Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 Planning
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
Whycreatealakemanagementplan?
• Tocreateabetterunderstandingofthelake’spositiveandnegativeattributes.
• Todiscoverwaystominimizethenegativeattributesandmaximizethepositiveattributes.
• Tofosterrealisticexpectationsanddispelmyths.
• Tocreateasnapshotofthelakeforfuturereferenceandplanning.
Loon Lake Kick-off Meeting Appendix A
July 2016 2
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
Whycreatealakemanagementplan?
• WDNRrecommendslakesconductingactivemanagementupdateaspectsoftheplanevery5years.
• HavingacurrentandapprovedplanmakesthesponsoreligibleforWDNRgrantsthatimplementanaction.
• Conductinglarge‐scalemanagementrequiresacurrentandapprovedplan.
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
PastPlanningEfforts
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
ElementsofanEffectiveLakeManagementPlanningProject
DataandInformationGatheringEnvironmental&Sociological
PlanningProcessBringsitalltogether
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
Dataandinformationgathering
• StudyComponents• WaterQualityAnalysis• WatershedAssessment• AquaticPlantSurveys• FisheriesDataIntegration• ShorelineAssessment• StakeholderSurvey
Loon Lake Kick-off Meeting Appendix A
July 2016 3
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Loon Lake60-meter Resolution
365 Total PointsCompare: 2005-2015
Loon Lake Kick-off Meeting Appendix A
July 2016 4
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
Non‐native Aquatic PlantsCurly‐leaf Pondweed
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
Curly‐leafPondweed
Curly‐leaf Pondweed
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
Non‐native Aquatic PlantsPale Yellow Iris
Loon Lake Kick-off Meeting Appendix A
July 2016 5
Pale Yellow Iris
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Loon Lake Kick-off Meeting Appendix A
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%
Loon Lake Kick-off Meeting Appendix A
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
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
FisheriesDataIntegration
• Nofishsamplingcompleted• AssembledatafromWDNR,USGS,USFWS,&GLIFWC
• Fishsurveyresultssummaries(ifavailable)• Useinformationinplanningasapplicable
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
StakeholderSurvey
• Standardsurveyusedasbase• Planningcommitteepotentiallydevelops
additionalquestionsandoptions• Mustnotleadrespondenttospecificanswer
througha“loaded”question• SurveymustbeapprovedbyWDNR
Loon Lake Kick-off Meeting Appendix A
July 2016 8
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
ShorelandAssessment• Shorelandareaisimportantforbufferingrunoffand
providesvaluablehabitatforaquaticandterrestrialwildlife.
• Assessmentranksshorelandareafromshorelineback35feet
• Assessshorelanddevelopmentandhabitat• Coarsewoodyhabitat
Urbanized Natural
Range
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
ManagementPlanningProjectOverview
Lake Management Planning
• FosterholisticunderstandingofLoonLakeecosystem• Collect&analyzedata
• Technical&sociological• Constructlong‐term&useableplan
• Updatemanagementstrategiesforaquaticplants
3.1WaterQuality
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
WisconsinLakesClassification
Wind
Deep, Stratified Lake Shallow, Mixed Lake
Epilimnion
Hypolimnion
Metalimnion
Wind
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Loon Lake Planning Committee Meeting I Appendix A
Onterra, LLC 2
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
WaterQualityWisconsinEcoregions
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
IntroductiontoLakeWaterQuality
PhosphorusNaturallyoccurring&essentialforalllifeRegulatesphytoplanktonbiomassinmostWIlakesMostoften‘limitingplantnutrient’(shortestsupply)HumanactivityoftenincreasesPdeliverytolakes
Chlorophyll‐aPigmentusedinphotosynthesisUsedassurrogateforphytoplanktonbiomass
SecchiDiskTransparencyMeasureofwaterclarityMeasuredusingaSecchidisk
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
Long‐TermTrendsNear‐SurfaceTotalPhosphorus
2016ave summer=23µg/LOverallweighedave summer=26µg/L• BothexcellentforSLDL• Bothlowerthanecoregion&SLDLmedians
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
Long‐TermTrendsChlorophyll‐a
2016ave summer=5 µg/LOverallweighedave summer=8µg/L• BothexcellentforSLDL• Bothlowerthanecoregion&SLDLmedians
Loon Lake Planning Committee Meeting I Appendix A
Onterra, LLC 3
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
Long‐TermTrendsSecchiDiskTransparency
2016ave summer=5.8 ftOverallweighedave summer=5.5ft• BothexcellentforSLDL• Similartoecoregion&SLDLmedians
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
Long‐TermTrendsSecchiDiskTransparency
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, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Loon Lake Planning Committee Meeting I Appendix A
Onterra, LLC 4
Land Cover TypesForest
Forested Wetlands
Open Water
Pasture/Grass
Row Crops
Rural Open Space
Rural Residential
Wetlands
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
Determine Lake and Watershed
Characteristics
Determine Land Cover Types and
Acreages
Model Annual Potential Phosphorus Load (APPL) and Growing Season
Mean (GSM) Phosphorus
WatershedAssessmentProcedure
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Determine Lake and Watershed
Characteristics
Determine Land Cover Types and
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
=>
<
WatershedAssessmentProcedure
Examples:Internal loadingSeptic system leakagePoint sourceGroundwater
Examples:Model limitationsSeepage lake
Loon Lake
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
WatershedWork• SanitaryDistrict around
partofthelake• Updatedsepticsystems
• Moveddrainfieldsawayfromlakewherepossible
• Propertiesthatdidn’thaveenoughlandtomovedrainfieldsforcedtouseholdingtanks
• Conservancylandpurchase
=
=
3.3ShorelandCondition
Loon Lake Planning Committee Meeting I Appendix A
Onterra, LLC 5
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
LegendNatural/UndevelopedDeveloped-NaturalDeveloped-Semi-NaturalDeveloped-UnnaturalUrbanized
Seawall
ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ Rip-Rap
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%
Developed‐Natural0.1 miles
2%
Developed‐Semi‐Natural0.2 miles
5%
Developed‐Unnatural0.3 miles
8%
Urbanized0.9 miles27%
Shoreline length: 3.4 miles
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Full Canopy " Full Canopy
" Moderate Branches
Minimal Branches"
No Branches"
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
22 total pieces of emergent CWH~6 CWH pieces per shoreland mile
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
LoonLake(Osprey)Island• Claim:waterlevelswerelower
between1880and1940• Claim:80%oftreesonisland
diedin1980s• Claim:Sandbarbetweenisland
andpinepointcontainedrushes• WDNRputupplatformfor
Ospreysin1990• Claim:Eaglescamelater
1938 2015
3.4AquaticPlants&3.5AIS
Loon Lake Planning Committee Meeting I Appendix A
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 (
%)
Loon Lake Planning Committee Meeting I Appendix A
Onterra, LLC 7
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
LFOOCompare(2006‐2016)
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
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
LFOOCompare(2006‐2016)
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
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Loon Lake Planning Committee Meeting I Appendix A
Onterra, LLC 8
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
State‐wideEWMPopulationTrends
n = 397 lakes
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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)
Loon Lake Planning Committee Meeting I Appendix A
Onterra, LLC 9
Late‐June 2016
Dominant
Highly Dominant
Surface Matting
Single or Few Plants
Clumps of Plants
Small Plant Colony
!(
!(
!(
Highly Scattered
Scattered
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
• Donothing(monitor)• Management
• Biocontrol(weevils)• Herbicidetreatment• Handremoval(includesDASH)• Winterdrawdown• Mechanicalharvesting
AISControlStrategies
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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%
Moderately supportive7%
Moderately unsupportive3%
Not supportive4%
Neutral13%
Unsure13%
Highly supportive15%
Moderately supportive5%
Moderately unsupportive8%
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
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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.
Loon Lake Planning Committee Meeting I Appendix A
Onterra, LLC 10
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
2015TreatmentonLoonLake• Diquat (2gallonspersurfaceacreofapplicationarea)• ~24acresof305acrelake(7.8%)• TracerDye(RhodamineWT)Survey• Pre(spring)&post(late‐summer)point‐interceptsub‐sampling
Loon Lake Planning Committee Meeting I Appendix A
Onterra, LLC 11
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
EWMPopulationTolerancetoHerbicide
Taylor et al, 2017
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
AISActiveManagementDiscussion
• KeepAISpopulationlowsonativeecosystemcanfunctionasitdidpriortoAIS(ecosystemrestoration)
•KeepAISpopulationlowsoitdoesnotcauserecreation,navigation,oraestheticissues(improveculturalecosystemservices)
•KeepAISpopulationlowsothelakeisnotasourcepopulationforothernearbylakes(stewardship)
•Managementactionitselfmaybedamagingtothelake,soacknowledgingpotentialknown/unknownsecondaryimpactsisimportantwithintheriskassessment.
•Managementactionmaynotbefullysupportedbypublic
•Unmanaged AISpopulationmaybelowenoughtonotcausemeasurableecosystemimpactsorreduceculturalecosystemservices
Pros Cons3.5 Aquatic Invasive Species
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Loon Lake Planning Committee Meeting I Appendix A
Onterra, LLC 12
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
LoonLakeFisheries
Sunlight,Nutrients
PiscovoresPlanktivoresInsects,
ZooplanktonAlgae,Plants
EnergyFlow
Gamefish Anglers Target
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
4.0Conclusions
WaterQuality&Watershed• Overallgreatforlaketype• Attentioncouldbepaidtoshorelandareastoincreasehabitat
valueAquaticPlants• EWM/HWMhasbeenmanagedovertime• Changesinnativeplantslikelyfromnaturalconditionsandherbicidetreatments
• DevelopingnextphaseofAISmanagementrequired
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
PresentationOutline
• Project Goals• Overall Study Conclusions• Key Study Results• Management Goals and Actions• Questions
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
•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
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
3.1WaterQuality
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
WisconsinLakesClassification
Wind
Deep, Stratified Lake Shallow, Mixed Lake
Epilimnion
Hypolimnion
Metalimnion
Wind
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
WaterQualityWisconsinEcoregions
Loon Lake Wrap‐up Meeting Appendix A
Onterra, LLC 2
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
Long‐TermTrendsNear‐SurfaceTotalPhosphorus
2016ave summer=23µg/LOverallweighedave summer=26µg/L• BothexcellentforSLDL• Bothlowerthanecoregion&SLDLmedians
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
Long‐TermTrendsChlorophyll‐a
2016ave summer=5 µg/LOverallweighedave summer=8µg/L• BothexcellentforSLDL• Bothlowerthanecoregion&SLDLmedians
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
Long‐TermTrendsSecchiDiskTransparency
2016ave summer=5.8 ftOverallweighedave summer=5.5ft• BothexcellentforSLDL• Similartoecoregion&SLDLmedians
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
Long‐TermTrendsSecchiDiskTransparency
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
Loon Lake Wrap‐up Meeting Appendix A
Onterra, LLC 3
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Loon Lake Wrap‐up Meeting Appendix A
Onterra, LLC 4
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
2016ShorelandConditionSurveyResults
2016ShorelandConditionSurveyResults
LegendNatural/UndevelopedDeveloped-NaturalDeveloped-Semi-NaturalDeveloped-UnnaturalUrbanized
Seawall
ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ Rip-Rap
Masonry/Metal/Wood
LegendNatural/UndevelopedDeveloped-NaturalDeveloped-Semi-NaturalDeveloped-UnnaturalUrbanized
Seawall
ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ Rip-Rap
Masonry/Metal/Wood
Natural/Undeveloped
2.0 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/Undeveloped
2.0 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
2016ShorelandConditionSurveyResults
LegendNatural/UndevelopedDeveloped-NaturalDeveloped-Semi-NaturalDeveloped-UnnaturalUrbanized
Seawall
ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ Rip-Rap
Masonry/Metal/Wood
LegendNatural/UndevelopedDeveloped-NaturalDeveloped-Semi-NaturalDeveloped-UnnaturalUrbanized
Seawall
ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ Rip-Rap
Masonry/Metal/Wood
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
2016CoarseWoodyHabitatSurveyResults
Loon Lake Wrap‐up Meeting Appendix A
Onterra, LLC 5
2016CoarseWoodyHabitatSurveyResults
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
Full Canopy " Full Canopy
" 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
Full Canopy " Full Canopy
" Moderate Branches
Minimal Branches"
No Branches"
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
22 total pieces of emergent CWH~6 CWH pieces per shoreland mile
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Loon Lake60-meter Resolution
365 Total PointsCompare: 2006-2016
Loon Lake60-meter Resolution
365 Total PointsCompare: 2006-2016
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
Loon Lake Wrap‐up Meeting Appendix A
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 (
%)
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
LFOOCompare(2006‐2016)
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
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
LFOOCompare(2006‐2016)
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
Loon Lake Wrap‐up Meeting Appendix A
Onterra, LLC 7
• First“officially”documentedin1998• DNAanalysisconfirmsHWMcomponentinLoonLake• HWMknowntoformturionsinLoonLake
Non‐NativeAquaticPlantsEurasianWaterMilfoil
Moody & Les, 2007
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
EWMPopulationTolerancetoHerbicide
Taylor et al, 2017
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Onterra, LLCLake Management PlanningOnterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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%
Loon Lake Wrap‐up Meeting Appendix A
Onterra, LLC 8
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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%
Moderately supportive2%
Moderately unsupportive3%
Not supportive86%
Neutral5%
Unsure4%
Highly supportive60%
Moderately supportive7%
Moderately unsupportive3%
Not supportive4%
Neutral13%
Unsure13%
Highly supportive15%
Moderately supportive5%
Moderately unsupportive8%
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
Single or Few Plants
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
Loon Lake Wrap‐up Meeting Appendix A
Onterra, LLC 9
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
LoonLakeFisheries
Sunlight,Nutrients
PiscovoresPlanktivoresInsects,
ZooplanktonAlgae,Plants
EnergyFlow
Gamefish Anglers Target
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Unsure
# of Respondents
Onterra, 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
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
Onterra, LLCLake Management Planning
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
answered questionskipped question
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
answered questionskipped question
Loon Lake ‐ Anonymous Stakeholder Survey
1. How is your property on Loon Lake utilized?
Answer Options
answered questionskipped question
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
Loon Lake Wescott Management DistrictAnonymous Stakeholder Survey Results
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)
Responses % Response
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)
Responses % Response
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%
answered questionskipped question
Noanswered questionskipped question
8. For how many years have you fished Loon Lake?
Answer Options
answered questionskipped question
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
Loon Lake Wescott Management DistrictAnonymous Stakeholder Survey Results
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
7 17 14 2 1 2 43answered question 43skipped question 24
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
answered questionskipped question
0
10
20
30
40
# of Respo
nden
ts
0
5
10
15
20
Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Unsure
# of Respo
nden
ts
0
5
10
15
20
Muchworse
Somewhatworse
Remainedthe same
Somewhatbetter
Muchbetter
Unsure
# of Respo
nden
ts
2017 Onterra, LLC
Loon Lake Wescott Management DistrictAnonymous Stakeholder Survey Results
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
answered questionskipped question
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
Loon Lake Wescott Management DistrictAnonymous Stakeholder Survey Results
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
0 0 7 41 14 3 65answered question 65skipped question 2
16. How would you describe the current water quality of Loon Lake?
Answer Options
answered questionskipped question
"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
Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Unsure
# of Respo
nden
ts
2017 Onterra, LLC
Loon Lake Wescott Management DistrictAnonymous Stakeholder Survey Results
Appendix B
Severely degraded
Somewhat degraded
Remained the same
Somewhat improved
Greatly improved
UnsureResponse Count
1 15 17 16 12 4 65answered question 65skipped question 2
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
answered questionskipped question
"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
Loon Lake Wescott Management DistrictAnonymous Stakeholder Survey Results
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
answered questionskipped question
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
Loon Lake Wescott Management DistrictAnonymous Stakeholder Survey Results
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
answered questionskipped question
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
Loon Lake Wescott Management DistrictAnonymous Stakeholder Survey Results
Appendix B
Definitelyyes
Probablyyes
UnsureProbably
noDefinitely
noResponse Count
26 28 8 1 1 64answered question 64skipped question 3
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
answered questionskipped question
26. Did you know that aquatic herbicides were being applied in Loon Lake to help control Eurasian watermilfoil?
Answer Options
Yes
answered questionskipped question
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
answered questionskipped question
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
Loon Lake Wescott Management DistrictAnonymous Stakeholder Survey Results
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?
answered questionskipped question
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
Loon Lake Wescott Management DistrictAnonymous Stakeholder Survey Results
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
0 2 3 14 31 50answered question 50skipped question 17
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
answered questionskipped question
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
answered questionskipped question
33. How informed has (or had) the LLWMD kept you regarding issues with Loon Lake and its management?
YesNo
answered questionskipped question
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
Loon Lake Wescott Management DistrictAnonymous Stakeholder Survey Results
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)
Total N (µg/L)Lab Cond. (µS/cm)
Loon Lake
ParameterTotal P (µg/L)
Dissolved P (µg/L)Chl-a (µg/L)
Lab pH
Total Susp. Solids (mg/L)
Turbidity (NTU)
Data collected by TWH and EJH (Onterra).
Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3)
Loon Lake
ParameterTotal P (µg/L)
Calcium (mg/L)Magnesium (mg/L)
Hardness (mg/L)Color (SU)
Dissolved P (µg/L)Chl-a (µg/L)
TKN (µg/L)NO3 + NO2-N (µg/L)
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
Water Quality DataAppendix C
Date: 7/25/2016 Max Depth: 21.5Time: 9:00 LS Depth (ft): 3.0
Weather: Clear, Breezy LB Depth (ft): 19.0Entry: JMB Secchi Depth (ft): 5.5
Depth (ft) Temp (˚C) D.O. (mg/L) pHSp. Cond.(µS/cm)
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
NA NA3.70 NANA NANA NANA NA
531.00 NANA NANA NANA NA
NA NANA NANA NANA NANA NANA NA
Loon Lake
NO3 + NO2-N (µg/L)
Loon Lake
ParameterTotal P (µg/L)
Dissolved P (µg/L)Chl-a (µg/L)
TKN (µg/L)NO3 + NO2-N (µg/L)
NH3-N (µg/L)
NH3-N (µg/L)
Total N (µg/L)Lab Cond. (µS/cm)
Lab pH
ParameterTotal P (µg/L)
Dissolved P (µg/L)Chl-a (µg/L)
TKN (µg/L)
Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3)
Total Susp. Solids (mg/L)
Data collected by TAH (Onterra).
Calcium (mg/L)Magnesium (mg/L)
Hardness (mg/L)Color (SU)
Turbidity (NTU)
Total N (µg/L)Lab Cond. (µS/cm)
Lab pHAlkalinity (mg/L CaCO3)
Total Susp. Solids (mg/L)
Turbidity (NTU)
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
)
July 25, 2016
Temp (˚C)
D.O. (mg/L)
2016 Onterra, LLC
Loon Lake
Water Quality DataAppendix C
Date: 10/10/2016 Max Depth: 20.4Time: 10:30 LS Depth (ft): 3.0
Weather: 0% clouds, Light breeze, 57 °F LB Depth (ft): 18.0Entry: JMB Secchi Depth (ft): 5.1
Depth (ft) Temp (˚C) D.O. (mg/L) pHSp. Cond.(µS/cm)
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 NA3.75 NANA NANA NANA NA
NA NANA NANA NANA NA
ND NDNA NANA NANA NANA NANA NA
Date: 2/9/2017 Max Depth: 20.2Time: 9:30 LS Depth (ft): 3.0
Weather: 0% clouds 10mph wind 0F LB Depth (ft): 17.0Entry: JMB Secchi Depth (ft): 5.6
Depth (ft) Temp (˚C) D.O. (mg/L) pHSp. Cond.(µS/cm)
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
NA NANA NANA NANA NANA NANA NA
ParameterTotal P (µg/L)
Dissolved P (µg/L)Chl-a (µg/L)
TKN (µg/L)NO3 + NO2-N (µg/L)
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)
Total N (µg/L)Lab Cond. (µS/cm)
Lab Cond. (µS/cm)Lab pH
Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3)
Total Susp. Solids (mg/L)
Turbidity (NTU)
Data collected by LJS, JMB and TWH (Onterra).
Loon Lake
Parameter
Calcium (mg/L)Magnesium (mg/L)
Hardness (mg/L)Color (SU)
Lab pHAlkalinity (mg/L CaCO3)
Total Susp. Solids (mg/L)
Turbidity (NTU)
Data collected by TWH & JMB (Onterra). Ice depth 1.2ft.
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
)
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
Water Quality DataAppendix C
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)
Growing Season Summer
Total Phosphorus (µg/L)
Growing Season Summer
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).