Lake Management for Conservation Commissions and Lake Associations

1. Lake Management for Conservation Commissions and Lake Associations Ken Wagner, PhD, CLM, Water Resource Services

2. Part I – Lake Management and the Wetlands Protection Act Reasons for lake management • Algae control • Rooted plant control • Sedimentation mitigation • Fishing enhancement • Other interests • Nuisance animals • Rare species • Birding • Access

3. Part I – Lake Management and the Wetlands Protection Act Algae control • Most algae grow in proportion to available nutrients and light • Focus on nutrient control, esp P, for best results • Watershed management • Internal load reduction • Dredging • Inactivation • Oxygenation • Drawdown

4. Part I – Lake Management and the Wetlands Protection Act From Watson et al. 1997 L&O 42(3): 487-495 Relationships of TP to Chl to cyanobacteria: More P leads to more algae and more algae leads to more cyanobacteria. Other algae can bloom too, but probability of cyano blooms rises with P. (10 ug/L) (100 ug/L)

5. Part I – Lake Management and the Wetlands Protection Act Algae control • Where nutrient control is not feasible, control should focus on prevention of blooms, not removal of existing blooms • Algaecides • Circulation • Flushing • Sonication • Dyes • Biomanipulation • Bacterial additives • Mechanical removal?

6. Part I – Lake Management and the Wetlands Protection Act Rooted plant control • Choice of method highly dependent upon: • Species of plants to be controlled • Areal coverage • Density of coverage • Potential non-target impacts

7. Part I – Lake Management and the Wetlands Protection Act Rooted plant control • Watershed management will not solve the problem • Water quality management unlikely to solve the problem • Often need a combination of techniques • Often need repeat application • Quick action upon discovery of an invasion is essential if there is to be any chance of eradication

8. Part I – Lake Management and the Wetlands Protection Act Rooted plant control • Physical: drawdown, harvesting, dredging, benthic barriers • Chemical: herbicides, dyes • Biological: herbivores, pathogens, competitors • Each has pros and cons, each has optimal conditions for application (see Lake Management in MA)

9. Part I – Lake Management and the Wetlands Protection Act Sediment mitigation • Four choices: live with it, dredge it, decompose organic matter, raise water level • Dredging is the most restorative choice, but is very expensive and requires considerable information to plan and permit; sediment quality and quantity must be thoroughly evaluated • Decomposing organic sediments is possible with adequate oxygen and appropriate microbes; an industry has arisen around this approach, but little scientific evidence of successes • Raising the water level is not practical in many cases

10. Part I – Lake Management and the Wetlands Protection Act Fishing enhancement • Boils down to habitat and stocking; both have a role • Habitat will determine long term fishery conditions; temperature, oxygen, pH and trophic status all matter • Stocking provides short term enhancement and may provide longer term benefits if habitat is suitable • Regulation may also be important; overfishing can be a real force • State agencies have interest and expertise in habitat, but focus mainly on stocking and regulation

11. Part I – Lake Management and the Wetlands Protection Act Other interests • Nuisance animals – beavers, geese, leeches, swimmer’s itch – need to view control in context of habitat and ecosystem function • Rare species – protected by law, promoting them is desirable, but requires a plan and permission • Birding – popular passtime, many water dependent species, not always compatible with other uses – need to consider habitat needs, spatial and temporal separation from potentially conflicting uses • Access – public vs. private lakes pose major issues with regard to responsibility, funding, downstream impacts, individual vs. societal rights – room for a lot of debate, a very sensitive area with many groups

12. Part I – Lake Management and the Wetlands Protection Act • How the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) relates to lakes • History of WPA • Act and subsequent regulations (1983) and revisions (1987, 1997) to protect wetlands, an imperiled set of habitats • BVW, LSF, Bank, VP, LUW: lakes as wetlands • Lakes as embodiment of range of wetland habitats • Conundrum of active management of lakes • Limited projects10.53 (4) • Land Under Water 10.56 • Performance standards 10.60

13. Part I – Lake Management and the Wetlands Protection Act • How the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) relates to lakes • Seven original “interests” of the WPA • Protection of public and private water supply • Protection of ground water supply • Flood control • Storm damage prevention • Prevention of pollution • Protection of land containing shellfish • Protection of fisheries

14. Part I – Lake Management and the Wetlands Protection Act • How the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) relates to lakes • Regulatory adjustments • Addition of 8th “interest”: habitat – problem issue for any management program • Policies and guidance over the years to address specific issues • GEIR for Eutrophication and Aquatic Plant Management in Massachusetts • Not the last word; meant to be updated • Provides guidance, not regulation or rules • Problem situations accumulating • No regulatory provision for revision

15. Part I – Lake Management and the Wetlands Protection Act • Related legislation and regulation • MA Endangered Species Act and NHESP • Riverways Act – streams and rivers, not lakes • MA DEP Storm Water Policy • Chapter 91: Waterways License re: Great Ponds • Federal Clean Water Act, Sec 401 and 404 • Federal Clean Water Act, Sec 305b and 303d • Federal Clean Water Act, Sec 314 and 319 • Federal Insecticide Rodenticide and Fungicide Act • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System • Invasive species transport bans • Instream flow initiatives

16. Part I – Lake Management and the Wetlands Protection Act • Related issues • Double jeopardy from overlapping regulation • Lack of a mandate to control invasive species • Focus on endangered species instead of communities • Little inclusion of safety, economic limits or recreation in WPA – but there is some, and room to interpret • Lack of process for rapid response planning and permitting • Ability to monitor to predict problems and be proactive

17. Part I – Lake Management and the Wetlands Protection Act • Bottom Line: • There is a lot for a Conservation Commissioner or a Lake Association to know when dealing with lakes • Lake projects have potentially more environmental regulation than development projects • Like buildings, lakes require maintenance to remain in acceptable condition; no action is not preservation • Prevention is much preferred over rehabilitation, but can’t always be arranged • The WPA and related regulations provide a framework for lake management, but also have gaps, contradictions and confusing aspects that make the job of a Commissioner more difficult

18. Part I – Lake Management and the Wetlands Protection Act Reasonable expectations from applicants • Properly characterize the resources involved • Clearly identify the problem(s) • Demonstrate consideration of options • Provide an evaluation of non-target impacts • Show how the interests of the WPA are affected • Provide an appropriate monitoring program • List follow up and contingency actions • Explain how other permitting processes apply • Identify who will be responsible for what actions

19. Part I – Lake Management and the Wetlands Protection Act Reasonable expectations from conservation commissioners • Be familiar with available guidance on lake management (GEIR, other resources) • Do not base feasibility or applicability conclusions on any one example; consider range of possible outcomes, avoid secondary sources, personal opinions, and unsubstantiated claims • Keep an open mind; do not limit options due to personal prejudices for or against any technique • Know where you can compromise and where you have to hold the line on WPA provisions – not easy to do, but work at it • Help craft reasonable monitoring programs, not extorted research projects • Do not overstep jurisdictional bounds; avoid requiring actions not related to the problem • Seek to be part of a solution to any problem; commissioners should be more than umpires

20. Lessons from Experience • There is no one size fits all solution; the specific conditions in each case dictate the most viable course of action • There are likely multiple possible solutions, and multiple techniques are likely to be involved over time • Comparisons between lake projects must be tempered by lake-specific situations; because something did or did not work at Lake A is not grounds for a strong conclusion at Lake B without careful analysis • Questions from conservation commissions should help shape the project within the context of the WPA; foster adaptive management over time

21. I’m gonna need another one of these Questions?

22. Part II – Common Western Massachusetts Plant Management Approaches • Water quality tends to be acceptable; more problems with rooted plants, partly due to higher water clarity • Drawdown practiced where outlet control over water level exists and permits can be obtained • Herbicides tend to be applied where problem is serious enough to warrant major biomass reduction • Mechanical harvesting was popular when county operated machines, still a viable method of maintaining selected areas for recreation • Manual harvesting difficult on very big scale, but proven useful for limited area lakes; sometimes aided by suction harvesting • Benthic barriers useful for localized near-complete control • Dredging very desirable in many cases, but too expensive and extra depth not essential • Limited biomanipulation; more experimental, grass carp not allowed

23. Drawdown • Potential for control of nuisance aquatic plants by drawdown • Key attributes of success: water level control, dewatering, weather, physical disruption • Primary impediments: impacts to non-target species, flooding and refill issues

24. Drawdown Targets • Vegetative propagators vs. seed producers • Possible control of milfoil, fanwort, coontail, water lilies, watershield • No adverse effect on naiad, most pondweeds, water chestnut, Chara and Nitella, except by long-term sediment changes

25. Drawdown Issues • Importance of physical disruption of overwintering plant form • 30 days of dryness and/or freezing temp. • Ripping plants up with early refill possible • Variability in response, need for planning for annual drawdown

26. Drawdown Issues • Impacts on wells • Impacts to other aquatic plants • Impacts to contiguous wetlands • Impacts to invertebrates • Impacts to reptiles and amphibians • Impacts to fish • Impacts to birds • Impacts to furbearers

27. Drawdown Experience • Weather dependent technique; have to consider longer term conditions and expect year to year variation – evaluation should span 3-5 years! • Can be very effective against milfoil, fanwort, any submergent perennial if killing conditions achieved • Not directly effective against emergents (tend to be dormant) or annual species (come back from seed) • Makes substrate more coarse (more rock, gravel, coarse sand) over time with enough slope; provides indirect control through substrate limitation • Rare to be able to draw down to level that prevents any nuisances by target species • Deeper drawdowns present spring refill issues, possible ecological impacts

28. Herbicides • 9 active ingredients available: • Copper- mostly for algae, limited vascular plant applications • Diquat – contact herbicide, spot treatments • Endothall– contact herbicide, spot treatments • 2,4-D – older systemic; limits on use, but potentially effective on some species where other herbicides are not • Glyphosate – systemic, mainly for emergent growths • Imazopyr/Imazomox – systemic, mainly for emergent plants • Fluridone – systemic, slow acting, mostly whole lake or sequestered applications, species targeting by dose • Triclopyr – systemic, fast acting, spot treatments possible, effective on milfoil but not pondweed species • Flumioxazin – contact herbicide, spot treatments possible, effective on wide range of invasive and nuisance species

29. Herbicides • With very different active ingredients, labels, and application conditions, blanket statements about herbicides are inappropriate • Herbicide costs vary substantially; cost per treatment and number of treatments needed over 20 years should be considered • It is reasonable to be concerned over possible non-target impacts, including human health, but direct impacts are very, very rare; experience shows that risks are small • Very few techniques can get a plant infestation under control quickly and at reasonable cost the way herbicides can, when properly chosen and applied

30. Herbicide Treatments • Contact herbicides kill only the part of the plant with which they come in contact, but tend to act fast • Systemic herbicides are taken up and kill whole plant at sufficient dose, but tend to act more slowly

31. Herbicide Treatments • Effectiveness varies with target species and ambient conditions • Selectivity can be achieved by timing of treatment, location of treatment, and dose for some herbicides • Longevity limited for ideal growing situations, but can be enhanced by encouraging desired species

32. Herbicide Treatments • Direct impacts to non-target fauna are very limited when label restrictions are followed • Indirect impacts are possible as habitat is altered by change in plant density or relative abundance

33. Herbicide Treatment Issues • Long-term control • Low dose “success/risk” • Water supply restrictions • Minimal issues for fish, shellfish • No issues for flood or storm control • Legal debate over pollution applicability • Certainly changes habitat

34. Herbicide Experience • Diquat is most popular contact herbicide; used to clear swimming areas, control regrowth after some whole lake systemic treatments • Glyphosate and Imazopyr/Imazomox most often used on floating or emergent plants, such as water lilies, cattails, phragmites • Fluridone used most on Eurasian milfoil and fanwort, often whole lake treatment, but advanced in pellet formulas aids spot treatment • Triclopyr newer, gaining acceptance, works on certain plants (including milfoil) relatively quickly and thoroughly • Flumioxazin also newer, gaining acceptance, works fast in smaller areas, affects wide range of nuisance species • 1-4 years of control is to be expected; more only with follow up actions – for best results, let professionals guide herbicide use planning

35. Rotovation • Hydroraking Harvesting • Hand pulling • Rakes and cutters • Mechanical harvesting

36. Harvesting- Hand Pulling • Effective for limited area infestations • Can be very selective • Best with sparse growth of invasive species • Need to control fragments • Possible high labor cost, repetition expected • Suction systems may help with denser areas

37. Harvesting- Rakes and Cutters • Can clear small areas • Moderately selective • Fragments collection necessary for some species • Effective for seed producers if timed correctly • Labor cost usually moderate, repetition expected

38. Harvesting - Mechanical Harvesting • Can clear larger areas • Best results if biomass collected and removed • Analogous to mowing the lawn for many species • Limited but possible selectivity over time • Some evidence of carry-over effect • Capital or contract cost high, repetition expected

39. Harvesting– Rotovation • Can clear moderate sized areas • Disrupts plants at roots, but rarely includes collection of biomass • Non-selective • Highly variable longevity • “Messy” operation • Capital or contract costs high, repetition not as likely as for other techniques

40. Harvesting – Hydroraking • Can clear moderate areas • Removes plants at roots with some sediment • Non-selective • Variable longevity, but successful for certain species • High capital or contract cost, repetition not as likely as for other options

41. Harvesting Experience • Rotivation not applied much in New England • Hydroraking mostly used to control water lilies, remove floating islands and debris, less common in Berkshires • Mechanical harvesting less common now (less convenient, higher cost), but works well as a maintenance technique with adequate equipment – WPA issues limited by affected area • Manual methods gaining momentum; both professional and volunteer efforts have demonstrated success – longer term success remains to be documented, but trends are encouraging – few WPA issues

42. One more and this will all make sense… Questions?

43. Part III: Keys to Successful Lake Management Ken Wagner, Ph.D., CLMWater Resources ManagerWater Resource Services, Inc.kjwagner@charter.net

44. Key Elements:Set realistic goalsInvolve all relevant partiesApply sound sciencePrevention with any rehabilitationOrganize, prepare, anticipateFocus and persevereAdequately fund actionsPublicize and recognizeMonitor and follow up…true, but boring…

45. So hang on and we’ll do it differently!

46. Summary in One Word: Openness • Open process – inclusive, fair, comprehensive • Open minds – evaluate without prejudice • Open lake – private property vs. public opportunity • Open checkbook – you get what you pay for • Open ended management – no clear endpoint, follow-up needed

47. Open Process • Solicit input from all interested parties: lake users, potential lake users, property owners, those with political or regulatory jurisdiction, those holding the purse strings

48. Open Process • Try to accommodate reasonable uses Ballroom catfish dancing – one esoteric pursuit Recognize potential conflicts Incredible fishing?

49. Open Process • Set realistic goals, arrived at as a group Most lakes can support multiple uses, but recognize the limits

50. Open Process • Seek true conflict resolution, not to win a power struggle I’ll show you how we resolve conflicts in Chicago One ring to rule them all…