DEVELOPING COMMUNITY WIDE SCIENCE-BASED LAKE STEWARDSHIP 2010 Lake Leaders – Kemp Field Station N. Turyk, Univ. Wisconsin-Stevens Point S. Bradley, Portage County B. Sorge, Wisconsin Dept. Natural Resources We envision lake stewardship to become a part of the community’s composition in Portage County. Accomplished on a community-wide basis Purposeful efforts by landowners, lake users, businesses, municipalities, and local and state agencies with goals of healthy and sustainable lake ecosystems within the county. Study and planning process has been undertaken though partnership with the County, WDNR, and UWSP to provide the knowledge-based and socially-based partnership that is needed to accomplish these goals,. Support for the fledgling groups and their efforts is essential to make this a sustainable part of the community. Portage County A fair amount of water.. A patchwork of land cover and land uses! A variety of agriculture and other land uses that can impact lakes. Some lakes are developed, others not developed Seepage and drainage lakes and impoundments Countywide Citizen Comprehensive Planning Survey Results Portage Co. should work with farmers to identify and protect productive agricultural regions 86% agreed/strongly agreed My city/village/township should make an effort to identify and protect lakes, rivers, and streams 90% agreed/strongly agreed Lake Stewardship and Communication? Water focus on groundwater problems and some rivers General assumption that someone was taking care of lakes…DNR or UWSP? 7 lake associations Invasive species spreading…besides the newspaper how do we reach people? Obtaining knowledge and putting it into action 1. What do we know about Plan to Plan Collect and analyze data Monitor and evaluate the lakes and how do we advise the municipal planning process? 2. How do we incorporate lake protection into a. b. Implement Plan Identify issues Develop goals, objectives and action items c. Municipal plans? Zoning decisions? Municipal and private land management decisions? 3. How do we engage citizens? Portage County Lake Study 30 Lakes Seepage (14) groundwater drainage (5) Drainage (4) Impoundments (6) 7 Lake Assoc/Districts 4 Undeveloped lakes Water quality Land use in watersheds Fish Aquatic plants Amphibians & reptiles Algae Birds Shoreland survey Study Results Countywide Highlight Lake Helen and Spring Lake Lake Helen 87 acres 20 ft max depth Groundwater drainage lake Developed and altered shoreline 60+ residences Lake District Lake Helen Watershed Surface Watershed: 500 acres Groundwater Watershed: 443 acres Spring Lake 37.5 acre 42 ft max depth Drainage lake Semi developed lake intact shoreland No engaged lake stewards Spring Lake Watershed Surface Watershed: 1,753 acres Groundwater Watershed: 4,739 acres Local Groundwater Water Quality Clarity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, chlorophyll a, pesticides Compare current and 1970s/80s water quality and land use Determine areas of groundwater inflow/outflow Predict response to phosphorus additions Th om Am 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 na Pi s ck er el Em i S u ly ns Ad et am s Li on s W Se o l ve f rs o Sk n un Jo k rd an Be He nt l ly en Ja 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 lle el te r Chlor a (mg/L) Ad am O s nl an d Jo na s Eb er Em t ily Li on Ri ne s h Fo ar un t ta i Sk n un Su k ns Pi et ck Se ere ve l r Th son om as W ol f Be a H r Ja e l cq en ue lin e Tr ee Co llin s So Lim ut h e Sp Tw rin in Am gv ill he rs M e t M cD ill ill Po nd Jo rd Ro a n sh ol Be Sp t nt rin ly g Po n Bo d el te r TP (μg/L) Median Total Phosphorus 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Median Chlorophyll A 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Comparison to Historic TP Average Better ADAMS Same BEAR EBERT EMILY HELEN MC DILL POND LIME ONLAND LIONS SKUNK PICKEREL RINEHART SEVERSON SPRING SPRINGVILLE SUNSET THOMAS TREE WOLF Worse BOELTER COLLINS FOUNTAIN JAQUELINE Water Clarity Measurements TYPE= Seepage TYPE= Drainage 8 7 7 6 6 Secchi (meter) 8 5 4 3 5 4 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 5 Bear 6 5 4 4 Jacqueli Emily 5 Lime Jonas 6 3 Pickerel Onland 3 5 Skunk 5 6 Sunset Sev erson South Tw 6 N= Wolf 5 4 Adams Thomas 4 6 Collins Boelter 5 5 Fountain Ebert SITE TYPE= Impoundment 7 6 5 4 2537 3 2 1 2477 0 N= 5 Amherst 6 Bently P 4 6 6 6 Jordan McDill Ros holt Springv i SITE 4 Lions Helen SITE 8 Secchi (meter) N= 6 5 3 Spring Rinehart Tree J a 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 he P har rs ick t tM e ill rel Po nd Eb er t Be nt Tre ly e Po Ro nd sh o J o lt rd an Li m e Jo na M s Sp cD rin ill gv ille He le n Chloide (mg/L) T Fo re e un ta R in os ho l B Jor t en d t ly a n P on d M A cD m he i rs Sp ll t M ri ill ng P on d E b S pr er t in gv ill e J a Be cq ar ue S line ev er s S on un se t W o B lf S oel ou te th r Tw in Li on O s nl an S d ku Th n k om a Jo s na s Li m e H el R en in eh P ar t ic ke re l E m i A ly da m C s ol lin s NO2+NO3-N (mg/L) Median Nitrate 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Median Chloride 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 Mean Chloride (mg/l) 20 15 Lake Sources of chloride Road salts Septic systems\waste water Animal waste Tr ee W ol f m s Be a Bo r el te Co r lli ns Eb er t Em Fo i l y un ta in He Ja le cq n ue lin e Jo na s Li m e Li on s O nl an d Pi ck e Ri rel ne h Se art ve rs on S So ku n ut k h Tw in Sp rin g Su ns Th et om as Ad a Comparison to Historic – Chloride Average 25 1979-1983 2000-2004 10 5 0 Lake Study Scope Algae – all lakes List algal species & frequencies by site & what they indicate about nutrient levels ADAMS LAKE 2003 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 O 5 N ov Se pt A ug 3 t hy op 15 a 10 9 t hy op a DATE pt ry C Ju ne in D M ay e gl Eu 0 19 ia er ct ba ta no hy ya op C a or yt hl a ph C yt ro ph ch no % CELLS COUNTED 45 PHYLUM Lake Helen’s “Trophic Scorecard” 2002-2003 GOOD Total P (Spring Overturn) FAIR During July 97 & 50 ppb On Average <30 ppb Inorganic N >0.3 ppm (spring overturn) Chlorophyll a (Summer) Clarity POOR During July and Aug 7.1 to 12 ppb <8 ppb X During July Other Parameters LOW MEDIUM HIGH 9.8 Sulfate 20.7 Chloride 1.5 Potassium 6.9 Sodium Atrazine 0.10 Lake Study Scope Bear Lake ~ Fish Fish – 10 lakes Identify game & non-game fish species present; weigh & measure Identify critical habitat areas Not sufficient to make game fish management assessments Bear Lake Fish Number of observed species: 10 Species observed to date: This chart represents all species detected, by decade, in Bear Lake since censusing began. Data before 2002 was collected by the Wisconsin DNR and 2002/2003 data was collected by UW-Stevens Point. X represents a decade when the species was detected. Bluegill Bluegill/Pumpkinseed hybrid Pumpkinseed Green Sunfish Warmouth Largemouth Bass Black Crappie Yellow Perch Northern Pike Yellow Bullhead Bullhead sp. White Sucker Blackchin Shiner Central Mudminnow 1960's X 1980's X X X X X X X X X X X X 2000's X X X X X X X X X X X X Lake Study Scope Aquatic Plants Note changes in plant communities since 1968 Calculate the overall aquatic plant quality for each lake Map areas with sensitive or exotic species No. Species of Aquatic Plants 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 COLLINS BECKER BEAR JORDAN SUNSET MEYERS MC DILL SOUTH TWIN EMILY EBERT FOUNTAIN SKUNK LIME SEVERSON JAQUELINE PICKEREL THOMAS WOLF TREE ADAMS ONLAND LIONS BOELTER ROSHOLT RINEHART JONAS BENTLY SPRING SPRINGVILLE HELEN AMHERST Aquatic Plants 0 SPRINGVILLE ROSHOLT SPRING AMHERST BOELTER HELEN BENTLY THOMAS ADAMS LIONS RINEHART TREE WOLF ONLAND LIME JONAS PICKEREL FOUNTAIN MEYERS SKUNK SEVERSON MC DILL EMILY JORDAN JAQUELINE EBERT SUNSET BEAR COLLINS SOUTH TWIN BECKER FQI Aquatic Plants Floristic Quality Indices 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Species of Special Concern Endangered Species Aquatic Plants Eurasian water-milfoil Positively Identified in Bear Lake, Lake Emily, Jordan Pond, McDill Pond, Lake Pacawa, Springville Pond, Thomas Lake Lake Study Scope Spring Lake Shoreland Survey Map the type of vegetation around each lake Lake Helen Lake Study Scope Shoreland Survey II Map the EXTENT of vegetation around each lake 2003 2010 Lake Study Scope Amphibians & Reptiles Frog calls, salamander and turtle surveys yield lists of species, abundance and maps of key habitat areas Compare to historical records Report any malformed frogs Compare developed & undeveloped lakes to assess impacts on these species Protected and Unique species Glacial remnant species Facette’s locoweed Lim La ke eL ak e in La ke Tw in La Se ke ve rs o nL ak Pi e ck ere lL ak e On la n dL ak e Jo na s, La ke Be ar La ke Lio ns La ke W o lf La ke Ad am sL ak Th e om as La ke Ri 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 So uth Fo un ta Eb er t % Poor Habitat ak e Tr ee La Sp ke rin gv ille Ja Po cq nd ue lin e, La ke Ri ne ha rt La ke Eb er tL ak e Co llin sL So ak uth e Tw in La ke Su ns et La ke Th om as La ke Ad am sL ak e W o lf La ke Be ar La ke Lio ns La ke Jo na s, La Se ke ve rso nL ak e On la n dL ak Pi e ck ere lL ak e Lim eL ak Fo e un ta in La ke He len ,L % Adequete Habitat in eL ak e La ke La ke sL ak e On la n dL ak P ic e ke rel La Sp ke rin gv ille Po nd Su ns et La ke Th om as La ke Wo lf L ak e He len ,L ak e Ad am sL ak e Be ar La Se k e ve rs o nL ak e Co llin sL ak e Tre eL Ja ak cq e ue lin e, La ke Rin eh ar t So La ke uth Tw in La ke Eb er t La ke Lio n Lim Jo na s, Fo un ta % Excellent Habitat Shoreline Habitat for Frogs Excellent Shoreline Habitat - Green Frog 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Poor Shoreline Habitat - Green Frog 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Helen Lake Green Frog Habitat Excellent 2% Adequete Shoreline Habitat - Green Frog Adequate 6% Best Green Frog Habitat: Ebert Lake 33% excellent habitat + 67% adequate Poor 92% Worst Green Frog Habitat: Helen Lake 2% excellent habitat + 6% adequate +92% poor Getting the word out… Community presentations to prep citizens for the results sponsored by the Friends of Portage County Lakes – – – – – Lake types Limnology 101 How land use affects water quality Common pollutants and effects Management options Getting the word out… Creation of preliminary lake summaries Getting the word out… Preliminary results unveiled Local outdoor writers Presentations 4 sites around the county Attended by more than 200 people Getting the word out… Special meetings/assistance requested by Towns,Villages, Lake Groups Jetskis and powerboats: • • • • Stir up bottom sediments where water is less than 10 feet deep Stirred sediment releases phosphorus of the past Noise Wildlife disturbance: nesting & feeding Getting the word out… Portage County Lake Fests with the Friends of Portage County Lakes Many thanks to many others… Portage County Citizens Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Portage County Planning and Zoning Portage County Parks Department George Rogers, Portage County Gazette Stevens Point Journal WAOW UW-Extension – Portage Co. CNRD Agent UWSP Faculty, Staff, Students