Lincoln Pond is an impoundment. It has two characteristics which are - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Lincoln Pond is an impoundment. • It has two characteristics which are common to many impoundments: • The lake’s water residence time is short (higher rates of sediment and nutrient inputs). • The dam expanded the lake surface area over an existing wetland and created a large area of shallow water.

1895 Today

The dam created a large shallow area ideal for the growth of aquatic vegetation.

Start with the circa. mid-1970’s (?) Technical Report written for Lincoln Pond…….

42% said aquatic vegetation was a problem, 42% said there was no problem. The most troublesome aquatic plants found in Lincoln Pond are…Large- leaf pondweed, American elodea, and waterlilies.

Excessive amounts of nutrients have caused an increase in the growth of aquatic vegetation. Therefore, decreasing the nutrient supply will have a control effect on the growth of aquatic vegetation. Onto CSLAP (2004)

Wh What you can do today y (t (to act on previousl sly y given advice)… )….. .. Reduce or eliminate the use of fertilizers, • Plant a rain garden or maintain natural vegetative buffers, • Keep animal waste away from surface water and drainage ditches, • Maintain a band of dense shoreline vegetation to discourage geese and to • stabilize the shoreline, Work with highway departments to ensure rapid stabilization of roadside • ditches (hydroseed?), Support BMP’s for forestry. • Maintain an effective septic system • have the tank pumped, • have the system inspected by a professional, • perform upgrades as necessary. •

ECSWCD has hosted rain barrel and rain garden presentations at the Elizabethtown Fish and Game Club and at the Essex County Fair.

Wh Why y it t matter ers… Maintain a woody vegetative buffer along the shoreline. Grass lawns lack a deep root system, which is essential to a stable shoreline. A combination of waves and weather will begin to eat away at the lawn, causing it to break apart and crumble into the water.

Why it Wh t matters….. 34 35 Percent of Precipitation Percent of Precipitation 30 Converted to Runoff 25 20 Maximum Average 15 10 5 3 2 0.2 0 Lawn Woods

Why it Wh t matters….. Comparison of Total Phosphorus at a Shoreline Site in Northern Wisconsin 0.1 0.1 0.082 Pounds per Acre / Year Groundwater 0.08 Surface Runoff 0.06 170 acres of forest 1 acre of lawn. 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.00048 0 Lawn Woods

Why it Wh t matters….. Control erosion from roads, driveways, steep slopes, and forestry activities.

2015 APIPP Plant Survey…..17 Plant Beds Found; 8 had EWM abundance of at least 25% cover while 4 had EWM abundance of at least 50% cover. Abundant >50% Common 25-50% Present 15-25% Occasional 5-15% Rare <5% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 EWM Large-leaf Nitella

1 2015 APIPP 11 2 16 Plant Survey 10 15 9 1 • 124.8 acres, or 19.3% of the lake surface), • The most abundant plants were EWM, Large-leaf pondweed , and Nitella, • Recall that the 1970’s report identified Large-leaf pondweed as a nuisance, • Except for small patches at sites 15 and 16 all sites having dense EWM are in area of a flooded wetland.

The only management to date(?): • In 2000 and 2001 Cornell University stocked 40,000 Acentria caterpillars in a one acre area to see if they could control Eurasian watermilfoil. • The experiment failed to produce the desired results. • Pan fish were implicated in the elimination of Acentria .

Ne Next Steps??? Think about what it means to engage management • BEFORE you decide to engage, Have an honest conversation regarding exactly what • the current impacts are, where the impacts are occurring, and how long the impacts last, Decide on a budget (and be honest with yourself • about that budget).

Next Steps??? Ne Remember: It is Expensive, • It will take A LOT of time and you will either pay a professional to do it • all or you will be committing A LOT of volunteer time (and volunteer burnout is a real concern), Once begun it must continue or progress will be quickly lost, • There will most likely be “winners” and “losers”; it is unrealistic to • expect that you will please everyone, Historic information suggests that even if you control EWM there will • still be vegetative growth which some may find impairing,

Wh Why y bri ring g up costs ts? Loon Lake (586 acre lake - 240 acre littoral zone) “How are things going?” • 17 years of effort • $632,000 invested ($453,000 in past 5 years), • “We’re not sure if we’re making progress or not.” President of the lake association (2018): “… there has there been a discussion regarding ongoing costs, and whether there is realistic expectation that the cost of control is going to be reduced because of the success in controlling the invasive.”

Rising Control Costs for Loon Lake $700,000 “…2016 effort was Annual Cost $600,000 observed to be inadequate in full Cumulative Cost $500,000 lake-wide 2013 management Anticipated Post Herbicide $400,000 Herbicide considering the new Treatment Cost Treatment growth areas, area $300,000 of existing growth, $200,000 and the inability to hit lower priority $100,000 sites….” $- 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Re Regardless…Get Inv nvolved and Stay Informed…. Assemble a dedicated group of volunteers who are willing to monitoring for new AIS. Report suspicious plants or animals ASAP.

Re Regardless…Get Inv nvolved and Stay Informed…. Stay involved with CSLAP. Join the Adirondack Lakes Alliance and / or NYSFOLA. Attend workshops, trainings, conferences.

Re Regardless…. Maintain a strong Lake Association

Only Only the hen n if if you u do do de decide ide to mana nage… • Seek the input of a professional CLM or Lake Manager • Interview • Be prepared to discuss costs (but not necessarily your budget), • Ask what reasonable outcomes can be expected for different cost levels, • Get an expected timeline for reasonable goals, • Get references and take the time to tour those waterbodies and talk to the lake association, • Be a smart consumer.

Tw Two potential funding opportunities

An And (finally) some me ma manageme ment activities: Management in the Park has included: • Draw-downs (a few lakes) • Triploid Grass Carp (a few lakes) • Hand Harvesting and Benthic Barriers (dozens of lakes) • Herbicide (only two, one-time only applications approved in last decade) • Mechanical Harvester (one lake) • Do-nothing (many lakes) Remember – Every method of control has an impact and what may work or be appropriate for one lake may not work for another.

Lake Drawdown

Mechanical Harvester Hadlock Pond Mechanical Harvester Program Mechanical Harvester Collected 51,000 Pounds Fragment Collectors Collected 14,000 Pounds

Hand and Diver Assisted Suction Harvesting (DASH)

Benthic Barriers

Herbicides

An And L Lastly, w wher ere t e ther ere’ e’s m managem emen ent t ther ere’ e’s p per ermitting • Management of Invasive Species requires permits • Benthic Barriers – APA and probably DEC • Herbicides – APA and DEC • Mechanical Harvester – APA • Hand Harvesting – APA • DASH – APA and possibly DEC • Draw Down – APA and DEC Permitting authorities must follow the law governing approvability and must make specific legal findings. This takes time and complex projects or projects which have the potential to do a lot of harm typically require detailed studies/analyses.

Qu Question ons?