed vegetation with trees
and shrubs, how far from the edge of the pond on to the property does it extend?
Feet
If undeveloped. how far from edge of pond does it extend into your property?
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
3
4
5
6
10
15
20
Feet
25
30
35
40
70
150
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
30
37. About what percent of your shoreline property is mowed? ___________%
What percent of your shoreline property mowed?
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
4
25
30
50
Percent Mowed
60
95
100
38. Do you use fertilizer?
O Yes
O No
Do you Use Fertilizer?
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Yes
No
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
31
If so, where?
O Lawn
O Garden
O Other_________________________
Where do you use Fertilizer?
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Lawn
Garden
Other
39. What is the closest distance from the pond to the area that is fertilized? ______ feet
What is the closest distance from the pond to the area that is fertilized?
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
4
5
6
8
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
50
70
8 0 1 00 1 5 0 20 0
Feet
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
32
Your Opinion
40. Who should be involved in making management decisions for Springville Pond?
(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
O Lake Association Members
O Lake Shore Residents
O Watershed Residents
O Local Government
O County Government
O State Government
O University Personnel
O Fishing Club
Who should be involved in making management decisions for Springville Pond?
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Pond
Association
Members
Local
Government
University
Personnel
Pond Shore
Residents
County
Government
Fishing Club
Watershed
Residents
State
Government
41. In your opinion, what should be done to restore, maintain, or improve the pond?
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education, February 2007
33
1.
On-going control of exotic plants to avoid a total take-over of the pond such as we
had this year (2006).
1. lower pond for winter
2. chemical treatment (that won't kill wild life - if such a thing exists)
3. encourage owners of waterfront property to have trees/shrubs/natural growth
for a certain number of feet and to pull out milfoil and discard it
4. cut it down if that won't make it worse ??
2.
Take whatever steps are needed to get rid of the Eurasian milfoil. Before we were
plagued with it, the pond was about perfect…a good balance between native
plants, wildlife, and residents.
3.
1. get millfoil under control
2. ongoing weed/silt management
3. Future Dredging and Contour silt Retention at East End.
4.
Get rid of the Exotic Plants.
5.
Application of chemicals to destroy all aquatic plants. Chemicals are available that
are safe to fish. Aquatic plants (native) will grow back and perhaps their growth
can be controlled through selective area chemical treatment. In trying to cover the
concerns of all concerned, the concerns of all will be neglected.
6.
Develop a management plan and stay committed to its implementation. If it is
determined that the "weevil" is one of the best options for restoration, then they
should be given "time" to work; even if it is likely to be 4 - 7 years. I would like
the fishing to improve if possible.
7.
Use the chemical to get the exotics back to a level where they can be managed by
other means. Set up a plan that has annual commitments that are completed. Do
not ignore issues if they happen to be quiet for a summer or two!
8.
Devise an affordable management plan involving the several methods previously
discussed in combination over the long pull.
9.
1. Limit ground water depletion from the Little Plover watershed.
2. reduce nutrient levels with barrier vegetation zones adjacent to the pond and the
Little Plover river
3. EWM control (forget hand harvesting!)
4. eventually the eastern portion of the pond will require excavation to be
navigable by small craft
10.
Chemical treatment (short term) -spot treatment Weevil (long term possibly)
11.
Chemicals initiated and maintained w/chemicals. Drawdown - dredging ????
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education,
February 2007
34
12.
The pond should be drawn down and the bottom dredged to remove all aquatic
plants. When filled, native aquatic plants should be reintroduced. Once established,
fish and other aquatic life can be introduced. Limits should be placed on the
amount of water that can be drawn for irrigating when the water table is low in
order to maintain water flow.
13.
Develop a good plan to deal with problems that develop on the pond. Develop a
set of guidelines so that all shoreline property owners become good "stewards of
the Pond".
14.
This is the worst I've seen the pond in 20 years. Our kids used to swim in the pond.
Try it now. We used to ice skate on the pond. Try it on the weeds. It's an eye sore.
Tax us accordingly to no water frontage. If we can't use it and enjoy it then we
don't have to pay for it. I love it when we first moved in, it sucks now. I will talk
to anyone who thinks different. This is a swamp not a pond.
15.
Clean out the milfoil, dredge if needed, harvest if needed. Restore fish stocking.
16.
- Management Committee headed in right direction.
- Recommendations to convert some landscaped areas back to natural to reduce
erosion issues
- work with any interested property owners wishing to do so.
- define the "line" between "scenic property value" and "undeveloped natural
landscape".
- Preserve overall water quality, safe for fishing & recreation & wildlife.
- Any dredging improperly handled previously causing current misdirection or
non-existence should be corrected.
17.
Dredge it. Increase fish stock. Promote it as a "Poster Child" for the quality of life
in the area. Seek state and federal funds towards environmental health of this
resource.
18.
Control 'surface scum' and non-native milfoil. Appearance is everything,
especially when public opinion is involved.
19.
2-4-D
20.
Manage groundwater that feed the Little Plover River. Control milfoil. Educate
lake shore residents about the use of fertilizers on their lawns. Exclude or limit
access to pond of nonresidents.
21.
Use chemicals to kill Urasion Milfoil first!
22.
Use all available means to get rid of all exotic aquatic vegetation from the pond.
Also try to control the amount of natural vegetation. The pond was in good
condition before the village workers broke the dam and allowed the pond to drain.
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education,
February 2007
35
That allowed the pond bed to be exposed to direct sunlight and was a contributing
factor to the explosion of natural vegetation when the pond was refilled. The
fishery is just starting to recover, but now the pond is almost unusable due to the
exotic vegetation growth. It's time to take action to reclaim the pond!
24.
Looking for advise. We want clean water first-navigable and fish visible at times.
25.
Drain it and dredge it to make deeper. This will take out milfoil roots. Deeper
water might help retard the growth of the milfoil.
26.
1) Multimodal management strategy for control of EWM
2) more stocking of trout/improving trout habitat.
3) Access for non-shoreline owners with signs regarding removing weeds from
boats/trailers etc. with fines for violation.
27.
We are off to a good start w/local residents and government working together.
Keep the meeting schedule consistently throughout the year and keep all pond
residents informed. IT's time to dredge - then use chemicals to keep "the balance"
of weeds & chemicals
28.
Try to get as much milfoil out as possible.
29.
Spray and or cut
30.
Most first address low water flows, then exotics/situation
31.
Dredging
33.
Take steps to get Little Plover River flow back up to historic averages. Inform
landowners about good management practices, e.g. natural shorelines, little or no
fertilizer. Restore natural aquatic vegetation - use EWM removal methods that are
low impact.
34.
I feel using a plant harvester or hand pulling of weeds is a waste of time and
money. Chemical applications are not acceptable! I believe the best long term
solution is to monitor and maintain water levels. A yearly winter drawdown is a
good idea. Use all monies that would have been used on short term solutions to
develop and pay for a plan to continually introduce "the weevil" on a yearly basis.
36.
No ideas or opinions- Just moved here about 11 months ago. The milfoil does not
allow the water to run smoothly. It would be great to be rid of it.
37.
#1 Removal of exotic plants - Physically remove a sizeable portion of the plant
matter that serves as a nutrient base for further plant growth.
#2. Take measures to improve flow conditions and maintain water levels -limit
well draw in watershed area
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education,
February 2007
36
#3. Dredge areas especially East End to remove sediment
#4. Controlled and planned herbicides applications
#5. Get a commitment from the Village of Plover to place as much emphasis on
maintaining and improving existing resources (Springville Pond and Residential
area) as they seem to have in developing the business park and the proposed
development in the former Tree Acres area / They will likely spend millions in
that development yet are very cautious with $ for the pond.
38.
1. Increase water flow
2. rechannel main stream flow more centrally to flush the ecosystem more
efficiently
3. sustained effort to remove Eurasion milfoil.
4. introduction of native aquatic plants.
5. Possibly redredging of east end of pond to where it stopped 20 yrs ago when
funds ran out. (Aprx 500' beyond sewer easement)
6. combine effort to maintain proper native shoreline vegetation and fertilizer
setback boundaries.
40.
educate residents on their negative impacts caused by use of fertilizer's and
clearing to edge of pond and enforce shoreline buffers -spot use of pesticide on
small/select area of eurasion milfoil only if absolutely necessary *It's a pond not a
swimming pool :(
Springville Pond Survey Results, UWSP Center for Watershed Science and Education,
February 2007
37
Appendix C. Springville Pond Aquatic Plant Management Plan Update.
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point and University of Wisconsin Extension
College of Natural Resources
800 Reserve Street
Springville Pond Aquatic Plant Management Plan
Process Recap - December 2006
The Springville Pond Committee (appointed by Village of Plover Board) will
make recommendations to the Village for aquatic plant management in
Springville Pond including the control of Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM). The
techniques to be employed will consider the interests of the citizens and will be
based on sound science. The Plan will include addressing monitoring the
success (or not) of the approaches being used and will be reviewed annually to
adjust techniques/approach if necessary.
The Springville Pond Committee has conducted a survey of residents and other
users of Springville Pond. In December the Committee will develop a draft
plan with the assistance of UWSP and WDNR personnel. This plan will be
presented at a public meeting where comment will be taken.
Recommendations will be given to the Village Board for action early in 2007.
The most successful control of EWM involves a combination of control
techniques. These techniques may include:
ƒ Mechanical harvesting
ƒ Winter drawdown
ƒ Chemical treatment (pellet 2,4-D)
ƒ Milfoil weevils
ƒ Hand harvesting
ƒ Pulled by divers
Use of some of these options may be inappropriate in some waterbodies.
Mechanical harvesting (not species specific)
• Removes upper layer of aquatic plants (would remove weevil habitat)
Mechanism
• Plant biomass must be removed from the lake (this also removes
nutrients)
• Conducted in parts of the lake several times/summer (likely a
maximum of three cuts)
• Water depth >3 feet
Springville Pond APM Process – Dec. 2006
•
•
•
•
Winter
•
Mechanism
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Not species specific, unless harvesting in areas that only contain EWM
Composts easily
Immediate response - short term effect
Cost ~$150/hour
Drawdown (not species specific)
Freezes crown of EWM (and other) plants
Conducted every 3-5 years
Reduce pond level by ~3 feet
Not species specific (although favors species that produce viable seed
and germinate well like sago pondweed, Najas, etc., controls species
that rely sprouting from roots)
Also controls curly-leaf most years
Can effect reptiles and amphibians if not done prior to Oct 1
Needs 6 weeks of freeze
Response immediate following re-fill of pond in spring
With a cold winter (6 weeks of freezing)
Chemical treatment (2,4-D pellet)
• Kills dicotyledonous (broad-leaved) aquatic plants that contact the
Mechanism
chemical
• Minimum 14 day contact time (tricky in Springville Pond due to its
flow)
• Must be applied by licensed professional
• Costs run between $500-1000 an acre depending on the applicator
• Must be applied at the right time in the EWM life cycle to be effective
and to reduce exposure of native aquatic plants. EWM must be
actively growing to effectively absorb the chemical and transport it to
the root. Once EWM reaches the surface it slows its growth and will
not take up as much chemical. EWM is at this stage, generally when
water temperatures are between 50-60F, usually in May. Once the
EWM reaches the surface, the permit would not be valid.
• Not species specific (specific to broad-leaved, coontail, lily pads, water
buttercups, water marigolds, etc. does not impact pondweeds or
most emergents)
• Response is immediate after contact period.
• Biomass is left in pond, but is minimal in May
• Limited knowledge of aquatic organism chronic exposure to 2,4-D, will
impact aquatic insects including milfoil weevils
Biological Control - Milfoil Weevils (Euhrychiopsis lecontei)
• Kills Eurasian watermilfoil by eating tip and burrowing in stem.
Mechanism
Northern watermilfoil has a slightly wider stem so that when the
weevils burrow into the stem, they do not completely kill the plant,
likely only weaken it.
Springville Pond APM Process – Dec. 2006
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Species specific – prefers EWM to northern milfoil
Native to Springville Pond
Populations can be enhanced by adding lab reared weevils to the pond
Populations can be reduced by pan-fish predation
Must have shoreland duff layer for over-wintering (lawns rip-rap or
sand beaches will not work)
Response not immediate - Long term effect
If effective, can be least expensive, longest lasting and possibly
easiest control method
Hand Harvesting
• Remove EWM by pulling or raking aquatic plants
• Plants must be removed from the lake
• Can remove exotic species like EWM and curly-leaf by hand wherever
they occur without a permit.
• Can be done by landowners or persons hired by the landowners
without a permit
• Can be somewhat species specific if harvesters are trained to
recognize EWM
• Response immediate
• Some groups that use a harvester have a pick up program to remove
piled plants from end of dock Also makes great mulch for gardens and
flower beds and many farmers or city compost sites will readily take it.
Pulled by Divers
• Divers hired to remove aquatic plants from deeper zones
• Used as a follow-up to other removal treatments (esp. chemical)
• Can be somewhat species specific
• Response immediate
Springville Pond APM Process – Dec. 2006
Appendix D. Strategies Options Update Handout.
Strategies for the Control of Eurasianwater Milfoil in
Springville Pond
Options for the control of Eurasianwater milfoil (EWM) may include the use of
winter draw-downs, enhancement of the weevil population, mechanical and
hand harvesting, and the use of chemicals. Details on these methods can be
found in the document Springville Pond Aquatic Plant Management Plan
Process Recap - December 2006.
At this time it is necessary to utilize multiple tools to reduce the abundance of
EWM in an effort to create a situation that allows for recreation and aesthetic
beauty in Springville Pond in balance with the needs of the aquatic ecosystem.
Selection of tools and strategies involve goals for long term management of
EWM while providing shorter term relief.
Three scenarios have been developed by UWSP and WDNR to address areas of
nuisance-levels of EWM in Springville Pond in 2007. The options include the
following considerations:
Maintaining the integrity of the aquatic ecosystem. This involves
ensuring enough habitat (aquatic vegetation) and water volume to
support the fishery, supporting habitat to maintain a high population
of weevils that help to reduce the success of EWM in the pond, and
reducing impacts on hibernating animals.
The WDNR fishery biologist requires leaving a minimum of 45-50% of the pond
vegetation for fishery habitat. Excess removal of aquatic plants would also
result in increased algae blooms.
Weevils have helped to control EWM in Springville Pond for a number of years
and provide the best potential for long term control of EWM in the pond.
Captive reared weevils were released in August 2006 to enhance the natural
population and if over-wintering is successful, the population should increase
during summer 2007 and their lifecycle should begin to effect the EWM
population. These beneficial insects will be killed by the use of chemicals and
harvesting as they reside at the tips of the plants that are removed by the
harvester.
Animals that hibernate near shore (e.g. amphibians and reptiles) do so in late
fall. Winter draw-downs must occur prior to October 1 to reduce mortality.
DRAFT Strategies for EWM Control in Springville Pond, Jan. 16, 2007
41
Physical limitations in the pond include areas that can not be reached
by a harvester, areas with springs that will not freeze during
drawdown, and flow in the Little Plover River.
To protect habitat in the pond, mechanical harvesters are not allowed in areas
less than 3 feet deep (See map).
Flow in the Little Plover River complicates EWM control due to several
mechanisms. Higher flows in the spring limit the typically used of pelletized
form of 2,4-D which requires a 14 day contact time. Low flows in the later part
of the summer increase retention time and temperature in the pond which can
adversely affect the weevil population.
Protection of the health of humans and aquatic biota.
Although some tests have been conducted for 2,4-D and some formulas are
currently approved for use in aquatic ecosystems, a lot is unknown about the
effects of this chemical on human and aquatic biota. Contact with it will kill the
desired weevils. If the community selects to use this option, contracting with
custom applicators that use a minimal amount of the product applied in the
early spring is recommended.
Reduction of plant biomass in the Pond and removal of phosphorus is
beneficial to Springville Pond to reduce algae blooms.
Ponds created by damming rivers generally have high levels of sediment and
phosphorus which provides ideal conditions for aquatic plant and algae growth.
Removal of plants by mechanical and hand harvesting will help to reduce the
substrate and phosphorus in the Pond. If the community selects an option that
includes chemicals, application should be conducted in late spring when water
temperatures are about 50 F, prior to production of an abundant biomass of
aquatic plants.
Management Scenarios
Management activities are already underway in Springville Pond. In August
2006 weevils to enhance the existing weevil population were released in the
Pond. The pond was drawdown in fall 2006 to reduce near shore EWM by
freezing/desiccating the crowns of the plants.
Option 1
Weevils
Winter drawdown
Mechanical harvesting
Hand harvesting with pickup service by mechanical harvester
DRAFT Strategies for EWM Control in Springville Pond, Jan. 16, 2007
42
Option 2
Weevils
Winter drawdown
Use of WeedR54 in ½ of the removal area in early spring (see map)
Mechnical harvesting in ½ removal area (see map)
Hand harvesting with pickup service by mechanical harvester
Option 3
Weevils
Winter drawdown
Use of Weed R54 in the removal area in spring
Hand harvesting, residents hand own disposal/composting
For all options, monitoring of aquatic plants in the pond and weevil population
is required in August. An annual review of these results will be required to
evaluate the monitoring results and prepare plans for the next year. This
review should take place between November 1 and February 1.
Requirements
Weevils
Habitat for the overwintering success of weevils should be maintained around
the pond. They require the use of stems/stalks/vegetative duff provided by
uncut near shore vegetation. This habitat is consistent with Portage County
and State Shoreland zoning regulations. In-pond treatment areas should leave
sufficient in-pond habitat to maintain the weevil population.
Winter Drawdown
Drawdowns should not be conducted more than once every 3 years. Pool level
should not drop more than 3 feet from full pool. Pool level must be drawn
down prior to Oct 1 to reduce impacts to animals hibernating in the Pond
sediment.
Mechanical Harvesting
Must be conducted in water deeper than 3 feet and limited to the 75 foot wide
strip show on map . This width may increase in years that do not follow a
winter drawdown. Generally harvesting is done 2-3 times/year. Plant material
must be removed from the pond. Permit would be up to 3 years.
Hand Pulling
Hand pulling of EWM by residents, Village, and divers does not require a permit
however, training for proper identification of the plant is essential to avoid
pulling native aquatic plants. This can be conducted throughout the growing
DRAFT Strategies for EWM Control in Springville Pond, Jan. 16, 2007
43
season. If a harvester is being used, arrangements for end of dock pick up
may be made.
Chemicals
Conditions in the Pond include a retention time of at least 3-4 days with no
storm predicted for 3-4 days following application in late May/early June.
WeedR54 (a formulation of liquid 2,4-D licensed by DATCP for use in aquatic
systems) is the only chemical that would be included in the permit. Use is
subject to annual evaluation. Annual permit from WDNR would be required.
Approximate location of additional treatment in 2007.
DRAFT Strategies for EWM Control in Springville Pond, Jan. 16, 2007
44
45