APPENDIX A - Loon Lake District · Loon Lake Management Planning Project Kick-Off Meeting July 23,...

APPENDIX A Public Participation Materials

Kick-off Meeting Announcement Kick-off Meeting Presentation Planning Meeting Presentation Wrap-up Meeting Presentation

Loon Lake Management Planning Project

Kick-Off Meeting July 23, 2016– 9:00 AM

Camp Tekakwitha W5248 Lake Dr, Shawano, WI 54166

The Loon Lake Wescott Management District has received a grant totaling almost $20,000 from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to partially fund the completion of a comprehensive management plan for Loon Lake. The design for the planning project has been finalized and approved by the WDNR and includes two primary objectives: 1) the completion of in-depth studies including multiple plant surveys, water quality sampling, and watershed investigations; and 2) the completion of a realistic management plan for the lake and its watershed. Most of the studies will be completed during the spring, summer, and fall of 2016. The tasks associated with the analysis of the data will be completed during the fall and winter of 2016-17. The project will also incorporate opportunities for stakeholder education and input, which are both very important components of all lake management planning efforts. The first opportunity for your participation in the process will be at the Project Kick-off Meeting to be held on Saturday, July 23rd at 9:00 am at Camp Tekakwitha. In addition to this meeting another opportunity for your input will be through a written stakeholder survey that will be distributed during the project. Onterra, LLC, a lake management planning firm out of De Pere, has been hired to lead the project. During the meeting, Eddie Heath, an aquatic ecologist with Onterra, LLC, will describe the project and its importance. The presentation will include a description of the project’s components, a quick course on general lake ecology, and a breakdown of how the District’s Planning Committee will be involved in the plan’s completion. Please plan on attending this important meeting and do not hesitate to ask questions or make comments.

Onterra ecologist Eddie Heath speaks to a lake group in Fond du Lac County about their lake management plan. Public participation will be an integral part of the Loon Lake project.

Loon Lake Kick-off Meeting Appendix A

July 2016 1

The Loon Lake Wescott Management District

Eddie Heath

Loon Lake ComprehensiveManagement Plan Update

Kick-off MeetingJuly 23, 2016

PresentationOutline• Onterra,LLC• WhyCreateaManagementPlan?• ElementsofaLakeManagementPlanningProject• Data&Information• PlanningProcess

Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning

Onterra,LLC• Foundedin2005• Staff

• Fourleadecologists• Threefieldtechnicians• Fivesummerinterns

• Services• Scienceandplanning

• Philosophy• Promoterealisticplanning• Assist,notdirect


Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning

Whycreatealakemanagementplan?

• Tocreateabetterunderstandingofthelake’spositiveandnegativeattributes.

• Todiscoverwaystominimizethenegativeattributesandmaximizethepositiveattributes.

• Tofosterrealisticexpectationsanddispelmyths.

• Tocreateasnapshotofthelakeforfuturereferenceandplanning.


July 2016 2


Whycreatealakemanagementplan?

• WDNRrecommendslakesconductingactivemanagementupdateaspectsoftheplanevery5years.

• HavingacurrentandapprovedplanmakesthesponsoreligibleforWDNRgrantsthatimplementanaction.

• Conductinglarge‐scalemanagementrequiresacurrentandapprovedplan.


PastPlanningEfforts


ElementsofanEffectiveLakeManagementPlanningProject

DataandInformationGatheringEnvironmental&Sociological

PlanningProcessBringsitalltogether


Dataandinformationgathering

• StudyComponents• WaterQualityAnalysis• WatershedAssessment• AquaticPlantSurveys• FisheriesDataIntegration• ShorelineAssessment• StakeholderSurvey


July 2016 3


WaterQualityAnalysis• Generalwaterchemistry(current&historic)

• Nutrientanalysis• Laketrophicstate(Eutrophication)• Limitingplantnutrient

• Supportingdataforwatershedmodeling

Land Cover TypesForest

Forested Wetlands

Open Water

Pasture/Grass

Row Crops

Rural Open Space

Rural Residential

Wetlands

WatershedAssessment

• Delineationofdrainagebasin• Modeling

• Landcover• Phosphorusloading• Scenariodevelopment

Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning

AquaticPlantSurveys

• Concernedwithbothnativeandnon‐nativeplants

• Multiplesurveysusedinassessment• EarlySeason AISSurvey• Point‐interceptSurvey• Late‐SummerEWMSurvey• Floating‐leafandEmergentCommunity

MappingSurvey

Loon Lake60-meter Resolution

365 Total PointsCompare: 2005-2015




July 2016 4


Non‐native Aquatic PlantsCurly‐leaf Pondweed


Curly‐leafPondweed

Curly‐leaf Pondweed


Non‐native Aquatic PlantsPale Yellow Iris


July 2016 5

Pale Yellow Iris


Non‐native Aquatic PlantsEurasian Water Milfoil

2015Treatment onLoonLake

Date Treated

Acres Treated

% Lake Treated Herbicide Products

06/03/2003 84.0 25.7 Navigate08/07/2003 9.7 3.0 Navigate09/18/2003 48.6 14.9 Navigate05/05/2004 48.6 14.9 Aquathol K09/01/2004 14.9 4.5 Navigate10/13/2004 3.0 0.9 Navigate & Aquathol K05/31/2005 40.0 12.2 Navigate05/15/2006 61.8 18.9 Weeder 64 & Aquathol K05/02/2007 88.0 26.9 DMA IV & Aquathol K05/12/2008 68.4 20.9 DMA IV & Aquathol K05/04/2009 68.4 20.9 DMA IV & Aquathol K; Navigate & Aquathol Super K04/15/2010 68.0 20.8 DMA IV & Aquathol K04/17/2012 87.6 26.8 DMA IV05/15/2013 87.6 26.8 DMA IV & Aquathol K

TreatmentHistory(2003‐2013)

• Diquat (2gallonspersurfaceacreofapplicationarea)• ~24acresof305acrelake(7.8%)• TracerDye(RhodamineWT)Survey• Pre(spring)&post(late‐summer)point‐interceptsub‐sampling

WindData

°

90°

180°

270°

360°

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Win

d S

peed

(m

ph)

Wind Speed

Wind Direction

0

South

West

North

East

North

Win

d D

irect

ion

(Car

dina

l D

irect

ion)

Time (24 Hour)

Period of Herbicide Application

9:00

10:0

0

11:0

0

12:0

0

14:0

0

13:0

0

15:0

0

17:0

0

16:0

0


July 2016 6

1HAT75-100%50-75%25-50%10-25%5-10%

2.5HAT75-100%50-75%25-50%10-25%5-10%

4HAT75-100%50-75%25-50%10-25%5-10%

6HAT75-100%50-75%25-50%10-25%5-10%


July 2016 7

Efficacy

4.5

13.6

5.3

23.5

3.7 2.1 0.8

6.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

A-15 (N=31) B-15 (N=158) C-15 (N=54) Treatment-Wide (N=243)

EW

M F

req

uenc

y o

f Occ

urre

nce

with

in 2

01

5 T

rea

tme

nt A

rea

s (%

)May 2015 (Pre-Treatment)

September 2015 (Post-Treatment)

4.5

13.6

5.3

23.5

3.7 2.1 0.8

6.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

A-15 (N=31) B-15 (N=158) C-15 (N=54) Treatment-Wide (N=243)

EW

M F

req

uenc

y o

f Occ

urre

nce

with

in 2

01

5 T

rea

tme

nt A

rea

s (%

)May 2015 (Pre-Treatment)

September 2015 (Post-Treatment)

Eurasian Water Milfoil


FisheriesDataIntegration

• Nofishsamplingcompleted• AssembledatafromWDNR,USGS,USFWS,&GLIFWC

• Fishsurveyresultssummaries(ifavailable)• Useinformationinplanningasapplicable


StakeholderSurvey

• Standardsurveyusedasbase• Planningcommitteepotentiallydevelops

additionalquestionsandoptions• Mustnotleadrespondenttospecificanswer

througha“loaded”question• SurveymustbeapprovedbyWDNR


July 2016 8


ShorelandAssessment• Shorelandareaisimportantforbufferingrunoffand

providesvaluablehabitatforaquaticandterrestrialwildlife.

• Assessmentranksshorelandareafromshorelineback35feet

• Assessshorelanddevelopmentandhabitat• Coarsewoodyhabitat

Urbanized Natural

Range


PlanningProcess

StudyResults(includingastakeholdersurvey)Conclusions&InitialRecommendationsManagementGoalsManagementActionsTimeframeFacilitator(s)

PlanningCommitteeMeetings

ImplementationPlan

Loon Lake Planning Committee Meeting I Appendix A

Onterra, LLC 1

Comprehensive Plan UpdatePlanning Meeting I

July27,2017

LoonLakeWescottManagementDistrict

EddieJ.HeathOnterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning

PresentationOutline

Lake Management Planning

• LakeManagementPlanningProjectOverview• StudyResults

• WaterQuality• Watershed• Shoreland• AquaticPlants• Fishery• AquaticPlantControlOptions

• “BigPicture”• NextSteps

Stakeholder Survey

• 126 surveys – 49% response rate

• Additional 25 surveys to mobile home park – 6 additional responses for a 44% response rate


ManagementPlanningProjectOverview

Lake Management Planning

• FosterholisticunderstandingofLoonLakeecosystem• Collect&analyzedata

• Technical&sociological• Constructlong‐term&useableplan

• Updatemanagementstrategiesforaquaticplants

3.1WaterQuality


WisconsinLakesClassification

Wind

Deep, Stratified Lake Shallow, Mixed Lake

Epilimnion

Hypolimnion

Metalimnion

Wind


Drainage

Headwater

Variable StratificationVariable Hydrology

WisconsinLakesNaturalCommunityTypes

Lakes/Reservoirs≥ 10 acres (large)Lakes/Reservoirs

< 10 acres (small)

Spring Ponds

Other Classifications(any size)

Two-StoryFishery

ImpoundedFlowing Waters

Seepage

Lowland

Shallow(mixed)

Deep(stratified)

Deep(stratified)

Shallow(mixed)

Deep(stratified)

Shallow(mixed)

1

2 3 4 5 6 7

10

9

8

SLDL


Onterra, LLC 2


WaterQualityWisconsinEcoregions


IntroductiontoLakeWaterQuality

PhosphorusNaturallyoccurring&essentialforalllifeRegulatesphytoplanktonbiomassinmostWIlakesMostoften‘limitingplantnutrient’(shortestsupply)HumanactivityoftenincreasesPdeliverytolakes

Chlorophyll‐aPigmentusedinphotosynthesisUsedassurrogateforphytoplanktonbiomass

SecchiDiskTransparencyMeasureofwaterclarityMeasuredusingaSecchidisk


LoonLakeStakeholderPerceptionsofWaterQuality

How would you describe the current water quality of the Loon Lake?

How has water quality changed in the Loon Lake since you first visited the lake?11%

63%

21% 5%

Very Poor

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent

Unsure

2%

23%

26%

25%

18%6%

Severely degraded

Somewhat degraded

Remained the same

Somewhat improved

Greatly improved

Unsure

WaterQualityMonitoringLocation


Long‐TermTrendsNear‐SurfaceTotalPhosphorus

2016ave summer=23µg/LOverallweighedave summer=26µg/L• BothexcellentforSLDL• Bothlowerthanecoregion&SLDLmedians


Long‐TermTrendsChlorophyll‐a

2016ave summer=5 µg/LOverallweighedave summer=8µg/L• BothexcellentforSLDL• Bothlowerthanecoregion&SLDLmedians


Onterra, LLC 3


Long‐TermTrendsSecchiDiskTransparency

2016ave summer=5.8 ftOverallweighedave summer=5.5ft• BothexcellentforSLDL• Similartoecoregion&SLDLmedians



0102030405060708090

100

True

Col

or (S

tand

ard

Uni

ts)

Lightly Tea‐Colored

Tea‐Colored

Clear

Highly Tea-Colored

Slightly Colored

60

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

Sec

chi D

isk

Dep

th (

ft)

Sum

of A

nnua

l Pre

cipi

tatio

n (in

)

Annual Precipitation (in)

GSM Secchi (ft)

Summer Mean Secchi (ft)

High Precip.=

Lower Clarity


AdditionalWaterQualityParameters

Alkalinity – capacitytoresistfluctuationsinpH• 53 mg/CaCO3 in2016

• SubstantialabilitytoresistfluctuationsinpH(ie acidrain)• Moderatelyhighcalcium(12.3mg/L)andpH(7.9)makes

“borderlinesuitable”forZM• ZMtrapssince2007• NegativeforZMveligers in2005,2006,2010‐2013• ZMveliger samplestobecollectedin2017

3.2 Watershed

11,831 acres (~18.5 mile2)WS:LA = 35:1

87 day residence time Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning

Determine Lake and Watershed

Characteristics

Determine Land Cover Types and

Acreages

WatershedAssessmentProcedure

Urban ‐ High Density

Row Crops

Urban ‐ Med Density

Pasture/Grass

Open Water

Rural Residential

Wetlands

Forest

LessNegativeIm

pactonLake

GreaterPhosphorusExport/Acre


Onterra, LLC 4

Land Cover TypesForest

Forested Wetlands

Open Water

Pasture/Grass

Row Crops

Rural Open Space

Rural Residential

Wetlands



Characteristics


Acreages

Model Annual Potential Phosphorus Load (APPL) and Growing Season

Mean (GSM) Phosphorus



Land Cover

Phosphorus Loading

WatershedModeling

Forested & Non-Forested Wetlands

432 lbs32%

Forest381 lbs

28%

Pasture/Grass243 lbs

18%

Row Crops150 lbs

11%

Loon Lake Surface88 lbs

7%

LuLu Lake Subwatershed

43 lbs3%

Septic Systems12 lbs

1%Rural Residential

2lbs0%

Total Annual P Loading: 1,351 lbs

Annual Potential Phosphorus Load:1,351 lbs

Predicated Growing Season Mean Phosphorus: 31 µg/L

Measured Growing Season Mean Phosphorus: 27.1 µg/L

Modeling Outcome: In‐lake phosphorus concentration is

slightly lower than predictedOnterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning

Accurately Modeled the Lake’s Watershed


Characteristics


Acreages

Model Annual Potential Phosphorus Load and Growing Season Mean (GSM) Phosphorus

Is Measured

Greater, Less, or Equal

to Predicted?

Discover Unaccounted Sources of Phosphorus

Determine Possible Reasons

=>

<


Examples:Internal loadingSeptic system leakagePoint sourceGroundwater

Examples:Model limitationsSeepage lake

Loon Lake


WatershedWork• SanitaryDistrict around

partofthelake• Updatedsepticsystems

• Moveddrainfieldsawayfromlakewherepossible

• Propertiesthatdidn’thaveenoughlandtomovedrainfieldsforcedtouseholdingtanks

• Conservancylandpurchase

=

=

3.3ShorelandCondition


Onterra, LLC 5


ShorelandAssessment• Shorelandareaisimportantforbufferingrunoffandprovides

valuablehabitatforaquaticandterrestrialwildlife.• EPANationalLakesAssessmentresultsindicateshoreland

developmenthasgreatestnegativeimpacttohealthofournation’slakes.

• Itdoesnotlookatlakeshorelineonaproperty‐by‐propertybasis.• Assessmentranksshorelandareafromshorelineback35feet

Urbanized Natural

Range

2016ShorelandConditionSurveyResults

LegendNatural/UndevelopedDeveloped-NaturalDeveloped-Semi-NaturalDeveloped-UnnaturalUrbanized

Seawall

ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ Rip-Rap

Masonry/Metal/Wood


Seawall


Masonry/Metal/Wood

Natural/Undeveloped2.0 miles58%

Developed‐Natural0.1 miles

2%

Developed‐Semi‐Natural0.2 miles

5%

Developed‐Unnatural0.3 miles

8%

Urbanized0.9 miles27%

Shoreline length: 3.4 miles

Natural/Undeveloped2.0 miles58%


2%


5%

Developed‐Unnatural0.3 miles

8%




CoarseWoodyHabitat• Providesshorelanderosioncontrolandpreventssuspensionof

sediments.• Preferredhabitatforavarietyofaquaticlife.

• Periphyton growthfeduponbyinsects.• Refuge,foragingandspawninghabitatforfish.• ComplexityofCWHimportant.

• Changingofloggingandshorelanddevelopmentpractices=reducedCWHinWisconsinlakes.

• SurveyaimedatquantifyingCWHinLoonLake

2016CoarseWoodyHabitatSurveyResults

Legend2-8 Inch Pieces 8+ Inch Pieces Cluster of Pieces

Full Canopy

Moderate Branches

Minimal Branches

No Branches

Moderate Branches

Minimal Branches

No Branches

Full Canopy " Full Canopy

" Moderate Branches

Minimal Branches"

No Branches"

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Legend2-8 Inch Pieces 8+ Inch Pieces Cluster of Pieces

Full Canopy

Moderate Branches

Minimal Branches

No Branches

Moderate Branches

Minimal Branches

No Branches


" Moderate Branches

Minimal Branches"

No Branches"

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

22 total pieces of emergent CWH~6 CWH pieces per shoreland mile


LoonLake(Osprey)Island• Claim:waterlevelswerelower

between1880and1940• Claim:80%oftreesonisland

diedin1980s• Claim:Sandbarbetweenisland

andpinepointcontainedrushes• WDNRputupplatformfor

Ospreysin1990• Claim:Eaglescamelater

1938 2015

3.4AquaticPlants&3.5AIS


Onterra, LLC 6

Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning

AquaticPlantSurveys

• Determinechangesinplantcommunityfrompastsurveys

• Assessbothnativeandnon‐nativepopulations• Numeroussurveyscompletedin2016

• Early‐SeasonAISSurvey• Whole‐LakePoint‐InterceptSurvey• Emergent/Floating‐LeafCommunityMappingSurvey

• EWMPeak‐BiomassSurvey

12.011.0

9.0

11.5 11.0 11.0

13.0

9.010.0 10.5 10.0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Max Depth of Plants

TRF = 114%

TRF = 228%

TRF = 336%

No Vegetation

22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Litto

ral F

reque

ncy

of O

ccur

renc

e

TRF = 3

TRF = 2

TRF = 1

88%

81%

59%

78%

37%

TRF Data Not

Recorded

60%

83%

77%

63%

79%

47.9%

4.3%

4.7%

5.5%

6.5%7.8%

11.3%

11.4%

0.5%0.1%

Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management PlanningLake Management Planning

AquaticPlantSpeciesList

~40 Native Species3 Non‐Native Species

Eurasian watermilfoilCurly‐leaf pondweedPale‐yellow iris

Decodon verticillatus Water-willow 7 IEleocharis palustris Creeping spikerush 6 I

Iris pseudacorus Pale-yellow iris Exotic IIris versicolor Northern blue flag 5 I

Pontederia cordata Pickerelweed 9 ISagittaria latifolia Common arrowhead 3 I

Sagittaria sp. (sterile) Arrowhead sp. (sterile) N/A ISchoenoplectus pungens Three-square rush 5 I

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani Softstem bulrush 4 ISparganium eurycarpum Common bur-reed 5 I

Spartina pectinata Prairie cord grass 5 I

Brasenia schreberi Watershield 7 XNuphar variegata Spatterdock 6 X

Nymphaea odorata White water lily 6 X

Sparganium acaule Short-stemmed bur-reed 8 I

Bidens beck ii Water marigold 8 XCeratophyllum demersum Coontail 3 X

Chara spp. Muskgrasses 7 XElodea canadensis Common waterweed 3 XHeteranthera dubia Water stargrass 6 X

Isoetes spp. Quillwort spp. 8 XMyriophyllum spicatum Eurasian water milfoil Exotic XMyriophyllum tenellum Dwarf water milfoil 10 X

Najas flexilis Slender naiad 6 XNajas guadalupensis Southern naiad 7 X

Nitella spp. Stoneworts 7 XPotamogeton amplifolius Large-leaf pondweed 7 XPotamogeton berchtoldii Slender pondweed 7 X

Potamogeton crispus Curly-leaf pondweed Exotic IPotamogeton epihydrus Ribbon-leaf pondweed 8 XPotamogeton gramineus Variable-leaf pondweed 7 XPotamogeton illinoensis Illinois pondweed 6 X

Potamogeton natans Floating-leaf pondweed 5 IPotamogeton praelongus White-stem pondweed 8 XPotamogeton richardsonii Clasping-leaf pondweed 5 X

Potamogeton zosteriformis Flat-stem pondweed 6 IStuckenia pectinata Sago pondweed 3 I

Utricularia gibba Creeping bladderwort 9 XUtricularia intermedia Flat-leaf bladderwort 9 XUtricularia resupinata Northeastern bladderwort 9 X

Utricularia vulgaris Common bladderwort 7 XVallisneria americana Wild celery 6 X

Lemna trisulca Forked duckweed 6 X

Growth Form

Scientific Name

Common Name

Coefficient of Conservatism (C)

2016(Onterra)

Em

erg

ent

FL

FL/E

Subm

erg

ent

FF

FL = Floating Leaf; FL/E = Floating Leaf and Emergent; S/E = Submergent and Emergent; FF = Free FloatingX = Located on rake during point-intercept survey; I = Incidental Species Onterra, LLC

Lake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning

2016LittoralFrequencyofOccurrence

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Litt

ora

l Fre

que

ncy

of O

ccur

enc

e (

%)


Onterra, LLC 7


LFOOCompare(2006‐2016)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Litto

ral F

requ

ency

of O

ccur

ence

Dicots Non-Dicots



54.550.6

25.6

31.8

50.0

7.2

31.2

48.7

34.0

32.6

53.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Litto

ral F

requ

ency

of

Occ

urre

nce

(%)

2006 20162008 2010 2012 2013 20152014201120092007

Muskgrasses & Stoneworts

32.4

44.7

56.7

39.143.1

24.5

38.7

30.1 32.5

28.9

52.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Litto

ral F

requ

ency

of

Occ

urre

nce

(%)

2006 20162008 2010 2012 2013 20152014201120092007

Slender & Southern Naiad



24.7

38.4 37.8

31.0

38.1

20.5

25.1

35.2

50.2

31.8

55.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Litto

ral F

requ

ency

of

Occ

urre

nce

(%)

2006 20162008 2010 2012 2013 20152014201120092007

Wild Celery

52.0

38.8 37.2

25.7

33.7

1.6

11.5

44.648.3

2.1

9.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Litto

ral F

requ

ency

of

Occ

urre

nce

(%)

2006 20162008 2010 2012 2013 20152014201120092007

Common waterweed

• First“officially”documentedin1998• DNAanalysisconfirmsHWMcomponentinLoonLake• HWMknowntoformturionsinLoonLake

Non‐NativeAquaticPlantsEurasianWaterMilfoil

Moody & Les, 2007

EWMLife‐Cycle&ControlStrategyPhilosophy

Man

agem

ent • Herbicideneedsto

translocatetorootcrown(hardtokill)

• Strategyisstraight‐forward

• Hand‐harvestingisanalogoustosingletreatment(extremelytimeintensive)

• Winterdrawdowniseffectivetool


32.7

13.110.0

3.1

9.9

2.0 4.70.5

11.5

0.8 3.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Litto

ral F

requ

ency

of

Occ

urre

nce

(%)

2006 20162008 2010 2012 2013 20152014201120092007

HistoricEWMPopulation


Onterra, LLC 8


State‐wideEWMPopulationTrends

n = 397 lakes


Professional AIS MappingPoint‐Based Mapping• Single plants to colonies or areas less than 40‐feet in diameter

• Abundance descriptions:

Single or Few PlantsClumps of PlantsSmall Plant Colony


Professional AIS MappingPolygon‐Based Mapping• Colonies or areas over 40‐feet diameter• Boundary at target plant extent or morphological feature (depth contour, shoreline)

• Density ratings:

Highly ScatteredScatteredDominantHighly DominantSurface Matting

IncreaseinEcologicalImpact

May not represent

true colonies

or “beds”

Late‐Summer 2016

Dominant

Highly Dominant

Surface Matting

Single or Few Plants

Clumps of Plants

Small Plant Colony

!(

!(

!(

Highly Scattered

Scattered

Non‐NativeAquaticPlantsCurly‐LeafPondweed

• Reports from2002&2006,butlistedonWDNRwebsiteas2012.

• Late‐summerpoint‐interceptsurveysoccuraftersenescence(die‐off),sorelyonmappingdata

CLPLife‐Cycle&ControlStrategyPhilosophy

Man

agem

ent

• CLPrespondwelltoherbicides(easytokill)

• Herbicidestrategyrequiresrepetition(5‐7+yearsinarow)

• Hand‐harvestingisanalogoustosingletreatment(ineffectiveforestablishedpopulations)


Onterra, LLC 9

Late‐June 2016

Dominant

Highly Dominant

Surface Matting


Clumps of Plants

Small Plant Colony

!(

!(

!(

Highly Scattered

Scattered


• Donothing(monitor)• Management

• Biocontrol(weevils)• Herbicidetreatment• Handremoval(includesDASH)• Winterdrawdown• Mechanicalharvesting

AISControlStrategies


StakeholderSurvey• WhatisyourlevelofsupportfortheresponsibleuseofthefollowingtechniquesonLoonLake?

Do NothingHH by DiversHerbicide

Support 67%

Not Support 7%

Unsure/Neutral 26%

Support 20%

Not Support 42%

Unsure/Neutral 38%

Support 2%

Not Support 89%

Unsure/Neutral 9%

Moderately supportive2%

Moderately unsupportive3%

Not supportive86%

Neutral5%

Unsure4%

Highly supportive60%



Not supportive4%

Neutral13%

Unsure13%




Not supportive34%

Neutral19%

Unsure19%

NLF Ecoregion – Unmanaged

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

EWM

Litt

oral

% F

OO

Boot

Bear Paw

Little Bearskin

Weber

Handcock

NLF Ecoregion – Unmanaged

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

EWM

Litt

oral

% F

OO

Years After Initial Verification

Boot

Manson

Hancock

Kathan

Tomahawk

Weber

Sandbar

Bearpaw

LittleBearskin

Arrowhead


Herbicide Spot Treatment• Ecological Definition: Herbicide applied at a scale

where dissipation will not result in significant lake wide concentrations; impacts are anticipated to be localized to in/around application area.


Onterra, LLC 10


CONTROL

Concen

tration

Exposure Time

High Concentration ► Short Exposure Time SpotTreatment Type

2‐4 ppm

12‐24 hours

HerbicideUsePatterns Size

Size

(8 Days)

Location

Form


2015TreatmentonLoonLake• Diquat (2gallonspersurfaceacreofapplicationarea)• ~24acresof305acrelake(7.8%)• TracerDye(RhodamineWT)Survey• Pre(spring)&post(late‐summer)point‐interceptsub‐sampling


Onterra, LLC 11


RecentTreatmentHistory

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Poun

ds o

f Act

ive

Ingr

edie

nt

Diquat (Dibromide)2,4-D (ester & amine)Endothall


EWMPopulationTolerancetoHerbicide

Taylor et al, 2017


AISActiveManagementDiscussion

• KeepAISpopulationlowsonativeecosystemcanfunctionasitdidpriortoAIS(ecosystemrestoration)

•KeepAISpopulationlowsoitdoesnotcauserecreation,navigation,oraestheticissues(improveculturalecosystemservices)

•KeepAISpopulationlowsothelakeisnotasourcepopulationforothernearbylakes(stewardship)

•Managementactionitselfmaybedamagingtothelake,soacknowledgingpotentialknown/unknownsecondaryimpactsisimportantwithintheriskassessment.

•Managementactionmaynotbefullysupportedbypublic

•Unmanaged AISpopulationmaybelowenoughtonotcausemeasurableecosystemimpactsorreduceculturalecosystemservices

Pros Cons3.5 Aquatic Invasive Species


3.5 Aquatic Invasive SpeciesType Common name Scientific name

Plants

Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum

Curly‐leaf pondweed Potamogeton crispus

Pale‐yellow iris Iris pseudacorus

Invertebrates

Banded mystery snail Viviparus georgianus

Chinese mystery snail Cipangopaludina chinensis

Chinese

Banded

3.6 Fisheries Data Integration


Onterra, LLC 12


LoonLakeFisheries

Sunlight,Nutrients

PiscovoresPlanktivoresInsects,

ZooplanktonAlgae,Plants

EnergyFlow

Gamefish Anglers Target


StakeholderSurveyResponses

Figure 3.6-2. Stakeholder survey response Question #9. What species of fish do you like to catch on Loon Lake?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

# of Respo

nden

ts

Figure 3.6-3. Stake holder survey response Question #11. How has the quality of fishing changed on Loon Lake since you started fishing the lake?

Figure 3.6-4. Stakeholder survey response Question #10. How would you describe the current quality of fishing on Loon Lake?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Muchworse

Somewhatworse

Remainedthe same

Somewhatbetter

Muchbetter

Unsure

# of Respo

nden

ts

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Unsure

# of Respo

nden

tsOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning

LatestFisheriesReport• Large‐mouth Bass

– Most abundant predator (5.0/3.5 fish per acre)– High abundance and moderate size structure

• Walleye– Present but low abundance– Latest stocking events in 2014 and 2016 (previous in 1974 & 1975)

• Northern Pike & Muskellunge– Present but very low abundance

• Panfish– Primarily BG, BC, & YP– Predator management recommended to decrease density and increase growth rates


4.0Conclusions

WaterQuality&Watershed• Overallgreatforlaketype• Attentioncouldbepaidtoshorelandareastoincreasehabitat

valueAquaticPlants• EWM/HWMhasbeenmanagedovertime• Changesinnativeplantslikelyfromnaturalconditionsandherbicidetreatments

• DevelopingnextphaseofAISmanagementrequired


5.0ImplementationPlanExample• ManagementGoal:MaintainLoonLake’sCurrent

WaterQualityConditions• ManagementAction:ContinueCitizensLakeMonitoringNetwork

Program• Timeline:Immediately• Facilitator(s):WaterQualityCommittee

Loon Lake Wrap‐up Meeting Appendix A

Onterra, LLC 1

Comprehensive Plan UpdateWrap-up Meeting

July21,2018

LoonLakeWescottManagementDistrict

EddieJ.Heath


PresentationOutline

• Project Goals• Overall Study Conclusions• Key Study Results• Management Goals and Actions• Questions


•Collect & Analyze Data• 2016/2017

•Aggregate Available Historic Data•Construct Long-Term & Useable Plan

• Planning Meetings 2017 (Damian Drewke, Lloyd Knope, Randy Perra, Mary Claire Lucck, Larry Philbrick, Dick Koeller)

• Plan currently in Review Stage (sent to agencies & currently posted on district website)

StudyandPlanGoals


3.1WaterQuality


WisconsinLakesClassification

Wind

Deep, Stratified Lake Shallow, Mixed Lake

Epilimnion

Hypolimnion

Metalimnion

Wind


WaterQualityWisconsinEcoregions


Onterra, LLC 2


IntroductiontoLakeWaterQuality

PhosphorusNaturally occurring & essential for all lifeRegulates phytoplankton biomass in mostWI lakesMost often ‘limiting plant nutrient’ (shortest supply)Human activity often increases P delivery to lakes

Chlorophyll‐aPigment used in photosynthesisUsed as surrogate for phytoplankton biomass

SecchiDiskTransparencyMeasure of water clarityMeasured using a Secchi disk


LoonLakeStakeholderPerceptionsofWaterQuality

How would you describe the current water quality of the Loon Lake?

How has water quality changed in the Loon Lake since you first visited the lake?

11%

63%

21%5%

Very Poor

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent

Unsure

2%

23%

26%

25%

18%6%

Severely degraded

Somewhat degraded

Remained the same

Somewhat improved

Greatly improved

Unsure


Long‐TermTrendsNear‐SurfaceTotalPhosphorus

2016ave summer=23µg/LOverallweighedave summer=26µg/L• BothexcellentforSLDL• Bothlowerthanecoregion&SLDLmedians


Long‐TermTrendsChlorophyll‐a

2016ave summer=5 µg/LOverallweighedave summer=8µg/L• BothexcellentforSLDL• Bothlowerthanecoregion&SLDLmedians



2016ave summer=5.8 ftOverallweighedave summer=5.5ft• BothexcellentforSLDL• Similartoecoregion&SLDLmedians



0102030405060708090

100

True

Col

or (S

tand

ard

Uni

ts)

Lightly Tea‐Colored

Tea‐Colored

Clear

Highly Tea-Colored

Slightly Colored

60

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

Sec

chi D

isk

Dep

th (

ft)

Sum

of A

nnua

l Pre

cipi

tatio

n (in

)

Annual Precipitation (in)

GSM Secchi (ft)

Summer Mean Secchi (ft)

High Precip.=

Lower Clarity


Onterra, LLC 3


Management Goal:Maintain Current Water Quality Conditions

Management Actions

1. Monitor water quality through WDNR Citizens Lake Monitoring Network.

Continuation of current effort

Requires refreshed volunteer commitment

3.2 Watershed

11,831 acres (~18.5 mile2)

WS:LA = 35:187 day residence time

Land Cover Types

Forest

Forested Wetlands

Open Water

Pasture/Grass

Row Crops

Rural Open Space

Rural Residential

Wetlands


Phosphorus Loading

WatershedModeling

Forested & Non-Forested Wetlands

432 lbs32%

Forest381 lbs

28%

Pasture/Grass243 lbs

18%

Row Crops150 lbs

11%

Loon Lake Surface88 lbs

7%

LuLu Lake Subwatershed

43 lbs3%

Septic Systems12 lbs

1%Rural Residential

2lbs0%

Total Annual P Loading: 1,351 lbs

Annual Potential Phosphorus Load:1,351 lbs

Predicated Growing Season Mean Phosphorus: 31 µg/L

Measured Growing Season Mean Phosphorus: 27.1 µg/L

Modeling Outcome: In‐lake phosphorus concentration is

slightly lower than predicted

3.3ShorelandCondition


Onterra, LLC 4


ShorelandAssessment• Shoreland area is important for buffering runoff and provides

valuable habitat for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife.• EPA National Lakes Assessment results indicate shoreland

development has greatest negative impact to health of our nation’s lakes.

• It does not look at lake shoreline on a property-by-property basis.• Assessment ranks shoreland area from shoreline back 35 feet

Urbanized Natural

Range




Seawall


Masonry/Metal/Wood


Seawall


Masonry/Metal/Wood

Natural/Undeveloped

2.0 miles58%


2%


5%

Developed‐

Unnatural0.3 miles

8%



Natural/Undeveloped

2.0 miles58%


2%


5%

Developed‐

Unnatural0.3 miles

8%





Seawall


Masonry/Metal/Wood


Seawall


Masonry/Metal/Wood


CoarseWoodyHabitat• Provides shoreland erosion control and prevents suspension of

sediments.

• Preferred habitat for a variety of aquatic life.• Periphyton growth fed upon by insects.

• Refuge, foraging and spawning habitat for fish.

• Complexity of CWH important.

• Changing of logging and shoreland development practices = reduced CWH in Wisconsin lakes.

• Survey aimed at quantifying CWH in Loon Lake



Onterra, LLC 5


Legend

2-8 Inch Pieces 8+ Inch Pieces Cluster of Pieces

Full Canopy

Moderate Branches

Minimal Branches

No Branches

Moderate Branches

Minimal Branches

No Branches


" Moderate Branches

Minimal Branches"

No Branches"

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Legend

2-8 Inch Pieces 8+ Inch Pieces Cluster of Pieces

Full Canopy

Moderate Branches

Minimal Branches

No Branches

Moderate Branches

Minimal Branches

No Branches


" Moderate Branches

Minimal Branches"

No Branches"

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

22 total pieces of emergent CWH~6 CWH pieces per shoreland mile


Management Goal:Maintain and Improve Lake Resource of Loon Lake

Management Actions

1. Educate Stakeholders on the Importance of Shoreland Condition, Shoreland Restoration, and Coarse Woody Habitat (Fish Sticks Program)

2. Protect natural shoreland zones

3. Continue the Loon Watch program

4. Control and discourage local Canada goose residents


LoonLake(Osprey)Island• Claim: water levels were lower

between 1880 and 1940• Claim: 80% of trees on island

died in 1980s• Claim: Sand bar between island

and pine point contained rushes

• WDNR put up platform for Ospreys in 1990

• Claim: Eagles came later

1938 2015

3.4AquaticPlants&3.5AIS





12.011.0

9.0

11.511.0 11.0

13.0

9.010.0

10.510.0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Max Depth of Plants


Onterra, LLC 6

TRF = 114%

TRF = 228%

TRF = 336%

No Vegetation

22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Litto

ral F

requ

ency

of O

ccur

renc

e

TRF = 3

TRF = 2

TRF = 1

88%

81%

59%

78%

37%

TRF Data Not

Recorded

60%

83%

77%

63%

79%

Plant Community AcresEmergent 1.8Floating-leaf 40.5Mixed Emergent & Floating-leaf 0.2Total 42.5

Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management PlanningLake Management Planning

AquaticPlantSpeciesList

~40 Native Species3 Non‐Native Species

Eurasian watermilfoilCurly‐leaf pondweedPale‐yellow iris

Decodon verticillatus Water-willow 7 IEleocharis palustris Creeping spikerush 6 I

Iris pseudacorus Pale-yellow iris Exotic IIris versicolor Northern blue flag 5 I

Pontederia cordata Pickerelweed 9 ISagittaria latifolia Common arrowhead 3 I

Sagittaria sp. (sterile) Arrowhead sp. (sterile) N/A ISchoenoplectus pungens Three-square rush 5 I

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani Softstem bulrush 4 ISparganium eurycarpum Common bur-reed 5 I

Spartina pectinata Prairie cord grass 5 I

Brasenia schreberi Watershield 7 XNuphar variegata Spatterdock 6 X

Nymphaea odorata White water lily 6 X

Sparganium acaule Short-stemmed bur-reed 8 I

Bidens beck ii Water marigold 8 XCeratophyllum demersum Coontail 3 X

Chara spp. Muskgrasses 7 XElodea canadensis Common waterweed 3 XHeteranthera dubia Water stargrass 6 X

Isoetes spp. Quillwort spp. 8 XMyriophyllum spicatum Eurasian water milfoil Exotic XMyriophyllum tenellum Dwarf water milfoil 10 X

Najas flexilis Slender naiad 6 XNajas guadalupensis Southern naiad 7 X

Nitella spp. Stoneworts 7 XPotamogeton amplifolius Large-leaf pondweed 7 XPotamogeton berchtoldii Slender pondweed 7 X

Potamogeton crispus Curly-leaf pondweed Exotic IPotamogeton epihydrus Ribbon-leaf pondweed 8 XPotamogeton gramineus Variable-leaf pondweed 7 XPotamogeton illinoensis Illinois pondweed 6 X

Potamogeton natans Floating-leaf pondweed 5 IPotamogeton praelongus White-stem pondweed 8 XPotamogeton richardsonii Clasping-leaf pondweed 5 X

Potamogeton zosteriformis Flat-stem pondweed 6 IStuckenia pectinata Sago pondweed 3 I

Utricularia gibba Creeping bladderwort 9 XUtricularia intermedia Flat-leaf bladderwort 9 XUtricularia resupinata Northeastern bladderwort 9 X

Utricularia vulgaris Common bladderwort 7 XVallisneria americana Wild celery 6 X

Lemna trisulca Forked duckweed 6 X

Growth Form

Scientific Name

Common Name

Coefficient of Conservatism (C)

2016(Onterra)

Em

erg

ent

FL

FL/E

Subm

erg

ent

FF

FL = Floating Leaf; FL/E = Floating Leaf and Emergent; S/E = Submergent and Emergent; FF = Free FloatingX = Located on rake during point-intercept survey; I = Incidental Species

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Litt

ora

l Fre

que

ncy

of O

ccur

enc

e (

%)



54.550.6

25.6

31.8

50.0

7.2

31.2

48.7

34.0

32.6

53.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Litto

ral F

requ

ency

of

Occ

urre

nce

(%)

2006 20162008 2010 2012 2013 20152014201120092007

Muskgrasses & Stoneworts

32.4

44.7

56.7

39.143.1

24.5

38.7

30.1 32.5

28.9

52.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Litto

ral F

requ

ency

of

Occ

urre

nce

(%)

2006 20162008 2010 2012 2013 20152014201120092007

Slender & Southern Naiad



24.7

38.4 37.8

31.0

38.1

20.5

25.1

35.2

50.2

31.8

55.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Litto

ral F

requ

ency

of

Occ

urre

nce

(%)

2006 20162008 2010 2012 2013 20152014201120092007

Wild Celery

52.0

38.8 37.2

25.7

33.7

1.6

11.5

44.648.3

2.1

9.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Litto

ral F

requ

ency

of

Occ

urre

nce

(%)

2006 20162008 2010 2012 2013 20152014201120092007

Common waterweed


Onterra, LLC 7

• First“officially”documentedin1998• DNAanalysisconfirmsHWMcomponentinLoonLake• HWMknowntoformturionsinLoonLake

Non‐NativeAquaticPlantsEurasianWaterMilfoil

Moody & Les, 2007


EWMPopulationTolerancetoHerbicide

Taylor et al, 2017


RecentTreatmentHistory

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Po

un

ds

of

Ac

tiv

e In

gre

die

nt

Diquat (Dibromide)2,4-D (ester & amine)Endothall


HistoricEWM/HWMPopulation

32.7

13.1

10.0

21.3

3.1

30.5

9.9

12.3

2.0

10.6

4.7

28.6

0.5

11.6 11.5

0.8 3.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Litto

ral F

requ

ency

of

Occ

urre

nce

(%)

2006 20162008 2010 2012 2013 20152014201120092007


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

EW

M L

itto

ral %

FO

O

Years After Initial Detection

Boot

Hancock

Weber

Bear Paw

Little

Bearskin

WDNR EWM Long‐Term Trends Monitoring StudyNLF Ecoregion – Unmanaged


State‐wideEWMPopulationTrends

n = 397 lakes

0‐10%

10‐20%

20‐30%

30‐40%40‐50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

EWM Frequency

Percent of Waterbodies

>50%


Onterra, LLC 8


StakeholderSurvey• What is your level of support for the responsible use of the

following techniques on Loon Lake?

Do NothingHH by DiversHerbicide

Support 67%

Not Support 7%

Unsure/Neutral 26%

Support 20%

Not Support 42%

Unsure/Neutral 38%

Support 2%

Not Support 89%

Unsure/Neutral 9%



Not supportive86%

Neutral5%

Unsure4%




Not supportive4%

Neutral13%

Unsure13%




Not supportive34%

Neutral19%

Unsure19%

Non‐NativeAquaticPlantsCurly‐LeafPondweed

• Reports from2002&2006,butlistedonWDNRwebsiteas2012.

• Late‐summerpoint‐interceptsurveysoccuraftersenescence(die‐off),sorelyonmappingdata

CLPLife‐Cycle&ControlStrategyPhilosophy

Man

agement

• CLP respond well to herbicides (easytokill)

• Herbicide strategy requires repetition (5‐7+yearsinarow)

• Hand-harvesting is analogous to single treatment (ineffectiveforestablishedpopulations)

CLP Late‐June 2016

Dominant

Highly Dominant

Surface Matting


Clumps of Plants

Small Plant Colony

!(

!(

!(

Highly Scattered

Scattered

Management Goal:Control Existing and Prevent Further Aquatic

Invasive Species Infestations within Loon LakeManagement Actions

1. Clean Boats Clean Waters2. Coordinate volunteer monitoring of CLP3. Coordinate annual professional EWM/HWM Monitoring

• Annual late‐summer surveys4. Conduct EWM/HWM Population Control Using Herbicide Spot

Treatments• Trigger: Colonized EWM that are dominant or greater in density, with areas

containing high use or riparian frontage would be prioritized.

5. Conduct EWM Population Control Using Large‐Scale Herbicide Treatments• Trigger: When EWM population exceeds levels that can be controlled with spot‐

treatments

6. Coordinate Periodic Quantitative Vegetation Monitoring• PI Survey – every 3‐5 years, Communities – every 7‐8 years

3.6 Fisheries Data Integration


Onterra, LLC 9


LoonLakeFisheries

Sunlight,Nutrients

PiscovoresPlanktivoresInsects,

ZooplanktonAlgae,Plants

EnergyFlow

Gamefish Anglers Target


StakeholderSurveyResponses

Figure 3.6-2. Stakeholder survey response Question #9. What species of fish do you like to catch on Loon Lake?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

# of R

esponden

ts

Figure 3.6-3. Stake holder survey response Question #11. How has the quality of fishing changed on Loon Lake since you started fishing the lake?

Figure 3.6-4. Stakeholder survey response Question #10. How would you describe the current quality of fishing on Loon Lake?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Much

worse

Somewhat

worse

Remained

the same

Somewhat

better

Much

better

Unsure

# of R

esponden

ts

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18


# of Respondents


LatestFisheriesReport• Large‐mouth Bass

– Most abundant predator (5.0/3.5 fish per acre)

– High abundance and moderate size structure

• Walleye– Present but low abundance

– Latest stocking events in 2014 and 2016 (previous in 1974 & 1975)

• Northern Pike & Muskellunge– Present but very low abundance

• Panfish– Primarily BG, BC, & YP

– Predator management recommended to decrease density and increase growth rates


Management Goal:Increase LLWMD’s Capacity to Communicate with Lake Stakeholders and Facilitate Partnerships with

Other Management Entities

Management Actions1. Use education to promote lake protection and enjoyment

through stakeholder education2. Conduct Periodic Riparian Stakeholder Surveys

• Every 5‐6 years3. Continue LLWMD’s involvement with other entities that have

responsibilities in managing (management units) Loon Lake• Camp Tekakwitha, Town of Wescott, WAMSCO, Shawano

County, WDNR, Wisconsin Lakes


Conclusions

Your lake is in great shape –Keep it up!

ThankYou

APPENDIX B Stakeholder Survey Response Charts and Comments

Loon Lake Wescott Management DistrictAnonymous Stakeholder Survey Results

Appendix B

Surveys Distributed: 151Surveys Returned: 67

Response Rate: 44%

Loon Lake Property

Response Percent

Response Count

Seasonal residence (summer only) 47.8% 32A year round residence 23.9% 16Visited on weekends throughout the year 22.4% 15Resort property 1.5% 1Rental property 1.5% 1Undeveloped 0.0% 0I do not live on the lake 0.0% 0Other (please specify) 3.0% 2

670

Number Other (please specify)12

Response Count66

661

Category(# of days)

Responses

0 to 100 33 50%101 to 200 20 30%201 to 300 4 6%301 to 365 9 14%

Response Count66

661

Category(# of years)

Responses % Response

0 to 5 9 14%6 to 10 6 9%11 to 15 6 9%16 to 20 9 14%21 to 25 6 9%>25 30 45%

Response Percent

Response Count

Municipal sewer 59.1% 39Mound 10.6% 7Conventional system 10.6% 7Holding tank 7.6% 5No septic system 7.6% 5Do not know 3.0% 2Advanced treatment system 1.5% 1

661

Answer Options

answered questionskipped question

3. How long have you owned your property on Loon Lake?

Answer Options


4. What type of septic system does your property utilize?

Year round home used year round noone's primary

2. How many days each year is your property used by you or others?

Answer Options


Loon Lake ‐ Anonymous Stakeholder Survey

1. How is your property on Loon Lake utilized?

Answer Options


Visited throughout the year not just weekends

48%

24%

22%

2%1%

3%

Seasonal residence (summer only)

A year round residence

Visited on weekends throughout theyear

Resort property

Rental property

Undeveloped

I do not live on the lake

Other (please specify)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25 >25

# of Respo

nden

ts

Years

59%

11%

11%

8%8%

3%1%

Municipal sewer

Mound

Conventional system

Holding tank

No septic system

Do not know

Advanced treatment system

0

10

20

30

40

0 to 100 101 to 200 201 to 300 301 to 365

# of Respo

nden

ts

Days

2017 Onterra, LLC


Appendix B

Response Percent

Response Count

11.4% 42.9% 145.7% 162.9% 137.1% 13

3532

Recreational Activity on Loon Lake

Response Count66

661

Category (# of days)


0 to 10 6 9%11 to 20 2 3%21 to 30 7 11%31 to 40 4 6%41 to 50 14 21%51 to 60 15 23%>60 18 27%

Response Percent

Response Count

66.7% 4433.3% 22

661

Response Count44

4423

Category(# of years)


0 to 10 7 16%11 to 20 5 11%21 to 30 5 11%31 to 40 5 11%41 to 50 8 18%51 to 60 6 14%>60 8 18%


Noanswered questionskipped question

8. For how many years have you fished Loon Lake?

Answer Options


7. Have you personally fished on Loon Lake in the past three years?

Answer Options

Yes

Do not knowanswered questionskipped question

6. How many years ago did you first visit Loon Lake?

Answer Options

Once a yearEvery 2‐4 yearsEvery 5‐10 years

5. How often is the septic system on your property pumped?

Answer Options

Multiple times a year

0

5

10

15

20

Multipletimesa year

Oncea year

Every2‐4 years

Every5‐10 years

Do notknow

# of Respo

nden

ts

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 >60

# of Respo

nden

ts

Years

0

5

10

15

20

0 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 >60

# of Respo

nden

ts

Years

2017 Onterra, LLC


Appendix B

Response Percent

Response Count

Bluegill/Sunfish 79.6% 35Largemouth bass 63.6% 28Crappie 61.4% 27Northern pike 50.0% 22All fish species 38.6% 17Yellow perch 31.8% 14Walleye 27.3% 12Other (please specify) 6.8% 3

4423

Number Other (please specify)123

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Unsure Response Count

4 5 16 17 1 1 44answered question 44skipped question 23

Much worse

Somewhat worse

Remained the same

Somewhat better

Much better Unsure

Response Count


11. How has the quality of fishing changed on Loon Lake since you have started fishing the lake?

Answer Options

Ones that are large enough to keepanything that is big enough. Musky

10. How would you describe the current quality of fishing on Loon Lake?

Answer Options

9. What species of fish do you like to catch on Loon Lake?

Answer Options


0

10

20

30

40

# of Respo

nden

ts

0

5

10

15

20


# of Respo

nden

ts

0

5

10

15

20

Muchworse

Somewhatworse

Remainedthe same

Somewhatbetter

Muchbetter

Unsure

# of Respo

nden

ts

2017 Onterra, LLC


Appendix B

Response Percent

Response Count

Canoe/kayak 77.3% 51Pontoon 57.6% 38Paddleboat 54.6% 36Motor boat with greater than 25 hp motor 45.5% 30Jet ski (personal water craft) 40.9% 27Rowboat 34.9% 23Sailboat 21.2% 14Motor boat with 25 hp or less motor 18.2% 12Do not use watercraft 1.5% 1Jet boat 0.0% 0

661

Response Percent

Response Count

18.5% 1281.5% 53

652

Response Percent

Response Count

Remove aquatic hitch‐hikers (ex. ‐ plant material, clams, mussels) 76.9% 10Drain bilge 53.9% 7Rinse boat 38.5% 5Power wash boat 7.7% 1Apply bleach 0.0% 0Do not clean boat 0.0% 0Other (please specify) 23.1% 3

1354

Number Other (please specify)123Only take boat out of Loon once a year to store for kayaks don't get hitchhikers in my experience

skipped question

14. What is your typical cleaning routine after using your watercraft on waters other than Loon Lake?

Answer Options


Wax

skipped question

13. Do you use your watercraft on waters other than Loon Lake?

Answer Options

YesNo

answered question

12. What types of watercraft do you currently use on Loon Lake?

Answer Options

answered question

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

# of Respo

nden

ts

2017 Onterra, LLC


Appendix B

1st 2nd 3rdRating Average

Response Count

Relaxing/entertaining 41 7 6 1.35 54Nature viewing 4 18 8 2.13 30Swimming 4 8 12 2.33 24Motor boating 4 5 14 2.43 23Canoeing/kayaking 2 8 8 2.33 18Water skiing/tubing 6 6 3 1.8 15Fishing ‐ open water 1 6 8 2.47 15Jet skiing 2 4 3 2.11 9Sailing 0 1 1 2.5 2Ice fishing 0 1 0 2 1Hunting 0 1 0 2 1None of these activities are important to me 0 0 1 3 1Snowmobiling/ATV 0 0 0 0 0Other (please specify below) 2 0 0 1 2Please specify "Other" response here 3

661

Number

1

2

3

Loon Lake Current and Historic Condition, Health and Management

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Unsure Response Count


16. How would you describe the current water quality of Loon Lake?

Answer Options


"Other" responses

Family. NatureIt's been a family tradition for years to spend our Summers at Loon Lake.Living next to a body of water.

15. For the list below, rank up to three activities that are important reasons for owning your property on Loon Lake, with 1 being the most important.

Answer Options

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Relaxing/entertainingNature viewing

SwimmingMotor boating

Canoeing/kayakingWater skiing/tubingFishing ‐ open water

Jet skiingSailing

Ice fishingHunting

None of these activities are important to meSnowmobiling/ATV

# of Respondents

3rd

2nd

1st

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


# of Respo

nden

ts

2017 Onterra, LLC


Appendix B

Severely degraded

Somewhat degraded

Remained the same

Somewhat improved

Greatly improved

UnsureResponse Count


Response Percent

Response Count

Response Percent

Response Count

98.5% 65 96.8% 61No 1.5% 1 3.2% 2

66 631 4

Response Percent

Response Count

Eurasian water milfoil 93.7% 59Curly‐leaf pondweed 34.9% 22Purple loosestrife 19.1% 12Unsure, but I believe AIS are present 15.9% 10Pale yellow iris 9.5% 6Chinese mystery snail 7.9% 5Carp 6.4% 4Zebra mussel 4.8% 3Spiny water flea 3.2% 2Flowering rush 1.6% 1Rusy crayfish 1.6% 1Heterosporosis (Yellow perch parasite) 1.6% 1Freshwater jellyfish 0.0% 0Alewife 0.0% 0Round goby 0.0% 0Rainbow smelt 0.0% 0Other (please specify) 11.1% 7

634

Number1234567

FIBSMuskeecelery weed?Some species that burrows into your skin. not sure what species are in our lake

Answer Options


"Other" responsesmuskieMuskies. Are they eating all the fish?

Noanswered question answered questionskipped question skipped question

20. Which aquatic invasive species do you believe are in Loon Lake?

18. Before reading the statement above, had you ever heard of aquatic invasive species?

19. Do you believe aquatic invasive species are present within Loon Lake?

Answer Options Answer Options

Yes Yes

17. How has the current water quality changed in Loon Lake since you first visited the lake?

Answer Options

0

5

10

15

20

Severelydegraded

Somewhatdegraded

Remainedthe same

Somewhatimproved

Greatlyimproved

Unsure

# of Respo

nden

ts

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

# of Respo

nden

ts

2017 Onterra, LLC


Appendix B

*Not Present **No Impact

Moderately negative impact

Great negative impact

Unsure: Need more

informationRating Average

Response Count

Watercraft traffic or unsafe watercraft practices 3 9 10 13 4 20 2 2.10 61Aquatic invasive species introduction 1 3 7 18 15 11 5 2.20 60Septic system discharge 10 10 7 3 5 7 18 0.93 60Shoreline erosion or development 4 18 11 16 4 3 4 1.12 60Excessive aquatic plant growth (excluding algae) 0 3 9 23 11 10 3 2.17 59Algae blooms 11 8 11 11 2 6 10 1.07 59Loss of aquatic habitat 6 10 10 14 3 4 12 1.07 59Excessive fishing pressure 8 15 11 12 1 3 9 0.85 59Water quality degradation 5 8 9 21 5 2 9 1.25 59Noise/light pollution 10 16 10 11 6 3 2 1.07 58Other (please specify) 8

616

Number Other (please specify)

1

23

4

5

6

7

8

motors too fast and too big for lake. they cut off weedsSeeing more dogs than we used to. Some not well behaved.really don't know enough to qualify a intelligent answerI've caught Northern Pike with "sores" on their sidesno‐wake violations by pontoons in evening

Answer Options


1. Water level is 1 foot higher than it was 20+ years ago. I think this is why all the trees on the island have drown. Why is the water level so high? For Boaters? From the Shawano Dam? From the Channel to Washington nearly closing? The channel used to be navigable with a fishing boat with a 10 hp motor. It is now filled in and extremely shallow ‐ even with the increased water levels. Water flows in on the north and out through the channel. We should be looking at the entire lake ecosystem, not just inflow. The lake assn seems to ignore this and prevent discussion. Why?

after hours speed. mostly by lake visitorsHigh Lake water levels

21. To what level do you believe each of the following factors may currently be negatively impacting Loon Lake?* Not Present means that you believe the issue does not exist on Loon Lake.** No Impact means that the issue may exist on Loon Lake but it is not negatively impacting the lake.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Watercraft traffic/unsafe watercraftpractices

Aquatic invasive species introduction

Septic system discharge

Shoreline erosion or development

Excessive aquatic plant growth

Algae blooms

Loss of aquatic habitat

Excessive fishing pressure

Water quality degradation

Noise/light pollution

*Not Present **No Impact Moderately negative impact Great negative impact

2017 Onterra, LLC


Appendix B

1st 2nd 3rdResponse Count

Aquatic invasive species introduction 20 12 6 38Watercraft traffic or unsafe watercraft practices 11 13 10 34Excessive aquatic plant growth (excluding algae) 14 14 4 32Water quality degradation 11 6 11 28Shoreline erosion or development 0 5 7 12Loss of aquatic habitat 1 3 5 9Septic system discharge 3 1 5 9Excessive fishing pressure 1 5 2 8Noise/light pollution 0 2 4 6Algae blooms 0 0 2 2Other (please specify) 1 0 1 2Please specify "Other" response here 5

634

Number "Other" responses

1

23

4

5

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Response Count

4 14 36 9 0 63answered question 63skipped question 4

Poor fisheries management leading to stuntingPossible fish Virus observed in Northern Pike (sores on their sides)

23. During open water season how often does aquatic plant growth, including algae, negatively impact your enjoyment of Loon Lake?

Answer Options

Answer Options


1. Lake water level ‐ too high. 2. Island 3. Channel. The water level has risen so much the island trees have nearly all died. The water flows in and out. The channel has changed so much in the last 50 years. It should be studied and managed. motors too large and fast for lakelight pollution is 4th

22. From the list below, please rank your top three concerns regarding Loon Lake, with 1 being your greatest concern.

0

10

20

30

40

# of Respo

nden

ts

1st

2nd

3rd

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

# of Respo

nden

ts

2017 Onterra, LLC


Appendix B

Definitelyyes

Probablyyes

UnsureProbably

noDefinitely

noResponse Count


Not supportive

Neutral Highly supportive

Unsure: Need more

info

Rating Average

Response Count

Herbicide (chemical) control 3 2 9 5 41 2 3 62Biological control (milfoil weevil, loosestrife beetle, etc) 15 6 10 6 18 7 1.89 62Manual removal by property owners 16 3 13 10 16 4 1.87 62Mechanical harvesting 29 5 7 4 11 6 1.53 62Hand‐removal by divers 21 5 12 3 9 12 1.23 62Integrated control using many methods 5 2 14 8 19 13 1.79 61Dredging of bottom sediments 20 4 12 3 4 18 0.87 61Water level drawdown 37 2 6 2 2 11 0.92 60Do nothing (do not manage plants) 49 2 3 1 0 2 0.98 57

634

Response Percet

Response Count

92.2% 59I think so but can't say for certain 6.3% 4No 1.6% 1

643

Completely support

Moderately support

Unsure Moderately oppose

Completely oppose

Rating Average

Response Count

48 7 7 1 1 1.11 64643

Answer Options


26. Did you know that aquatic herbicides were being applied in Loon Lake to help control Eurasian watermilfoil?

Answer Options

Yes


27. How do you feel about the past use of herbicides to treat Eurasian watermilfoil in previous years?

Answer Options

25. Aquatic plants can be managed using many techniques. What is your level of support for the responsible use of the following techniques on Loon Lake?

Answer Options


24. Considering your answer to the question above, do you believe aquatic plant control is needed on Loon Lake?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Definitelyyes

Probablyyes

Unsure Probablyno

Definitelyno

# of Respo

nden

ts

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Herbicide(chemical)control

Biologicalcontrol

Manual removalby propertyowners

Mechanicalharvesting

Hand‐removalby divers

Integratedcontrol usingmany methods

Dredging ofbottom

sediments

Water leveldrawdown

Do nothing

Highly supportive

Neutral

Not supportive

Unsure: Need more info

2017 Onterra, LLC


Appendix B

Completely support

Moderately support

Unsure Moderately oppose

Completely oppose

Rating Average

Response Count

47 9 5 1 1 1.17 63634

Answer OptionsResponse Percet

Response Count

Cost of treatment is too high 0.0% 0Potential impacts to native aquatic plant species 50.0% 1Potential impacts to native (non‐plant) species such as fish, insects, etc. 50.0% 1Potential impacts to human health 50.0% 1

265

Answer Options

Response PercentResponse Count

How changing water levels impact Loon Lake 78.3% 47Aquatic invasive species impacts, means of transport, identification, control options, etc. 53.3% 32How to be a good lake steward 53.3% 32Enhancing in‐lake habitat (not shoreland or adjacent wetlands) for aquatic species 41.7% 25Ecological benefits of shoreland restoration and preservation 25.0% 15Watercraft operation regulations – lake specific, local and statewide 23.3% 14Volunteer lake monitoring opportunities (Clean Boats Clean Waters, Citizens Lake Monitoring Network, Loon Watch, LLWMD programs, etc.) 21.7% 13Social events occurring around Loon Lake 13.3% 8Not interested in learning more on any of these subjects 8.3% 5Other (please specify) 5.0% 3

607

Number Other (please specify)

1

23

skipped question

What to do to save the island. How to open the channel ‐ how its current state has affected the water level and cleanliness in the lake and what will happen in the next 50 years. Mandatory Flagpoles do we qualify for on‐going fish species planting in Loon Lake?

skipped question

29. What is the reason(s) you oppose the future use of aquatic herbicides to target Eurasian watermilfoil in Loon Lake?


30. Stakeholder education is an important component of every lake management planning effort. Which of these subjects would you like to learn more about?

answered question

28. What is your level of support or opposition for future aquatic herbicide use to treat Eurasian watermilfoil in Loon Lake?

Answer Options

answered question

0

10

20

30

40

50

How changingwater levels impact

Loon Lake

Aquatic invasivespecies impacts,

means oftransport,

identification,control options,

etc.

How to be a goodlake steward

Enhancing in‐lakehabitat for aquatic

species

Ecological benefitsof shoreland

restoration andpreservation

Watercraft operation

regulations – lake specific, local and

statewide

Volunteer lakemonitoring

opportunities

Social eventsoccurring around

Loon Lake

Not interested inlearning more on

any of thesesubjects

# of Respo

nden

ts

2017 Onterra, LLC


Appendix B

Loon Lake Wescott Management District (LLWMD)

Response Percent

Response Count

96.8% 603.2% 2

625

Response Percent

Response Count

79.3% 461.7% 119.0% 11

589

Not at all informed

Not too informed

Unsure Fairly well informed

Highly informed

Response Count


Response Percent

Response Count

Watercraft inspections at boat landings 53.3% 32Water quality monitoring 38.3% 23Aquatic plant monitoring 36.7% 22I do not wish to volunteer 31.7% 19Bulk mailing assembly 15.0% 9LLWMD Board 11.7% 7Attending Wisconsin Lakes Convention 8.3% 5Writing newsletter articles 3.3% 2

607


Answer Options

34. The effective management of your lake will require the cooperative efforts of numerous volunteers. Please circle the activities you would be willing to participate in if the LLWMD requires additional assistance.

Answer Options

Current memberFormer memberNever been a member


33. How informed has (or had) the LLWMD kept you regarding issues with Loon Lake and its management?

YesNo


32. What is your membership status with the LLWMD?

Answer Options

31. Before receiving this mailing, have you ever heard of the LLWMD?

Answer Options

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Not at all informed Not too informed Unsure Fairly wellinformed

Highly informed

# of Respo

nden

ts

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Watercraft inspections at boat landings

Water quality monitoring

Aquatic plant monitoring

I do not wish to volunteer

Bulk mailing assembly

LLWMD Board

Attending Wisconsin Lakes Convention

Writing newsletter articles

# of Respondents

2017 Onterra, LLC


Appendix B

Response Count33

3334

Number Response Text

12

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

1213

14

15

16

1718192021

22

232425

26

27

28

29

30

313233

I believe the lake to be in very good condition and I would be very opposed to drastic efforts to change usage rights of property owners. Weed control over the last 10 years has been very effective and should be a continued focus. Fishing quality for game fish has diminished a bit over the last 5 years (except that panfish, especially bluegill are still present in abundance). But, I've observed more residents fishing. I've got some theories regarding the decrease in numbers of game fish caught. First ‐ I've observed weekday evening bass tournaments from outside fisherman (non lake‐residents). I would be in favor of banning outside bass tournaments but would support resident only tournaments/jambories. Next, the decrease in numbers for game fish caught seems to coincide with the very high waters of about 5 years ago. It has declined ever since. After these high waters, a population of Musky has emerged, so that might have something to do with it. (I do very much enjoy the presence of Musky in the lake for a new fishing opportunity, so, I would like to keep that opportunity). Continued stocking efforts for Northern/Bass/Walleye/even Musky would be appreciated.I hope this survey does not manufacture conclusions basis the answers to very specific questions as has been done in past DNR style surveysWhy were no questions about cost contained in this survey?Overall lake quality nosedived to poor in the 1980's. Since the LLWMD was formed GREAT progress has been made!

The lake water use to be clear but the last 10 years is very brown and murkyThe Loon Lake Board needs to find a way to encourage younger people to get involved, not someone my age.I remember 80 years ago when the bo om was a solid light colored sand. Now it is ge ng mucky and so .I also remember clams being more of a problem in our swimming area.I am pleased that we have a management district and an active board. Keep up the good work!Keep up the good work!

Please do not interpret my lack of "interest" in speedboat water activities (jet ski, waterskiing, etc) as saying there is no place for them on the lake. We have had speed motor watercraft in the past and enjoyed them and wish well to people who want to responsibly use them. I am also not opposed to expanding the "busy time" on the lake til 7 pm or changing the hours from 11 am to 7 pm. While the lake is not big by lake standards, it is big enough to accommodate multiple uses as long as they are done courteously and safely.

I am pleased and appreciate the active water management and the improvements in action and communication. Also with the view toward improvement

Loon Lake remains a great lake due primarily to the efforts of our lake association boardPersonally I feel that our board does a wonderful job. Job Well Done! Keep up the good work!water quality and weed control are essentialWe appreciate all that our Management team does to preserve the integrity of Loon Lake and will support them in doing soThe past management of invasive weeds has continued to improve our lake on a yearly basis. We are extremely thankful for those directly involved in numerous volunteer hours to continuethe effort to contain the invasive weeds. We are fortunate to have formed a Lake District in 1990!!! And for having purchased the shoreline frontage on the west side

In the past few years I have caught more walleyes off the dock than ever beforeEven though I stated that water quality has slightly degraded since I first came to Loon Lake, it's much better than it was in early 2000'sI am very proud of the efforts put into management of the lake and remain a strong supporter of our association. My family lives 435 miles away and we always look foreword to our periodic trips to Loon Lake during each summer. Please don't add more regulations.Loon Lake was different when I came here as a kid. The lake is looking better than it has 10 years ago. Sadly society is spiraling downward leaving us with less respectful lake neighbors. Wehave another home on a no‐wake lake and actually prefer it there.Great job. Keep it up!I would like to know if there is anything that can be done to preserve the island on the lake, 50 years ago it was lush and green, now most of the trees are dead

I commend all efforts of our board! I have been on the board before, and it is time consuming but gratifying to know Loon Lk. will be in good hands in kthe futureWater level has risen greatly in recent years and trees on the island have drowned. Need studies on reason for this. Need discussion on size of motors because of the weeds they cut off. Boats and motors are getting too big and too fast for the lakeWater quality seems better than it was ten years ago and about the same as fifty years agoSince we are relatively new to the lake, would be interested in historical information about the lake and specifically how it has changed. Is there one specific document that tells what is and isn't allowed on Loon Lake? Regarding landscaping, building, etc., not just no wake before 9 and after 5?Loon Lake seems very healthy!Our Loon Lake property has been in my family for 100 years. We currently live out of state but I fully intend to retire in Shawano (or move there before I retire). My commitment to thepreservation of Loon Lake and its attributes is extremely important and meaningful to me. I'm sad to see all the new TREMENDOUS homes and believe there is too many personal watercraft creating a safety hazard as well as disturbing the lakes tranquility and other boaters.

skipped question

Would like to see wake time extended to 7pmExtend skiing hours until 6:00pm1. Investigate how to increase the number and size of pan fish and northern fishing on Loon Lake. It has not been good for the last 20 years. The 30 years before that, fish was plentiful and large. Why the change? What can be done to make recreational fishing good again for lake residents? What is up with the Fishing Tournaments? (I heard they are fishing Muskies and Muskie eat the smaller fish?) There used to be schools of minnows all over in the summer. There haven't been any minnows in years. 2. Love that Loons and Eagles have been back for the last 20 years. That means that the lake must be good for them. 3. The Trailer Park residents are heavy users of the lake. From pontoons, to ski boats to jet skis. They do not pay Lake Association dues and do not have a large vested interest in the lake. Yet many are 10‐20 year residents as well. It is not a transient trailer park. Now since the ownership has just changed, it is me to openly discuss this. 4. The Labor Day mee ng seemed rushed. It would have been nice to formally thank Camp T and Eric as he was leaving. 5. Every issue should be able to be heard.6. What is going on that the newest board member is no longer on the board? What were the issues? This seems alarming.

I think that there is not enough concern over the danger of the reckless driving of boats and the personal watercraft on Loon Lake. There were times I was afraid to go out on the lake this past Summer due to the reckless, irresponsible driving I witnessed by some of the boats and jet skis. I really feel this needs to be addressed and is just as important, if not more so, than any aquatic plants in the lake. What happened to the bullheads?

35. Please feel free to provide written comments concerning Loon Lake, its current and/or historic condition and its management.

Answer Options

answered question

2017 Onterra, LLC

APPENDIX C Water Quality Data

Loon Lake

Water Quality DataAppendix C

Date: 4/26/2016 Max Depth: 20.8Time: 11:33 LS Depth (ft): 3.0

Weather: windy, 100% clouds, 41F LB Depth (ft): 18.0Entry: EEH Secchi Depth (ft): 4.4

Depth (ft) Temp (˚C) D.O. (mg/L) pHSp. Cond.(µS/cm)

1 10.1 10.43 10.3 10.4 7.36 10.4 10.39 10.4 10.3

12 10.4 10.2 7.415 9.0 9.518 7.5 8.4 7.420 7.1 6.8

LS LB16.70 23.50ND ND3.38 NA

495.00 473.00ND 58.90

15.20 27.20

495.00 531.90114.00 115.00

7.71 7.3544.90 44.50

2.75 4.6012.30 NA5.65 NA

53.90 NA60.00 NA

NA NA

Date: 6/24/2016 Max Depth:Time: 11:00 LS Depth (ft):

Weather: 0% clouds, 76F LB Depth (ft):Entry: EEH Secchi Depth (ft):

LS LB24.60 NA

NA NA7.67 NANA NANA NANA NA

670.00 NANA NANA NANA NA

NA NANA NANA NANA NANA NANA NA

NH3-N (µg/L)

Total N (µg/L)Lab Cond. (µS/cm)

Lab pHAlkalinity (mg/L CaCO3)

Total Susp. Solids (mg/L)

Turbidity (NTU)

TKN (µg/L)NO3 + NO2-N (µg/L)

NH3-N (µg/L)


Loon Lake

ParameterTotal P (µg/L)

Dissolved P (µg/L)Chl-a (µg/L)

Lab pH


Turbidity (NTU)

Data collected by TWH and EJH (Onterra).

Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3)

Loon Lake


Calcium (mg/L)Magnesium (mg/L)

Hardness (mg/L)Color (SU)





0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

De

pth

(ft

)

April 26, 2016

Temp (˚C)

D.O. (mg/L)

2016 Onterra, LLC

Loon Lake



Weather: Clear, Breezy LB Depth (ft): 19.0Entry: JMB Secchi Depth (ft): 5.5


1 26.8 7.63 26.5 7.75 26.4 7.77 26.3 7.69 24.6 4.2

11 22.9 2.613 20.4 0.215 17.9 0.117 16.9 0.119 16.0 0.121 15.6 0.1

LS LB19.90 44.40

NA NA2.28 NA

654.00 NAND NAND NA

654.00 NA140.00 156.00

7.90 7.0461.10 73.50

NA NANA NANA NANA NA

60.00 NANA NA

Date: 8/10/2016 Max Depth:Time: 11:00 LS Depth (ft):

Weather: 27.7C, 50% clouds LB Depth (ft):Entry: EEH Secchi Depth (ft): 6.3

LS LB24.80 NA


531.00 NANA NANA NANA NA


Loon Lake

NO3 + NO2-N (µg/L)

Loon Lake




NH3-N (µg/L)

NH3-N (µg/L)


Lab pH



TKN (µg/L)



Data collected by TAH (Onterra).



Turbidity (NTU)




Turbidity (NTU)



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

De

pth

(ft

)

July 25, 2016

Temp (˚C)

D.O. (mg/L)

2016 Onterra, LLC

Loon Lake



Weather: 0% clouds, Light breeze, 57 °F LB Depth (ft): 18.0Entry: JMB Secchi Depth (ft): 5.1


1 15.5 8.93 15.2 9.05 15.1 9.07 14.9 8.99 14.7 8.6

11 14.6 8.613 14.6 8.715 14.5 8.417 14.5 8.318 14.4 8.319 14.3 8.120 14.3 7.4

LS LB20.50 23.20


NA NANA NANA NANA NA

ND NDNA NANA NANA NANA NANA NA


Weather: 0% clouds 10mph wind 0F LB Depth (ft): 17.0Entry: JMB Secchi Depth (ft): 5.6


1 0.4 9.73 1.1 9.35 1.8 8.17 2.3 5.89 2.7 5.0

11 2.8 5.213 3.0 5.315 3.1 5.417 3.5 4.719 3.8 3.9

LS LB22.20 21.202.80 5.90NA NA

629.00 468.00138.00 454.0039.10 ND

767.00 922.00NA NANA NANA NA





NH3-N (µg/L)

Total N (µg/L)

Loon Lake

Total P (µg/L)Dissolved P (µg/L)

Chl-a (µg/L)TKN (µg/L)

NO3 + NO2-N (µg/L)NH3-N (µg/L)


Lab Cond. (µS/cm)Lab pH



Turbidity (NTU)

Data collected by LJS, JMB and TWH (Onterra).

Loon Lake

Parameter





Turbidity (NTU)

Data collected by TWH & JMB (Onterra). Ice depth 1.2ft.



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

De

pth

(ft

)

October 10, 2016

Temp (˚C)

D.O. (mg/L)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

De

pth

(ft

)

February 9, 2017

Temp (˚C)

D.O. (mg/L)

2016 Onterra, LLC

Loon Lake


2016-2017Parameter Count Mean Count Mean

Secchi Depth (feet) 5 5.4 NA NATotal P (µg/L) 6 21.5 4 28.1Dissolved P (µg/L) 2 2.8 2 5.9Chl a (µg/L) 5 4.2 0 NATKN (µg/L 3 592.7 2 470.5NO3+NO2-N (µg/L) 3 138.0 2 256.5NH3-N (µg/L) 3 27.2 2 27.2

Total N (µg/L) 5 623.4 2 727.0Lab Cond. (µS/cm) 2 127.0 2 135.5Alkal (mg/l CaCO3) 2 53.0 2 59.0

Total Susp. Solids (mg/l) 2 2.8 2 4.6Calcium (mg/L) 1 12.3 0 NAMagnesium (mg/L) 1 5.7 0 NAHardness (mg/L) 1 53.9 0 NAColor (SU) 2 60.0 0 NATurbidity (NTU) 0 NA 0 NA

Year TP Chl-a Secchi

1990 53.21991 53.81992 53.31993 58.71994 51.61995 49.01996 55.11997 47.61998 50.01999 47.02000 48.32001 52.42002 49.4 22.5 53.02003 43.0 47.6 54.62004 56.92005 53.92006 52.62007 50.32008 57.32009 53.32010 52.0 49.1 57.42011 52.4 54.8 59.32012 50.4 49.8 51.12013 48.0 51.7 52.12014 51.0 52.6 55.42015 55.3 51.7 54.32016 49.4 45.5 51.9

All Years (Weighted) 51.0 50.6 52.4SLDL Median 54.6 52.6 52.4

NCHF Ecoregion Median 61.1 57.3 53.2

Year Count Mean Count Mean Count Mean Count Mean Count Mean Count Mean

1990 15 5.4 10 5.31991 22 5.4 13 5.11992 20 5.4 13 5.21993 21 3.8 14 3.61994 22 5.8 13 5.91995 21 6.4 13 7.01996 14 4.8 10 4.61997 19 7.7 14 7.71998 21 6.8 14 6.61999 18 7.9 11 8.12000 19 7.0 13 7.42001 18 5.5 12 5.62002 22 5.3 15 5.3 3 6.1 1 0.4 6 34.3 2.0 23.02003 18 4.9 14 4.8 1 5.7 1 5.7 1 14.8 1.0 14.82004 16 4.2 13 4.1 0 0 0 0.02005 15 5.1 13 5.0 0 0 0 0.02006 12 5.7 8 5.5 0 0 0 0.02007 21 6.2 9 6.4 0 0 0 0.02008 16 4.4 8 4.0 0 0 0 0.02009 15 5.4 8 5.2 0 0 0 0.02010 15 5.0 8 3.9 3 6.6 3 6.6 4 27.3 3.0 27.72011 7 3.6 5 3.5 3 11.7 3 11.7 4 27.0 3.0 28.32012 9 5.7 5 6.1 3 7.1 3 7.1 3 24.7 3.0 24.72013 6 5.5 4 5.7 3 8.6 3 8.6 4 23.5 3.0 20.92014 4 4.6 3 4.5 3 9.5 3 9.5 3 25.8 3.0 25.82015 3 5.1 2 4.9 3 8.6 3 8.6 3 34.8 3.0 34.82016 5 5.4 3 5.8 5 4.2 3 4.5 5 21.3 3.0 23.1

All Years (Weighted) 5.6 5.5 7.5 7.7 27.1 25.7SLDL Median 5.6 9.4 33.0

NCHF Ecoregion Median 5.3 15.2 52.0

Trophic State Index (TSI)

Growing Season Summer

Secchi (feet) Chlorophyll-a (µg/L)


Total Phosphorus (µg/L)


Surface BottomWater Quality Data

2016 Onterra, LLC

APPENDIX D Watershed Analysis WiLMS Results

Date: 2/16/2017 Scenario: Loon Lake Current Lake Id: Loon Lake Watershed Id: 0 Hydrologic and Morphometric Data Tributary Drainage Area: 11503.0 acre Total Unit Runoff: 10.80 in. Annual Runoff Volume: 10352.7 acre-ft Lake Surface Area <As>: 327.0 acre Lake Volume <V>: 2663.0 acre-ft Lake Mean Depth <z>: 8.1 ft Precipitation - Evaporation: 4.6 in. Hydraulic Loading: 11175.3 acre-ft/year Areal Water Load <qs>: 34.2 ft/year Lake Flushing Rate <p>: 4.20 1/year Water Residence Time: 0.24 year Observed spring overturn total phosphorus (SPO): 29.9 mg/m^3 Observed growing season mean phosphorus (GSM): 31.1 mg/m^3 % NPS Change: 0% % PS Change: 0% NON-POINT SOURCE DATA Land Use Acre Low Most Likely High Loading % Low Most Likely High (ac) |---- Loading (kg/ha-year) ----| |----- Loading (kg/year) ----| Row Crop AG 169.0 0.50 1.00 3.00 11.1 34 68 205 Mixed AG 0.0 0.30 0.80 1.40 0.0 0 0 0 Pasture/Grass 913.0 0.10 0.30 0.50 18.1 37 111 185 HD Urban (1/8 Ac) 0.0 1.00 1.50 2.00 0.0 0 0 0 MD Urban (1/4 Ac) 1.0 0.30 0.50 0.80 0.0 0 0 0 Rural Res (>1 Ac) 17.0 0.05 0.10 0.25 0.1 0 1 2 Wetlands 4858.0 0.10 0.10 0.10 32.0 197 197 197 Forest 4749.0 0.05 0.09 0.18 28.2 96 173 346 Lake Surface 327.0 0.10 0.30 1.00 6.5 13 40 132 POINT SOURCE DATA Point Sources Water Load Low Most Likely High Loading % (m^3/year) (kg/year) (kg/year) (kg/year) _ LuLu Lake Watershed 860000.0 0.0 19.3 0.0 3.1 SEPTIC TANK DATA Description Low Most Likely High Loading % Septic Tank Output (kg/capita-year) 0.30 0.50 0.80 # capita-years 106.0 % Phosphorus Retained by Soil 98.0 90.0 80.0 Septic Tank Loading (kg/year) 0.64 5.30 16.96 0.9

TOTALS DATA Description Low Most Likely High Loading % Total Loading (lb) 833.7 1353.6 2389.4 100.0 Total Loading (kg) 378.2 614.0 1083.8 100.0 Areal Loading (lb/ac-year) 2.55 4.14 7.31 Areal Loading (mg/m^2-year) 285.78 463.99 819.01 Total PS Loading (lb) 0.0 42.5 0.0 3.1 Total PS Loading (kg) 0.0 19.3 0.0 3.1 Total NPS Loading (lb) 803.2 1211.9 2060.2 96.0 Total NPS Loading (kg) 364.3 549.7 934.5 96.0 Phosphorus Prediction and Uncertainty Analysis Module Date: 2/16/2017 Scenario: 61 Observed spring overturn total phosphorus (SPO): 29.9 mg/m^3 Observed growing season mean phosphorus (GSM): 31.1 mg/m^3 Back calculation for SPO total phosphorus: 0.0 mg/m^3 Back calculation GSM phosphorus: 0.0 mg/m^3 % Confidence Range: 70% Nurenberg Model Input - Est. Gross Int. Loading: 0 kg Lake Phosphorus Model Low Most Likely High Predicted % Dif. Total P Total P Total P -Observed (mg/m^3) (mg/m^3) (mg/m^3) (mg/m^3) Walker, 1987 Reservoir 18 29 52 -2 -6 Canfield-Bachmann, 1981 Natural Lake 20 31 51 0 0 Canfield-Bachmann, 1981 Artificial Lake 19 28 43 -3 -10 Rechow, 1979 General 12 19 34 -12 -39 Rechow, 1977 Anoxic 23 38 67 7 23 Rechow, 1977 water load<50m/year 18 29 51 -2 -6 Rechow, 1977 water load>50m/year N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Walker, 1977 General 19 31 55 1 3 Vollenweider, 1982 Combined OECD 17 25 40 -6 -20 Dillon-Rigler-Kirchner 12 20 36 -10 -33 Vollenweider, 1982 Shallow Lake/Res. 13 20 33 -11 -36 Larsen-Mercier, 1976 18 30 53 0 0 Nurnberg, 1984 Oxic 13 21 37 -10 -32

Lake Phosphorus Model Confidence Confidence Parameter Back Model Lower Upper Fit? Calculation Type Bound Bound (kg/year) Walker, 1987 Reservoir 19 46 FIT 0 GSM Canfield-Bachmann, 1981 Natural Lake 10 89 FIT 1 GSM Canfield-Bachmann, 1981 Artificial Lake 9 81 FIT 1 GSM Rechow, 1979 General 12 31 FIT 0 GSM Rechow, 1977 Anoxic 25 60 FIT 0 GSM Rechow, 1977 water load<50m/year 18 47 FIT 0 GSM Rechow, 1977 water load>50m/year N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Walker, 1977 General 17 54 FIT 0 SPO Vollenweider, 1982 Combined OECD 13 44 FIT 0 ANN Dillon-Rigler-Kirchner 13 32 P 0 SPO Vollenweider, 1982 Shallow Lake/Res. 11 35 FIT 0 ANN Larsen-Mercier, 1976 20 47 P Pin 0 SPO Nurnberg, 1984 Oxic 12 36 FIT 0 ANN Water and Nutrient Outflow Module Date: 2/16/2017 Scenario: 32 Average Annual Surface Total Phosphorus: 31.1mg/m^3 Annual Discharge: 1.12E+004 AF => 1.38E+007 m^3 Annual Outflow Loading: 904.5 LB => 410.3 kg

APPENDIX E Official Comments on Draft Documents

Comments to Loon Lake Draft Comprehensive Management Plan – June 2018

Response Comments by Jo Barlament Response comments by Eddie Heath

WDNR Comments from Brenda Nordin (WDNR Water Resources Management Specialist)

Hi All, I’d like to see a goal for the increase of woody habitat integrated into the plan. As of now there is

not a lot of wood in Loon. Wood would certainly benefit the fish and wildlife habitat. We do have a

grant program that pays for Fish sticks. Additionally, Emily Henrigillis the new watershed coordinator

will be starting next week and she could assist with the logistics of this. Discussion with the LLWMD

following comments received on the first draft resulted in the modification of a management

action into: Determine feasibility of coarse woody habitat additions (i.e. fish sticks projects) on

Loon Lake. This action discusses the WDNR’s Healthy Lakes Initiative and how the FWWA can

assist with this effort.

WDNR Comments from Jason Breeggemann (WDNR Fisheries Biologist)

I have a couple of comments/suggestions for the Loon Lake comprehensive management plan:

1.) I think the report does a great job explaining the many benefits of coarse woody habitat as it pertains to fish. I agree with Brenda that efforts should be made to increase the amount of coarse woody habitat in Loon Lake. Additional discussions with the lake group occurred in regards to fish stick additions.

2.) The current walleye regulation for Loon Lake is a daily bag limit of 5 and a minimum length limit of 15”. However, the walleye regulation in the table states a daily bag limit of 3 and only one walleye over 14”. Change has been made

3.) Both large fingerling walleye and northern pike were stocked in Loon Lake in 2017. Below is the 2017 stocking information to add to table 3.6‐2. <table omitted> Data provided was added to this table

4.) Northern pike were stocked to enhance predator densities to hopefully decrease panfish densities and improve panfish growth rates. Loon Lake was not supposed to receive a walleye stocking in 2017. Walleyes are usually stocked in Loon Lake in even years as part of the Wisconsin Walleye Initiative. However, higher than expected survival in the hatcheries resulted in a surplus of walleyes in 2017. Loon Lake was chosen to receive additional walleyes to again enhance predator densities as well as increase future fishing opportunities for walleyes. Information was added to this section.

WDNR Comments from Brenda Nordin (WDNR Water Resources Management Specialist)

1. I agree with Brenda's comment that it would be nice to see more coarse woody habitat around the lake. I would be more than happy to help anyone interested in improving their shoreline get started. Please feel free to pass my contact information along. Contact information was added to the table on page 94.

2. Fish sticks may be the best way to go. Here is the links for the Healthy Lakes grants and the information about fish sticks http://healthylakeswi.com/best‐practices/#fish The Healthy Lakes Initiative is referenced on page 95 (shoreland) and 97 (fish sticks).

Date post:	08-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times