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