CAZENOVIA LAKE: A COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN · Cazenovia Lake is a 1,184 acre lake in the Seneca/Oneida/Oswego Rivers drainage basin, located entirely within Madison County, New

CAZENOVIA LAKE: A COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Daniel Kopec

Occasional Paper No. 50 State University of New York College at Oneonta

OCCASIONAL PAPERS PUBLISHED BY THE BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION

No. 1. The diet and feeding habits of the terrestrial stage of the common newt, Notophthalmus viridescens (Raf.). M.C. MacNamara, April 1976

No. 2. The relationship of age, growth and food habits to the relative success of the whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and the cisco (C. artedi) in Otsego Lake, New York. A.J. Newell, April 1976.

No. 3. A basic limnology of Otsego Lake (Summary of research 1968-75). W. N. Harman and L. P. Sohacki, June 1976. No. 4. An ecology of the Unionidae of Otsego Lake with special references to the immature stages. G. P. Weir, November 1977. No. 5. A history and description of the Biological Field Station (1966-1977). W. N. Harman, November 1977. No. 6. The distribution and ecology of the aquatic molluscan fauna of the Black River drainage basin in northern New York. D.

E Buckley, April 1977. No. 7. The fishes of Otsego Lake. R. C. MacWatters, May 1980. No. 8. The ecology of the aquatic macrophytes of Rat Cove, Otsego Lake, N.Y. F. A Vertucci, W. N. Harman and J. H. Peverly,

December 1981. No. 9. Pictorial keys to the aquatic mollusks of the upper Susquehanna. W. N. Harman, April 1982. No. 10. The dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata: Anisoptera and Zygoptera) of Otsego County, New York with illustrated keys

to the genera and species. L.S. House III, September 1982. No. 11. Some aspects of predator recognition and anti-predator behavior in the Black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus). A.

Kevin Gleason, November 1982. No. 12. Mating, aggression, and cement gland development in the crayfish, Cambarus bartoni. Richard E. Thomas, Jr., February

1983. No. 13. The systematics and ecology of Najadicola ingens (Koenike 1896) (Acarina: Hydrachnida) in Otsego Lake, New York.

Thomas Simmons, April 1983. No. 14. Hibernating bat populations in eastern New York State. Donald B. Clark, June 1983. No. 15. The fishes of Otsego Lake (2nd edition). R. C MacWatters, July 1983. No. 16. The effect of the internal seiche on zooplankton distribution in Lake Otsego. J. K. Hill, October 1983. No. 17. The potential use of wood as a supplemental energy source for Otsego County, New York: A preliminary examination.

Edward M. Mathieu, February 1984. No. 18. Ecological determinants of distribution for several small mammals: A central New York perspective. Daniel Osenni,

November 1984. No. 19. A self-guided tour of Goodyear Swamp Sanctuary. W. N. Harman and B. Higgins, February 1986. No. 20. The Chironomidae of Otsego Lake with keys to the immature stages of the subfamilies Tanypodinae and Diamesinae

(Diptera). J. P. Fagnani and W. N. Harman, August 1987. No. 21. The aquatic invertebrates of Goodyear Swamp Sanctuary, Otsego Lake, Otsego County, New York. Robert J. Montione,

April 1989. No. 22. The lake book: a guide to reducing water pollution at home. Otsego Lake Watershed Planning Report #1. W. N.

Harman, March 1990. No. 23. A model land use plan for the Otsego Lake Watershed. Phase II: The chemical limnology and water quality of Otsego

Lake, New York. Otsego Lake Watershed Planning Report Nos. 2a, 2b. T. J. Iannuzzi, January 1991. No. 24. The biology, invasion and control of the Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in North America. Otsego Lake

Watershed Planning Report No. 3. Leann Maxwell, February 1992. No. 25. Biological Field Station safety and health manual. W. N. Harman, May 1997. No. 26. Quantitative analysis of periphyton biomass and identification of periphyton in the tributaries of Otsego Lake, NY in

relation to selected environmental parameters. S. H. Komorosky, July 1994. No. 27. A limnological and biological survey of Weaver Lake, Herkimer County, New York. C.A. McArthur, August 1995. No. 28. Nested subsets of songbirds in Upstate New York woodlots. D. Dempsey, March 1996. No. 29. Hydrological and nutrient budgets for Otsego lake, N. Y. and relationships between land form/use and export rates of its

sub -basins. M. F. Albright, L. P. Sohacki, W. N. Harman, June 1996. No. 30. The State of Otsego Lake 1936-1996. W. N. Harman, L. P. Sohacki, M. F. Albright, January 1997. No. 31. A self-guided tour of Goodyear Swamp Sanctuary. W. N. Harman and B. Higgins (Revised by J. Lopez),1998. No. 32. Alewives in Otsego Lake N. Y.: A comparison of their direct and indirect mechanisms of impact on transparency and

Chlorophyll a. D. M. Warner, December 1999. No.33. Moe Pond limnology and fish population biology: An ecosystem approach. C. Mead McCoy, C. P. Madenjian, V. J.

Adams, W. N. Harman, D. M. Warner, M. F. Albright and L. P. Sohacki, January 2000. No. 34. Trout movements on Delaware River System tail-waters in New York State. Scott D. Stanton, September 2000. No. 35. Geochemistry of surface and subsurface water flow in the Otsego lake basin, Otsego County New York. Andrew R.

Fetterman, June 2001. No. 36 A fisheries survey of Peck Lake, Fulton County, New York. Laurie A. Trotta. June 2002. No. 37 Plans for the programmatic use and management of the State University of New York College at Oneonta Biological

Field Station upland natural resources, Willard N. Harman. May 2003. Continued inside back cover Annual Reports and Technical Reports published by the Biological Field Station are available at:

http://www.oneonta.edu/academics/biofld/publications.asp

CAZENOVIA LAKE: A COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN Daniel Kopec

Biological Field Station, Cooperstown, New York bfs.oneonta.edu

STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

AT ONEONTA

The information contained herein may not be reproduced without permission of the author(s) or the SUNY Oneonta

Biological Field Station

1

Abstract

Cazenovia Lake is a 1,184 acre lake in the Seneca/Oneida/Oswego Rivers drainage basin, located entirely within Madison County, New York. It has provided the community with recreational opportunities, drinking water, economic prosperity, and enhanced natural beauty for centuries. Currently, comparison of Citizens Statewide Lake Assessment Program (CSLAP) data from 2006 and 2011, along with observations of surrounding residents, indicates that Cazenovia Lake is becoming more productive. The lake was listed on the New York State Priority Waterbody List (PWL) in 1996 as being 'threatened' by excessive weeds and algae, and continues to exhibit symptoms of eutrophication. In 1990, the Madison County Planning Department contracted Coastal Environmental Services Inc. of Princeton, NJ to develop a comprehensive management plan for Cazenovia Lake and its watershed. The firm developed a phosphorus budget for the lake in 1992, estimating the internal and external sources of phosphorus, which has not been updated since its publication. Cazenovia Lake and its watershed have not remained static over the last 23 years; a nutrient budget update was necessary to reflect changes in the watershed and efforts to reduce pollutant loading. The results of this study have allowed for the update of the original lake management plan, which now reflects the long term goals of the Town of Cazenovia and stakeholders for Cazenovia Lake.

2

Acknowledgements

I would first like to express my sincere thanks to Willard N. Harman, Rufus J. Thayer Chair for Otsego Lake Research Director, for giving me the opportunity to pursue this study. I greatly appreciate his mentoring, as well as his goals with the Master of Science Lake Management program.

I place on record, my sincere gratitude to Holly Waterfield and Matthew Albright for

taking time out of their busy schedules to assist me with my piezometer work and map creation, as well as the plethora of water samples they analyzed for this study. I must also acknowledge Dr. Kenneth J. Wagner, Senior Water Resources Manager with ENSR, for kindly providing and guiding me with the LLRM model that was essential for the completion of my nutrient budget. I also place on record, my sense of gratitude to one and all who, directly or indirectly, have helped me in this endeavor.

I would also like to thank the Town of Cazenovia and Cazenovia Lake association for

their generous funding that allowed me to fulfill the elements of my program. Finally, I would like to thank my parents for their guidance. I would not be where I am

today without their love and endless support.

3

Table of Contents List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 4 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 5 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Methods......................................................................................................................................... 10

Establishment of Monitoring Sites............................................................................................ 10 Field Methodology .................................................................................................................... 10 Laboratory Methodology .......................................................................................................... 14

Lake Morphometry ....................................................................................................................... 15 Watershed Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 17

Watershed Basin Geology......................................................................................................... 18 Soils........................................................................................................................................... 18 Land Use ................................................................................................................................... 19

Limnological Characterization ...................................................................................................... 30 Physical Limnology .................................................................................................................. 30

Geology ................................................................................................................................. 30

Temperature ........................................................................................................................... 30

Transparency ......................................................................................................................... 31

Dissolved Oxygen.................................................................................................................. 33

Chemical Limnology ................................................................................................................ 34 Specific Conductance ............................................................................................................ 34

pH .......................................................................................................................................... 36

Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorus (P) .......................................................................................... 37

Plankton Community and Chlorophyll-a ...................................................................................... 43 Phytoplankton ........................................................................................................................... 43 Chlorophyll a ............................................................................................................................ 46 Zooplankton .............................................................................................................................. 48

Aquatic Macrophytes .................................................................................................................... 48 Fish Community............................................................................................................................ 54 Anthropogenic Sources of Coliform Bacteria............................................................................... 56 Trophic State Analysis .................................................................................................................. 57 Nutrient Budget ............................................................................................................................. 59

External Loading ....................................................................................................................... 62

4

Point Sources ......................................................................................................................... 62

Precipitation/Atmospheric Input ............................................................................................ 62

Piezometer/Groundwater Monitoring to Determine Septic System Input ............................. 63

Tributary Inflow and Surface Runoff .................................................................................... 64

Wildlife .................................................................................................................................. 64

Internal Loading ........................................................................................................................ 65 Watershed Public Opinion Survey ................................................................................................ 66 Discussion & Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 68 Cazenovia Lake & Watershed Management Plan ........................................................................ 70 References ..................................................................................................................................... 87 Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 92

Appendix A. Nutrient Concentrations: Piezometers ............................................................... 92 Appendix B. Nutrient Concentrations: Lake ........................................................................... 93 Appendix C. Physiochemical Water Quality Data: Lake ....................................................... 95 Appendix D. Watershed Survey ............................................................................................. 97

List of Tables Table 1. Summary of laboratory methods used for nutrient analysis. .......................................... 15 Table 2. Physical characteristics of the Cazenovia Lake basin. ................................................... 16 Table 3. Cazenovia Lake volume and area associated with depth contours. ................................ 16 Table 4. Hydrologic budget for Cazenovia Lake, 1992. ............................................................... 17 Table 5. Soil compositions present in the Cazenovia Lake watershed ......................................... 26 Table 6. Characteristics of predominant soil types in the Cazenovia Lake watershed ................. 27 Table 7. Land use categories found in the Cazenovia Lake watershed, 1992-2011. .................... 27 Table 8. Summary of Eurasian watermilfoil changes in the plant community from 2009 to 2014 influenced by management from 2009 to 2014 as documented in the late Summer/Fall survey of each year. ...................................................................................................................... 50 Table 9. Plant species present by year, number of locations, and plots in Cazenovia Lake from 302 littoral sample points, 2008-2013. ......................................................................................... 53 Table 10. Fish species present in Cazenovia Lake. ...................................................................... 56 Table 11. Carlson’s trophic state index values and classification of lakes (Carlson, 1977). ........ 58 Table 12. Carlson Trophic State Index for Cazenovia Lake 2013 – 2014. ................................... 58 Table 13. Types and sources of data used for LLRM set up. ....................................................... 60

5

List of Figures Figure 1. Bathymetric map of Cazenovia Lake showing profile site & contours (in feet) ..........9 Figure 2. Diagram depicting the Model 615 S piezometer, various components, and installation instructions. ..................................................................................................................................13 Figure 3. Map of bedrock geology in the Cazenovia Lake watershed .........................................20 Figure 4. Map of surficial geology in the Cazenovia Lake watershed ........................................21 Figure 5. Map of soil units in the Cazenovia Lake watershed .....................................................22 Figure 6. Map of soil drainage classes within the Cazenovia Lake watershed ............................23 Figure 7. Map of flooding frequency within the Cazenovia Lake watershed ..............................24 Figure 8. Map of water table depth within the Cazenovia Lake watershed .................................25 Figure 9. Map of septic system suitability ratings for soils in the Cazenovia Lake watershed. ..28 Figure 10. Broad land use and land use categories within the Cazenovia Lake watershed ........29 Figure 11. Temperature isopleths for Cazenovia Lake, 2014. Isopleths in °C. ...........................31 Figure 12. Annual summer (May through September) Secchi transparency,1988-2014. ...........32 Figure 13. Secchi transparency on each date measured, 2013-2015. ..........................................32 Figure 14. Dissolved oxygen isopleths for Cazenovia Lake, 2014. Isopleths in mg/l. ................34 Figure 15. Specific conductance isopleths for Cazenovia Lake, 2014. Isopleths in umho/cm. ...35 Figure 16. Mean summer epilimnetic (0-4m) specific conductance for Cazenovia Lake, 1988 – 2014..............................................................................................................................................35 Figure 17. pH isopleths for Cazenovia Lake, 2014. ....................................................................36 Figure 18. Mean summer epilimnetic (0-4m) pH for Cazenovia Lake, 1988 – 2014. Dotted lines represent NYSDEC water quality standards. ......................................................................37 Figure 19. Average summer TN:TP molar ratios, 2002-2014. ....................................................38 Figure 20. Total phosphorus isopleths for Cazenovia Lake. Isopleths in µg/l. ...........................39 Figure 21. Total phosphorus profile for 28 September 2013. ......................................................40 Figure 22. Total phosphorus profile for 23 September 2014. ......................................................40 Figure 23. Mean summer epilimnetic (0-4m) total phosphorus concentrations for Cazenovia Lake, 1988 – 2014........................................................................................................................41 Figure 24. Total Nitrogen isopleths for Cazenovia Lake, 2014. Isopleths in mg/l. .....................42 Figure 25. Nitrate+Nitrite isopleths for Cazenovia Lake, 2014. Isopleths in mg/l. .....................42 Figure 26. Open water phytoplankton sampling results from Cazenovia Lake, 2013. ................44 Figure 27. Shoreline phytoplankton sampling results from Cazenovia Lake, 2013. ...................45 Figure 28. Open water phytoplankton sampling results from Cazenovia Lake, 2014. ................45 Figure 29. Shoreline phytoplankton sampling results from Cazenovia Lake, 2014. ...................46 Figure 30. Mean summer epilimnetic (0-4m) Chlorophylla concentrations for Cazenovia Lake, 1988 – 2014. Dotted lines represent NYSDEC trophic classifications. ......................................47 Figure 31. Chlorophylla isopleths for Cazenovia Lake, 2014. Isopleths in µg/l. .........................47

6

Figure 32. Sample point locations in Cazenovia Lake where rake-toss measurements were collected, 2013. ...........................................................................................................................51 Figure 33. Sample point locations in Cazenovia Lake where rake-toss measurements were collected, 2013. ...........................................................................................................................52 Figure 34. Map of sub-watershed delineations for the Cazenovia Lake watershed ...................61 Figure 35. Items of great concern for environmental quality, based on the 2014 Cazenovia Lake watershed survey. .........................................................................................................................67 Figure 36. Items of great concern for safety on Cazenovia Lake, based on the 2014 watershed survey. ..........................................................................................................................................67 Figure 37. Items of great concern for having negative effects on Cazenovia Lake, based on the 2014 watershed survey. ................................................................................................................68

7

Introduction

Cazenovia Lake is a 1,184 acre (479 ha) lake in the Oswego River drainage basin located entirely within Madison County, New York. Its geographic center is at approximately 42°57’33” north latitude, 75°53’20” west longitude. It is the largest lake within Madison County with a watershed encompassing 5,552 acres (2,247 ha). There is one major unnamed tributary that provides inflow from the north as well as numerous minor inflows from intermittent streams that discharge along the eastern and western shores. The lake discharges into Chittenango Creek by means of a Class B waterway. In the mid 1800’s, a dam was placed on the lake outlet at Chittenango Creek to create a reservoir for the New York State Barge Canal System. Construction of the dam expanded the lakes natural southern basin and flooded low-lying areas to the north, creating an additional shallower basin in the north.

Cazenovia Lake and its tributaries are given a Class A designation by the New York State

Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), therefore Cazenovia Lake’s water quality is deemed suitable for drinking water, water contact recreation, fishing, and fish propagation. The lake was listed on the Seneca/Oneida/Oswego Rivers drainage basin Priority Waterbody List (PWL) in 1996. The PWL is an inventory of all New York State waters that have some degree of or potential impairment of designated water uses. Cazenovia Lake was listed as “threatened” as a result of boating, bathing, and aesthetics being stressed by excessive growth of aquatic macrophytes/plants and algae (NYSDEC, 2011).

Cazenovia Lake has provided the community with recreational opportunities, drinking

water, economic prosperity, and enhanced natural beauty for centuries. Community members within the Cazenovia Lake watershed formed the Cazenovia Lake Association (CLA) in 1957, with their mission being “the protection, restoration, and stewardship of Cazenovia Lake and its watershed”. In 1997, the CLA formed the Lake Foundation, a non-profit organization for raising a large endowment to preserve the long-term health and social benefits of the lake. The CLA provides educational resources and activities to the community, such as boat safety classes, school programs, research studies, and newsletters. Since 1998, the CLA has participated in the New York State Federation of Lakes Association (NYSFOLA) Citizens Statewide Lake Assessment Program (CSLAP). This annual monitoring program measures trophic state indicators and provides information needed to asses temporal trends in water quality. Additional activities include aquatic weed harvesting, CSLAP water quality monitoring, and advocacy for environmentally conscious development in the watershed area. In 2008, the Town and Village of Cazenovia entered into an intermunicipal agreement creating the non-for-profit Cazenovia Lake Watershed Council, which shares the same goals as the Cazenovia Lake Association.

Currently, comparison of CSLAP data from 2006 and 2011, along with anecdotal

observations of surrounding residents, implies that Cazenovia Lake is becoming more

8

productive. The lake was classified as oligotrophic in 1991, 1996, and 2001. In 1992, 1994, and 2004 the lake was classified as mesotrophic. In 2006 the lake received a meso-oligotrophic status by the DEC and is currently classified as mesotrophic in the latest 2011 CSLAP report. In addition, macrophyte species (weeds) have been documented yearly by individual surveys, with a maximum of 36 macrophyte species being observed in 2011. Among all these species, Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) dominated the lakes littoral area. This invasive aquatic weed, along with cyanobacteria blooms, caused the lake to be listed on the PWL list, and prompted action from stakeholders around the lake. Herbicides have been used in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2014 to control the Eurasian water milfoil. The Town of Cazenovia has primarily relied on harvesting as a method for macrophyte control. Some residents have employed alternate methods such as benthic barriers, suction dredging and hand pulling. Additional nuisance exotic species that have been introduced to Cazenovia Lake, and are still present, include curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), starry stonewort (Nitellopsis obtusa), and zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha). Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) were reported in a 1991 fishery survey but have not been reported in any other surveys following that year. The lake exhibited cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) blooms in 2012, 2013, and 2014.

In 1990, the Madison County Planning Department contracted Coastal Environmental

Services Inc. of Princeton, NJ to develop a comprehensive management plan for Cazenovia Lake and its watershed. Environmental scientists from this company collected water samples from the lake and watershed streams in August 1990 and July 1991. The firm developed a phosphorus budget for Cazenovia Lake, estimating the internal and external sources of phosphorus. A Cazenovia Lake and Watershed Management Plan was completed in 1992, based on monitoring data collected from 1990-1991, and has not been updated since its publication. The Town of Cazenovia and State University of New York at Oneonta have arranged to provide assistance with updating the plan, including further data collection and analysis. The primary goal of this study was to provide the Town of Cazenovia with an updated comprehensive lake management plan, with the main focus of updating the phosphorus budget for Cazenovia Lake.

9

Profile Site

Death Point

Owera Point

Beckwith Bay

Pickerel Point

Gypsy Bay Park

Lakeside Park

Lakeland Park 0 1 0.5

Miles

Helen L. McKnitt State Park

Figure 1. Bathymetric map of Cazenovia Lake showing profile site & contours (in feet). (modified from NYSDEC, 2014)

10

Methods

Establishment of Monitoring Sites

In order to study water quality, physical and chemical characteristics of Cazenovia Lake were surveyed in the deepest section, labeled as Profile Site on the bathymetric map (Figure 1). This sampling point was considered the most representative of the lake and its tributary system (Holdren, Jones, & Taggart, 2001). The maximum recorded depth at this location was 13.7 meters (45 feet). Field sampling started on September 23, 2013 and concluded on July 1, 2015.

There were a total of 12 lake front residents who volunteered their properties as potential

sites for the piezometer study. A piezometer is a device that is normally used to measure liquid pressure of groundwater at a specific point, but can also be used to retrieve water samples from specific depths, which was the case in this study. The goal was to evaluate the potential impact of phosphorus migration from septic tanks on groundwater quality. The Town of Cazenovia provided $12,000 to procure piezometers and materials, which allowed for seven properties to be chosen as effective monitoring locations. The sites were chosen based on the age of the home and septic system, as well as even distribution around the lake. Five of the sites consisted of properties with aged septic systems and/or leach fields, which would have a higher probability of system failure and/or septic leachate reaching the lake. These five sites consisted of properties that were not connected to the sewer system, and two sites were chosen as controls. Of the two control sites, one consisted of a sewered property and the other a public carry boat access point near west of Gypsy Bay Park (Figure 1).

Exact property locations cannot be divulged in this report for the sake of requested

anonymity on the homeowner’s behalf. Instead, the properties are referred to by their general location around the perimeter of the lake. The study sites are located at the southwest, west, north, northeast, and east portions of the lake. Piezometer placement for each property was dependent on the location of the septic system leach field. Piezometers were placed down gradient of each septic system at the shoreline on each property in order to accurately measure phosphorus concentrations that were most likely reaching Cazenovia Lake. Diagrams of each study site with piezometer placement relative to the septic system, and phosphorus concentrations, are provided in Appendix A.

Field Methodology Physical and chemical limnological characteristics of the lake were measured with the

use of the YSI 6820 V2 Compact Sonde (Analytics, 2012) at the above mentioned site. Attached to the sonde were sensors for temperature, dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a, specific conductivity, pH, and pressure, with the last in order to accurately measure the depth of the sonde beneath the water surface. Equipment calibrations were performed immediately prior to

11

each sampling event, according to YSI guidelines (YSI, 2010). Measurements involved submersing the YSI Sonde to each desired depth. Readings for each of the previously listed attributes were recorded at an interval of every meter, totaling 12-13 measurements for each attribute on each individual date.

Water samples for chemical analysis were collected at an interval of 4 meters with the

use of a Kemmerer water sampler (WILDCO, 2015), which consists of a hollow P.V.C tube with two rubber stoppers overlying each end. In operation, the sampler was lowered to the desired depths of 0, 4, 8, and 12 meters, and closed by the means of a brass messenger dropped from the surface. The messenger allows for the rubber stoppers to plug the P.V.C tube at the desired depth and enables one to retrieve an unmodified sample when brought to the surface. The water was released from the Kemmerer into 125ml acid washed sample bottles and stored in a cooler, in order to prevent excessive temperature change and better preserve the samples. These samples were then analyzed in an analytical lab at the SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station for total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), ammonia, and nitrate and nitrite. Water transparency was measured with a Secchi disk. A Secchi disk is an 8-inch (20 cm) disk with alternating black and white quadrants. It is lowered into the water until it can be no longer seen by the observer and the depth is recorded. Then it is lowered further. The disk is then raised until it becomes visible again and that depth is recorded as well. These two depths are averaged and the value is a measure of the transparency of the water.

Cazenovia Lake is a hardwater lake within a region predominated by sandstones and

carbonate formations; as such, alkalinity and hardness were not expected to change considerably throughout the two year study. These attributes were not measured since they are measured yearly through the Citizens Statewide Lake Assessment Program (CSLAP). CSLAP is a volunteer lake monitoring and education program that is managed by Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and New York State Federation of Lake Associations (NYSFOLA). Its major objectives are to collect lake data for representative lakes throughout New York State, identify lake problems and changes in water quality, and educate the public about lake conservation. The data are used to report water quality information and document lake conditions for present or future management.

There are many variations of piezometer models available for groundwater sampling. The

model chosen for this groundwater study was the 615 S Drive-Point Piezometer produced by Solinst Canada Ltd. The components of this model and installation instructions can be seen in Figure 2. Model 615 drive-point piezometers have a stainless steel, 50 mesh cylindrical filter-screen, within a 3/4" (20 mm) stainless steel drive-point body, screen support and an optional fitting for attachment of sample tubing. The 615 S model has an inner barbed fitting for 5/8" outside diameter (OD) x 1/2" interior diameter (ID) (16 mm x 12 mm) low-density polyethylene (LDPE) or Teflon lined sample tubing. This prevents sample water from contacting the extension

12

rods, and maintains high sample integrity, even when inexpensive galvanized steel extensions are used. The strengthened connector at the top of the drive-point acts as an annular seal, which avoids contamination from higher levels in the hole (Solinst Canada Ltd., 2014). This model also includes a single use, 1-1/2" (38 mm) diameter shield to avoid smearing and plugging of the screen during installation. This prevents contamination from overlying soil layers as the piezometer tip is driven to the desired depth. The 5/8" OD x 1/2" ID (16 mm x 12 mm) LDPE or Teflon lined sample tubing manufactured by Solinst was used as well. Less costly galvanized steel piping, couplings, and caps were locally sourced at plumbing and hardware stores in order to keep the cost within budget, and obtain sufficient piezometers. A total of 48 piezometers were purchased but only 37 were installed. Of the remaining 11 piezometers, 5 became damaged during installation and/or were irretrievable from the soil, while 6 remained unused. The decision to refrain from installing the rest of the piezometers was due to a higher occurrence of equipment damage as we neared the end of the installation, on the east portion of Cazenovia Lake. This damage was made obvious by the increase in soil resistance to our desired driving depths which prevented us from reaching groundwater at deeper depths.

13

Figure 2. Diagram depicting the Model 615 S piezometer, various components, and installation instructions. (Solinst Canada Ltd., 2014)

14

Prior to the start of installation, the proper safety precautions had to be taken and the agency Dig Safely New York (DSNY) was contacted to mark any underground piping or wiring, to prevent any damage from occurring at each study site. Piezometers were installed using a post driver provided and handled by Town of Cazenovia Highway Department personnel. The piezometer installation manual instructs the installer to use a 25 pound (lb) manual slide hammer, which the first two piezometers were installed with over the course of 3 hours. This method, however, was not viable for the installation of all 37 piezometers in a timely manner. The prevailing silty clay loam soils in this area lead to high resistance throughout installation. Piezometer driving depths and installation rates at individual properties varied, indicating that small scale variations exist within the glacially deposited soils of this area. Installation times remained lengthy even with the use of the power driven post driver, averaging at about 40 minutes per piezometer. Installation was planned to be completed by June 2014 but delayed until the end of August 2014 because of weather, availability of Town of Cazenovia Highway Department human resources, tree roots at the edge of properties, soil composition/resistance, and numerous instances of equipment damage. Installation times were also noticeably longer on the north and east lake shorelines compared to the other sections of the watershed. After their installation, the piezometer heads were sealed with bentonite clay in order to prevent surface water from percolating down along the piezometer piping and ultimately contaminating samples. Piezometer groundwater samples were retrieved through the use of a peristaltic pump, which uses the suction lift principle. This method provides a regulated, steady flow that will lift water up to 10 m (32 ft) at sea level (Solinst Canada Ltd., 2014).

Piezometer sampling started at the end of their installation in late August 2014, and was

conducted immediately after lake sampling for each date from August 20, 2014 through July 31, 2015, with the exception of April 14, 2015 when ice cover on the lake was still present. Sampling was attempted on a bi-weekly status but quickly became sporadic due to weather and time constraints. Sampling dates are provided in Appendix A.

Laboratory Methodology All laboratory analyses were performed at the SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station by staff members Holly Waterfield and Matthew Albright. Upon return to the laboratory, samples were preserved with 1ml H2SO4 per 125ml of water sample. Total phosphorus was analyzed by persulfate digestion followed by single reagent ascorbic acid (Liao and Marten 2001).Total nitrogen concentrations were determined using cadmium reduction (Pritzlaff 2003) following peroxodisulfate digestion (Ebina et al. 1983). A summary of the methods used for each attribute are summarized in Table 1. Alkalinity and hardness were not expected to change considerably and were not analyzed since they are measured yearly through CSLAP.

All glassware and containers used in conjunction with the analysis of these samples were acid washed. Acid washing involved soaking for at least 24 hours in a 10% hydrochloric acid

15

solution, followed by rinsing three times with hot tap water, then two times with distilled water. Containers were air dried while inverted, and covered with foil during storage. Results for each sample date are listed in Appendix A and Appendix B.

Table 1. Summary of laboratory methods used for nutrient analysis.

Parameter Preservation Method Reference Detection Limit

Total phosphorus-P H2SO4 to pH < 2

Persulfate digestion followed by single reagent ascorbic acid

Liao and Marten 2001 0.004 mg/l

Total nitrogen-N H2SO4 to pH < 2

Cadmium reduction method following peroxodisulfate digestion

Pritzlaff 2003; Ebina et al. 1983 0.04 mg/l

Nitrate+nitrite-N H2SO4 to pH < 2

Cadmium reduction method Pritzlaff 2003 0.02 mg/l

Ammonia-N H2SO4 to pH

< 2 Phenolate method Liao 2001 0.02 mg/l

Lake Morphometry

Cazenovia Lake attained its existing dimensions as a result of the construction of a dam in the mid-1800s, which resulted in an expansion of the lake’s natural basin (south basin) and low lying lands in the north. The lake is characterized by two distinct basins. The southern basin is deeper, with a maximum depth of 14 meters, while the significantly shallower northern basin reaches a maximum depth of 6 meters. Prominent shorelines are distinguished by Pickerel Point (northwest shore), Death Point (southeast shore), Owera Point (northeast shore) and Beckwith Bay (west shore) (Coastal Environmental Services, Inc., 1992) (Figure 1). Physical characteristics of Cazenovia Lake are summarized in Tables 2 & 3.

16

Table 2. Physical characteristics of the Cazenovia Lake basin.

Characteristic English Units Metric Units

Max Depth 46 ft 14.02 m Mean Depth 20.86 ft 6.36 m Relative Depth 60.19 % Volume 8.5 x 10⁹ gal 3.21 x 10⁷ m³ Maximum Length 3.90 mi 6.27 km Max Effective Length 3.49 mi 5.61 km Maximum Width 0.79 mi 1.27 km Maximum Effective Width 0.79 mi 1.27 km Mean Width 0.46 mi 0.74 km Shoreline Length 9.01 mi 14.5 km Shoreline Development 1.94 Watershed to Lake Ratio 4.8 : 1 Hydraulic Retention Time 2.4 yrs Areal Hypolimnetic Oxygen Deficit (AHOD) 0.050 mg•cm²•day

Table 3. Cazenovia Lake volume and area associated with depth contours. (modified from Coastal Environmental Services Inc., 1992).

Depth Lake Bottom Area Volume feet meters acres hectares % ft³ m³ %

0 - 10 0 - 3.0 219 88.6 19.1 41,950,000 1,187,890 3.7 10 - 20 3.0 - 6.1 217 87.7 18.9 124,700,000 3,531,105 11.0 20 - 30 6.1 - 9.1 202 81.6 17.6 193,800,000 5,487,796 17.1 30 - 40 9.1 - 12.2 227 91.8 19.8 304,900,000 8,633,792 26.9 40 - 45 12.2 - 13.7 200 81.2 17.5 327,600,000 9,276,584 28.9

> 45 > 13.7 81 32.9 7.1 140,500,000 3,978,510 12.4 TOTAL 1,146 463.8 100 1,134,000,000 32,111,251 100

17

Watershed Characteristics

Lakes are part of a larger ecosystem that includes the surrounding land, which drains into the lake and dictates water quality. The Cazenovia Lake watershed is 5,552 acres (2,247 ha) and encompasses 8.6 square miles (22.3 km2), which is relatively small compared to the size of the lake. In general, with all other watershed characters held constant, a smaller watershed is beneficial in the sense that there is less runoff and associated sediment/nutrient loading. A downfall is that the hydraulic residence time of the waterbody is longer, which provides more time for algal biomass to accumulate if sufficient nutrients are present. The boundaries of the watershed are defined by ridgelines and geologic formations, which run in a north-south direction to the east and west of the lake. The most prominent features are Palmer Hill to the west and Chittenango Falls to the east (Coastal Environmental Services, Inc., 1992). Chittenango Falls is located within a New York State Park off NY Route 13, between Cazenovia and Chittenango. This feature is most important in that it provides habitat to the NYS endangered Chittenango ovate amber snail (Novisuccinea chittenangoensis), the only population that has been documented anywhere. The falls is in Chittenango Creek, the outlet of Cazenovia Lake, which travels north into Oneida Lake. The majority of the tributaries to Cazenovia Lake are intermittent. There are only four areas along the eastern shoreline that support permanent streams. Two relatively large NYSDEC wetland systems exist to the north and south of Cazenovia Lake, through which inflow to the lake also occurs. A hydrologic budget constructed by Coastal Environmental Services is summarized in 4. Runoff from the watershed accounts for 70% of the hydrologic budget, followed by 20% from groundwater, and 10% from precipitation (accounting for evaporation).

Table 4. Hydrologic budget for Cazenovia Lake, 1992 (modified from Coastal Environmental Services, Inc. 1992).

Budget Parameter Estimated contribution

(average hydrologic year) Runoff from watershed 9.05 * 106 m3/yr Precipitation onto lake surface (corrected for evaporation) 1.35*106 m3/yr

Groundwater flow 2.68 *106m3/yr Annual inflow volume 1.31 * 107m3/yr

Lake volume 3.21 * 107m3 Water residence time 2.4 yrs

18

Watershed Basin Geology

The Cazenovia Lake watershed is located in the Appalachian Uplands physiographic province. The area is a mature plateau that has been eroded and dissected by a series of valleys that are several hundred feet deep. The plateau itself consists of various layers of sandstone, siltstone, limestone and textured shale of the Devonian age. Specifically, the Cazenovia Lake watershed is entirely composed of sedimentary rocks of the Skaneateles Formation. During the Paleozoic era, most of central North America was intermittently flooded by marine seas which were inhabited by life forms such as corals, crinoids, brachiopods, and mollusks. As a result, the seas deposited lime silts, clays, sand and salts, which eventually consolidated into limestone, shale, sandstone, halite and gypsum (U.S. EPA, 2012). Although these rocks have a moderate mineral content, they are unreactive, and do not typically cause adversely high total dissolved solids levels in the overlying waters (Coastal Environmental Services, Inc., 1992). During the Pleistocene epoch, the area was subjected to advancement and retreat of glaciers. Sand, silt, clay and boulders were deposited by glaciers in features such as moraines, flat till plains, till drumlins, and eskers (U.S. EPA, 2012). Surficially, the watershed is characterized by a till moraine in the southeast, bedrock in the southwest, and predominated by glacial till in the remaining area of the watershed. The lake resulted from processes that occurred during the final retreat of the Laurentide glacier. Maps of the bedrock and surficial geology in the Cazenovia Lake watershed are provided in Figure 3 and Figure 4.

Soils Most of the soils in Madison County formed in material that was deposited as a result of glaciation. A list of soil associations and percentage of the watershed they compose is illustrated in Table 5. The major soil types in the Cazenovia Lake watershed are the Honeoye-Lima (gently sloping) and Appleton (nearly level) Associations. The characteristics of these major soil types are provided in Table 6. A subsurface water management (septic suitability) survey through the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) indicated that the majority (73.8%) of the soils in the lake’s watershed are “very limited”. This classification means that the soils have one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use, the limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation or expensive installation procedures, and poor performance can be expected. Cazenovia soils are “very deep and deep”, moderately well drained soils formed in loamy till. The soils are on undulating to very steep land forms on till plains. The till contains limestone with an admixture of reddish lake-laid clays or reddish clay shale. Slope ranges from 0 to 45 percent. The elevation ranges from 300 to 1500 feet (90 to 460 m) above sea-level. Saturated hydraulic conductivity is moderately high to high in the surface layer and subsoil, and moderately low to moderately high in the substratum. Thickness of solum ranges from 20 to 45 inches (50.8 to 114.3 cm). Depth to carbonates range from 18 to 45 inches (45.72 to 114.3 cm). Bedrock is deeper than 40 inches (101.2 cm). The thickness of till varies considerably, ranging from non-existent on steep rock outcrops to two to ten feet on the more gentle slopes. Rock fragments range from between 2 to 25 percent by

19

volume in the solum and from 10 to 40 percent in the C horizon. Rock fragments are dominantly gravel and cobbles but also include some stones and channery fragments. The potential for surface runoff is low to very high (USDA-NRCS Soil Survey Division, 2006). Soil textures tend to be variable depending on their locations in the watershed, and range from mulch to loams with varying amounts of gravel and stones (U.S. EPA, 2012). Detailed maps of soil units, soil drainage classes, flooding frequency, water table depth, and septic suitability in the lake’s watershed are provided as Figures 5-9.

Land Use Land use in the Cazenovia Lake watershed was identified by the Madison County

Planning Department in 1991 on the basis of aerial photography and zoning maps. Using this data, Coastal Environmental Services determined that five major land use categories characterize the lake’s watershed: forested, agricultural, residential, pasture, and wetland. Land use in the Cazenovia Lake watershed was most recently identified in this study through ArcGIS software with the most recent national land cover data from 2011. The same land use categories were identified in 2011 as in the 1992 Coastal Environmental Services report.

The lake watershed area has had a steady increase in residential development, which is

believed to be one of the causes of the observed increase in nutrient levels. As of 2008, approximately 1,600 households resided within the watershed. Residential properties accounted for 66.4% of land use within the Town of Cazenovia and vacant land comprised 19.8% (Environmental Design & Research, Landscape Architecture, Planning, Environmental Services,Engineering and Surveying, P.C., 2008). The majority of the residential land is associated with the lake’s shoreline. In addition to residential uses, the watershed area has two community service parcels on the west side, vacant land at the north end of the lake, and recreational land uses on the south and southeast side of the lake in and near the Village of Cazenovia. Other land uses and vegetative cover types in the watershed include agriculture, wetlands, forests, public use, and open space. The recreational land uses include a private restaurant, a private yacht club, and four public parks. Lakeland Park, Lakeside Park, Helen L. McKnitt State Park, and Gypsy Bay Park provide public access to the lake. Limited public boat access is available at the Lakeside Park boat launch for permit holders entry, which is available from the Cazenovia Village clerk. A small carry-in boat launch and parking area is located at the lake’s south shore.

The major land use categories and cover types found within Cazenovia Lake’s watershed in 2011 are summarized in Table 7 and illustrated in Figure 10. The methods for determining land use and land cover type have changed over time, thus direct comparisons between the 1992 Coastal Environmental Services, Inc. report, 2006 NLCD, and 2011 NLCD are limited in scope.

20

Km 2.09 4.18 0 0.523 1.04 3.14

Figure 3. Map of bedrock geology in the Cazenovia Lake watershed (data source: NYSDEC, 2013)

21

Km 2.09 4.18 0 0.523 1.04 3.14

Figure 4. Map of surficial geology in the Cazenovia Lake watershed (data source: NYSDEC, 2013)

22

Km 2.09 4.18 0 0.523 1.04 3.14

Figure 5. Map of soil units in the Cazenovia Lake watershed (data source: NYSDEC, 2013)

23

Km 2.09 4.18 0 0.523 1.04 3.14

Figure 6. Map of soil drainage classes within the Cazenovia Lake watershed (data source: NYSDEC, 2013)

24

Km 2.09 4.18 0 0.523 1.04 3.14

Figure 7. Map of flooding frequency within the Cazenovia Lake watershed

25

Km 2.09 4.18 0 0.523 1.04 3.14

Figure 8. Map of water table depth within the Cazenovia Lake watershed

26

Table 5. Soil compositions present in the Cazenovia Lake watershed (data source: NRCS, 2013)

Soil Association Percentage of Watershed

ALDEN 0.49 ANGOLA 1.87

APPLETON 8.31 ARKPORT 0.20 AURORA 8.28

CANANDAIGUA 0.63 CARLISLE 1.64

CAZENOVIA 0.40 CONESUS 0.45

FARMINGTON 3.31 FLUVAQUENTS 0.17

HALSEY 0.18 HERKIMER 0.43 HONEOYE 45.06 HOWARD 0.06 LANSING 7.63

LIMA 15.76 LYONS 2.40

NIAGARA 0.11 OVID 0.45

PALMS 0.25 PALMYRA 0.25

PHELPS 0.09 TEEL 0.26

TULLER 0.21 UDORTHENTS 0.39

WASSAIC 0.22 WAYLAND 0.48

27

Table 6. Characteristics of predominant soil types in the Cazenovia Lake watershed (modified from Coastal Environmental Services Inc, 1992)

Soil Name Percent of Watershed Erodibility

Depth (ft) to

Seasonal Water

Depth (in) to

Bedrock

Septic Suitability

Honeoye 45.06 Slight 3.0 - 6.0 >60 Severe: percs slowly

Lima 15.76 Slight 1.5 - 2.0 >60 Severe: percs slowly

Appleton 8.31 Slight 0.5 - 1.5 >60 Severe: percs

slowly, wetness

Aurora 8.28 Slight 1.5 - 2 20 - 40 Severe: percs slowly,

Table 7. Land use categories found in the Cazenovia Lake watershed, 1992-2011. (data source: Coastal Environmental Services, Inc 1992, NLCD 2001-2011)

Land Use Category Land Use Area by Year 1992 2001 2006 2011

Open Water 1160.18 1171.80 1171.80 1171.80 Developed, Open Space X 313.58 313.35 314.47

Developed, Low Intensity X 66.50 66.50 66.50 Developed, Medium Intensity X 12.90 12.68 12.90

Developed, High Intensity X 0.44 0.67 0.67 Deciduous Forest 976.50 1488.04 1490.04 1488.93 Evergreen Forest 110.02 205.49 206.16 195.71

Mixed Forest 123.73 103.41 103.41 103.41 Shrub/Scrub 550.15 665.85 664.74 676.52 Herbaceous 96.71 35.14 35.14 35.14 Hay/Pasture X 513.06 512.62 513.29

Cultivated Crops 1092.38 619.59 619.37 619.15 Woody Wetlands 182.37 291.11 289.56 290.00

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 85.34 21.57 22.68 22.68

28

Figure 9. Map of septic system suitability ratings for soils in the Cazenovia Lake watershed. (modified from NRCS, 2015)

29

Km 2.09 4.18 0 0.523 1.04 3.14

Figure 10. Broad land use and land use categories within the Cazenovia Lake watershed (data source: (Jin, et al., 2013)

30

Limnological Characterization

Physical Limnology

Geology Cazenovia Lake was formed approximately 10,000 years ago by glacial scouring in the last Pleistocene epoch. Receding glaciers carved the natural basin of the lake. The 1992 Coastal sediment accumulation survey reported that most of the lake bottom was firm sand and gravel with substantial organic sediment buildup in the cove northwest of Owera Point and 1 to 2 acres (0.40 to 0.80 ha) in the southwest. The sediments had an upper portion, 5-6 feet (1.52-1.83 m) thick, of dark brown, organic sediment underlain by 3+ feet of grey/white clay/sand sediment (Coastal Environmental Services, Inc., 1992). This was determined to be the result of deposition and decay of aquatic weeds and residual wetland plants.

Temperature Cazenovia Lake exhibits characteristics typical of a moderately deep lake of

middle/northern temperate latitudes or temperate climate/zone. The lake stratifies twice a year, during the summer and winter, i.e., the lake is dimictic. Mixing occurs during the spring and fall when the water is at the same temperature (or isothermal) from top to bottom. Figure 11 depicts thermal isopleths (year-long profile) for the lake over the year 2014. The X-axis (horizontal) denotes time from January 2014 through December 2014. The Y-axis (vertical) shows depth in meters. One can use an isopleth graph to obtain information on lake conditions for a particular date by drawing a line vertically, where this line crosses an isopleth, you can draw a horizontal line to find the depth at which that temperature (or other variable) occurred. Water column mixing occurred in early April and early October while stratification was evident by late May and continued into mid-September. The lake experienced annual ice cover by the beginning of January and ice out did not occur until late March – early April.

31

Sprin

g O

vertu

rn

Fall

Ove

rturn

Ice

Figure 11. Temperature isopleths for Cazenovia Lake, 2014. Isopleths in °C.

Transparency

Transparency, or clarity of the lake water, was measured as Secchi depth. Secchi depths can be correlated with phosphorus concentrations and chlorophyll a to determine the trophic status of a lake by using an index developed by Carlson (1977), although phosphorus and chlorophyll a should be used for a more definite representation (see Trophic State Analysis section). Also, exposure of the lake to the wind is related to the depth of the thermocline (NYSFOLA, 2009). Mean summertime (May-September) Secchi transparencies from 1988 to 2014 (CSLAP data) are summarized in Figure 12. The marked increase of clarity following 1994 is likely the result of the establishment of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), an exotic bivalve which has been recognized to increase clarity through algal grazing (Smith, Stevenson, Caraco, & Cole, 1998). Long term CSLAP data document recent Secchi depths to be shallower than immediately post invasion by the zebra mussels, which may indicate that the lake is stabilizing or there is an enhancement of algae growth since the invasion in 1996. Figure 13 shows Secchi depths collected from 2013-2015 in this study.

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Aug-13 Oct-13 Dec-13 Feb-14 Apr-14 Jun-14 Aug-14 Oct-14 Dec-14

Wat

er C

larit

y (m

)

Eutro

phic

O

ligot

roph

ic

Mes

otro

phic

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Av

g Su

mm

er W

ater

Cla

rity

(m)

Eutro

phic

O

ligot

roph

ic

Mes

otro

phic

Figure 12. Annual summer (May through September) Secchi transparency,1988-2014. Dotted lines represent NYSDEC trophic classifications. (Modified from NYSDEC, 2015)

Figure 13. Secchi transparency on each date measured, 2013-2015.

33

Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen (DO) is a measure of how much oxygen is dissolved in the water, and is a good indicator of water quality. The oxygen dissolved in lakes is crucial for the aquatic biota living there. In a dimictic lake such as Cazenovia, thermal stratification can establish rapidly at the beginning of summer and under the formation of ice in winter. Once thermal stratification or ice cover is established, it prevents the diffusion of atmospheric oxygen from the surface to deeper water. Since microbial decomposition of organic material is constantly occurring at the lake bottom, dissolved oxygen will continue to be consumed until the hypolimnetic water becomes anoxic. The extent and duration of anoxia in hypolimnetic waters is very important for fish and macroinvertebrates, as well as quantification of nutrients leaching from the substrate (Holdren, Jones, & Taggart, 2001). Larger animals, such as fish, will avoid anoxic or hypoxic water. This is also associated with the temperature tolerance of fish. Some species of fish, such as lake trout, and other aquatic organisms, such as chironomids, require a minimum of 4-5 mg/l of oxygen (NYSFOLA, 2009). If fish cannot find a refuge outside of hypoxic waters and intolerant temperatures, a large die-off or “fishkill” can occur. Anoxic conditions result in the release of biologically available phosphorus from sediments, and create an additional source of internal nutrient recycling.

Figure 14 displays dissolved oxygen (DO) isopleths for the year 2014. Higher surface

concentrations of DO can be seen in the winter months whereas lower concentrations are observed in the summer, reflecting the higher oxygen solubility at lower water temperature. Photosynthesis by planktonic algae under the ice may also increase DO in the upper water column. Anoxia within the hypolimnion is evident from late June to September, which is when we see the highest rate of nutrient recycling occurring (see Nitrogen and Phosphorus section).

34

Figure 14. Dissolved oxygen isopleths for Cazenovia Lake, 2014. Isopleths in mg/l.

Chemical Limnology

Specific Conductance Specific conductance gives an indication of dissolved ions in solution without defining

the particular ions present. It is an indirect measure of the presence of dissolved solids such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, phosphate, sodium, magnesium, calcium, and iron, and can be used as an indicator of water pollution. Conductivity is also used to identify and document spikes in ion concentrations that are typically associated with inputs of salt-based compounds. This can include accumulated road salts during spring runoff events, or septic leachate. When paired with optical brightener testing and Escherichia coli enumeration, elevated conductivity in near shore areas can help identify problem areas with septic systems. One such method was used on Cazenovia Lake in 2011 by James Cunningham of the Clean Water Institute (see Coliform Bacteria section). A yearlong profile of specific conductance for 2014 is displayed in Figure 15. Elevated specific conductance was observed in deeper waters from January – April. These elevated values are most likely the consequence of salt compounds washing into the lake from the watershed, during winter under ice cover. These salts may be originating from roadways that are treated by the Cazenovia Highway Department in the winter months. Figure 16 shows long term average summer epilimnetic specific conductance collected by CSLAP volunteers from 1988-2014. Cazenovia Lake exhibits values that characterize it as a hardwater lake.

8 14

35

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Avg

Sum

mer

Con

d (u

mho

/cm

)

Hardwater

Soft

wat

er

Figure 15. Specific conductance isopleths for Cazenovia Lake, 2014. Isopleths in umho/cm.

Figure 16. Mean summer epilimnetic (0-4m) specific conductance for Cazenovia Lake, 1988 – 2014. Dotted lines represent NYSDEC trophic classifications. (NYSDEC, 2015)

36

pH The pH is a measurement of the potential activity of hydrogen ions, i.e., how acidic or

basic a substance is. The pH of a waterbody can vary significantly depending on several factors. The most important factors are bedrock and soil composition, followed by plant growth/organic material, chemical compound runoff from the watershed, acid precipitation, coal mine drainage, and temperature (Oram, 2014). The New York State pH standard for waters Class C or higher is between 6.5 and 8.5 (NYSDEC, 2015). Cazenovia Lake pH values stayed within this range throughout the 2014 year (Fig. 17) as well as the long term CSLAP data (Fig. 18).

Figure 17. pH isopleths for Cazenovia Lake, 2014.

37

5

6

7

8

9

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Avg

Sum

mer

pH

Highly Alkaline (Above NYS WQ standard)

Circumneutral (Acceptable)

Acidic (Below NYS WQ standard)

Slightly Alkaline (Acceptable)

Figure 18. Mean summer epilimnetic (0-4m) pH for Cazenovia Lake, 1988 – 2014. Dotted lines represent NYSDEC water quality standards. (NYSDEC, 2015)

Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorus (P) Nutrients are classified as organic and inorganic compounds such as phosphate, nitrate, and carbon based materials. N and P are necessary for organism functioning, but in excess, are the primary causes of accelerated eutrophication. There are many natural N & P sources, however in most cases, the total annual load from natural sources is relatively low and does not promote excessive plant and algal growth. Human activities, such as construction, agriculture, and discharge of sewage effluent increase loading of nutrients and sediment which can accelerate natural lake succession processes. Phosphorus is most frequently the limiting nutrient of lakes in our region and thus is the nutrient of concern when trying to reduce external nutrient inputs. It is analyzed as total phosphorus (TP; includes both organic and inorganic forms) in this study. Compared to phosphorus, nitrogen is readily available and abundant within our atmosphere, therefore it is less frequently the limiting nutrient in lakes since diffusion from the atmosphere is always occurring (NYSFOLA, 2009). It is measured as total nitrogen (organic & inorganic form) and nitrate+nitrite (inorganic form, excluding ammonia) in this study. Nitrate is the form of nitrogen most bioavailable for algal uptake.

Figure 19 displays average summer N:P molar ratios in Cazenovia Lake from 2002-2014. These ratios indicate that phosphorus is most likely the limiting nutrient in Cazenovia Lake, thus

38

1

10

100

1000

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Avg

Sum

mer

TN

:TP

Phosphorus Limited

Nitrogen Limited

N or P Limited

being the main focus of nutrient abatement in Cazenovia Lake’s watershed. All nutrient data collected on Cazenovia Lake between 2013 and 2015 are shown in Appendix B.

Figure 19. Average summer TN:TP molar ratios, 2002-2014. (Source: NYSDEC, 2015)

Phosphorus

According to the NYSDEC index (NYSFOLA, 2009), Cazenovia Lake has moderate levels of phosphorus. Total phosphorus (TP) concentrations during fall turnover in 2013 averaged at 26 µg/l, and 23 µg/l during fall turnover in 2014. Total phosphorus concentrations during spring overturn in 2014 averaged at 9 µg/l and 12 µg/l in spring of 2015. Concentrations for the 2014 year were lower than those observed by Coastal Environmental Services in 1991. In their report, mean spring TP concentration at the south end of the lake was 43 µg/l, and ranged from 20-70 µg/l. Figure 20 displays yearlong TP isopleths for 2014 and shows that a plume of water with elevated phosphorus concentrations rose into the epilimnion by the beginning of August, much earlier than expected. This may have been caused by a disturbance to the metalimnion from a major storm event or a long period of strong wind. Data from the nearest weather station in Syracuse (KSYR) indicate there were frequent thunderstorms and rain events during that time. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show TP profiles on 28 September 2013 and 23 September 2014. The highest concentrations of TP were observed in the hypolimnion, indicating an internal loading. Internal P loading is a self-enhancing process that fertilizes water systems (Nurnberg & Peters, 1984). Internal loading of phosphorus may also shift a system from P to N limitation, as well as boost production. This process promotes increased settling of detritus and

39

associated increase of oxygen demand in water, which can produce even higher internal loads (Nurnberg, 1994). Phosphorus release into overlying waters occurs as a consequence of the reduction of iron/phosphorus complexes in anoxic environments (Bostrom et al., 1988).

Hypolimnetic TP was ten times higher on 28 September 2013 than 23 September 2014,

688 µg/l compared to 68 µg/l. Figure 23 shows mean epilimnetic TP concentrations over a longer timeframe, 1988-2014. This long term figure from CSLAP data shows that TP levels in the epilimnion have been gradually increasing since 1988. It should be noted that total phosphorus CSLAP measurements may vary depending on the date at which they were taken in relation with internal loading events. The CSLAP data may contain measurements taken before or after internal loading occurred on each sampling year, and might misrepresent long term trends.

Figure 20. Total phosphorus isopleths for Cazenovia Lake, 2014. Isopleths in µg/l.

40

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Dept

h (m

)

Total Phosphorus (µg/l)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800De

pth

(m)

Total Phosphorus (µg/l)

Figure 21. Total phosphorus profile for 28 September 2013.

Figure 22. Total phosphorus profile for 23 September 2014.

41

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Avg

Sum

mer

TP

(µg/

l)

Eutrophic

Mesotrophic

Oligotrophic

Figure 23. Mean summer epilimnetic (0-4m) total phosphorus concentrations for Cazenovia Lake, 1988 – 2014. Dotted lines represent NYSDEC trophic classifications. (NYSDEC, 2015)

Nitrogen

Annual profiles of total nitrogen (TN) for 2014 are provided in Figure 24. Data for 4/27/14 was excluded from Fig. 24 due to lab error, and is listed in Appendix B. During summer stratification, TN concentrations were at a minimum of 0.28 mg/l and peaked at 0.68 mg/l towards the beginning of August. The increase of TN within the hypolimnion during stratification is evident in 2013 and 2014, marked by a presence of elevated ammonia concentrations. Ammonia concentrations within the hypolimnion during the 2013 year peaked at 1.32 mg/l on September 23, and concentrations seen in 2014 peaked at 0.29 mg/l on September 28 (Appendix B). Nitrate+nitrite averaged 0.10 mg/l at spring overturn in 2014 and 0.10 mg/l at spring overturn in 2015. In 2014, nitrate+nitrite levels were highest in March and declined to those below detection (<0.02 mg/l) by June, which is presumed to be from algal uptake. This depletion of nitrate and nitrite suggests a shift towards nitrogen limitation and allows for atmospheric nitrogen fixing blue-green algae to have a competitive advantage over other taxa of algae.

42

Figure 24. Total Nitrogen isopleths for Cazenovia Lake, 2014. Isopleths in mg/l. (4/27/14 data point excluded due to possible lab error)

Figure 25. Nitrate+Nitrite isopleths for Cazenovia Lake, 2014. Isopleths in mg/l.

43

Plankton Community and Chlorophyll-a Phytoplankton are primary producers and the foundation of the aquatic food web. It supports the energy base for everything from zooplankton to fish, but not all types of zooplankters are beneficial. Some species can be detrimental, causing unsightly harmful algal blooms (HABs) that can potentially be toxic to animals (and humans). Phytoplankton biomass and species composition are sensitive indicators of trophic status, thus, they have been used to track environmental changes in lakes (Allinger & Reavie, 2013). Phytoplankton abundance is most commonly measured as chlorophyll a concentration in water.

Chlorophyll a is the major photosynthetic pigment in these microscopic algae or phytoplankters that are suspended in lake water. While it is the major pigment, it is not the only one present (chlorophyll b & c), major groups of algae vary in the pigments they produce. Being the major pigment, it is the most commonly analyzed and was measured in this study with the use of a sensor on the YSI Sonde.

Zooplankton (primary consumers) include a wide range of animals that range in size from

microscopic to macroscopic, and play an important role in a lake’s ecosystem and food chain as well. They are efficient grazers of phytoplankton and act as a valuable food source for fish and other organisms. Like phytoplankton, zooplankton drift along with water currents.

Phytoplankton According to Coastal’s report from 1992, Cazenovia Lake’s phytoplankton assemblage

was dominated by diatoms (genus Asterionella) and Chrysophytes (genus Dinobryon) in the spring. In the summer, there was a shift to dominance by blue-green algae (genus Coelosphaerium). The spring bloom concentrated at the surface whereas the high light intensity intolerant blue-green algae concentrated at greater depths (Coastal Environmental Services, Inc., 1992). The 1992 phytoplankton survey showed very low biomass dominated by cyanobacteria, including some species associated with taste and odor problems and potential toxin production, although the biomass (24.8 µg/l) was much too low to indicate problems.

The summer and fall phytoplankton community has been sampled yearly by the NYSDEC starting in 2011, as part of their harmful algal bloom (HAB) monitoring program. Sampling included open water and shoreline samples for most years. In 2011, five open water samples were taken from July-October and indicated no HAB. In 2012, eight open water samples taken from June-October indicated near HAB in mid-September. Two shoreline samples in September showed high concentration of cyanobacteria and high Microcystin-LR (MC-LR), a toxin produced by cyanobacteria. In 2013, seven open water samples were taken from July-September and indicated no HAB whereas eight shoreline samples showed high concentration of green algae in a July sample and cyanobacteria in August samples, with low MC-LR (< 1 µg/l) in all samples. In 2014, eight open water samples from June-September indicated no HAB whereas ten shoreline bloom samples showed high cyanobacteria levels (≤ 7,028 µg/l) in nearly

44

0

2

4

6

7/9 7/15 7/21 7/29 8/13 8/19 8/27 9/22

Chl

orop

hyll

a (µ

g/l)

CyanobacteriaGreen AlgaeDiatomsOther Algae

all samples after mid-August. These samples were dominated by Microcystis and Anabaena, both of which are toxin producing blue-green algae; however, there was low MC-LR (< 1 µg/l) in all samples.

The results of the NYSDEC findings for 2013 and 2014 are displayed in Figures 26 - 29.

Graphs for 2011 and 2012 findings were not made available. The NYSDEC’s 2011 – 2014 annual phytoplankton community results are similar to Coastal’s report in that the phytoplankton community of Cazenovia Lake shifted to dominance by blue-green algae towards the end of summer to mid-fall, when water column mixing is occurring and open water total phosphorus concentrations increase. Bloom quantity algae levels are restricted to regions of the shoreline while open water algae levels remain low. Overall, fall blue-green algal composition has changed, possibly due to changing nutrient inputs and dynamics, and zebra mussel effects. Zebra mussels have been found to selectively reject certain toxic strains of blue-green algae, which can promote toxic blooms in nature (Vanderploeg, 2001).

Figure 26. Open water phytoplankton sampling results from Cazenovia Lake, 2013. (Source: Scott Kishbaugh, NYSDEC).

45

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

7/15 7/21 7/29 8/13 8/19 8/27 8/27 9/23

Chl

orop

hyll

a (µ

g/l)


0

2

4

6/18 7/1 7/15 7/24 8/8 8/27 9/2 9/21

Chl

orop

hyll

a (µ

g/l)


Figure 27. Open water phytoplankton sampling results from Cazenovia Lake, 2014. (Source: Scott Kishbaugh, NYSDEC).

Figure 28. Shoreline phytoplankton sampling results from Cazenovia Lake, 2013. (Source: Scott Kishbaugh, NYSDEC).

46

0

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

6/18 7/1 7/15 8/8 8/27 8/27 9/2 9/21 9/29 9/29

Chl

orop

hyll

a (µ

g/l)


Figure 29. Shoreline phytoplankton sampling results from Cazenovia Lake, 2014. (Source: Scott Kishbaugh, NYSDEC).

Chlorophyll a

Open water surface chlorophyll a levels in Cazenovia Lake for the 2014 year averaged 2.1 µg/l in the winter, 3.8 µg/l in the spring, 4.5 µg/l in the summer, and 4.2 µg/l in the fall. All chlorophyll a measurements were taken with the YSI Sonde, which is good at detecting relative levels of the pigment, but is not as reliable as filtration-based methods (Matt Albright and graduate students, personal communication). High concentrations recorded in the benthic area may be due from disturbance of organic matter when monitoring with the YSI sonde. Average summer surface water chlorophyll a surface levels have remained within the oligotrophic and mesotrophic range. These summer measurements are shown in Figure 30. Chlorophyll a isopleths for the year of 2014 are displayed in Figure 31. Although Cazenovia Lake exhibits shoreline blue-green algae blooms, the open water chlorophyll a levels are below the range usually associated with these blooms, which is > 10 µg/l (NYSFOLA, 2009). The fall blooms along the shoreline may be a result of increasing total phosphorus levels from internal phosphorus loading. Increased chlorophyll a levels can be correlated to increased phosphorus in the water column when comparing Figure 20 with Figure 31. Chlorophyll a levels increased when some small internal loading occurred in the first week of August, as well as when the lake started fully mixing in the fall.

47

0

2

4

6

8

10

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Avg

Sum

mer

Chl

.a (

µg/l)

Eutrophic

Mesotrophic

Oligotrophic

Figure 30. Mean summer epilimnetic (0-4m) Chlorophyll a concentrations for Cazenovia Lake, 1988 – 2014. Dotted lines represent NYSDEC trophic classifications. (Source: NYSDEC, 2015)

Figure 31. Chlorophyll a isopleths for Cazenovia Lake, 2014. Isopleths in µg/l.

48

Zooplankton

There are no recent zooplankton surveys that have been conducted since the 1992 management plan (Coastal Environmental Services, Inc., 1992), where Coastal determined that the lake’s zooplankton community was dominated by large cladocerans such as Daphnia sp. and Ceriodaphnia sp. in the summer. These types of zooplankters are very efficient grazers and are beneficial in maintaining algal densities (Cooke et al., 2005). In the spring, when the higher algal densities were encountered, the zooplankton community was dominated by less efficient grazers such as copepods, copepodites and the cladoceran Bosmina sp. An independent algal study was conducted in 1996 where zooplankton from Cazenovia Lake and Oneida Lake were used as grazers in a lab experiment to assess direct mortality effects of Daphnia pulicuria on phytoplankton species in natural lake phytoplankton assemblages that contained 20-80% filamentous cyanobacteria by biovolume (Epp, 1996). The results showed that Cazenovia Lake supported a large population of Daphnia pulicaria, and an abundance of cyanobacterial filaments did not prevent the Cazenovia Lake Daphnia spp. from grazing on the phytoplankton assemblages in any of the trials (Epp, 1996).

Aquatic Macrophytes

Macrophytes contribute to maintaining key ecological functions and related biodiversity in freshwater ecosystems. Macrophytes stabilize sediments, provide habitats and food for aquatic animals, and macrophyte-dominated lakes have greater biodiversity (Hu, et al., 2014). Nutrients in a macrophyte-dominated lake ecosystem can be sequestered in plants for a comparatively long time and therefore are not cycled as rapidly as in algae-dominated lakes, which have shorter energy and material flow routes (Hu, et al., 2014). In the case of Cazenovia Lake, the large biomass of macrophytes is beneficial as they remove nutrients from the sediments and water column, preventing the lake from becoming algae-dominated. Conversely, macrophytes are impairing human uses such as public bathing and recreation, resulting in the lake being listed on the PWL as “stressed.”

The macrophyte community of Cazenovia Lake has been documented since 2008 with a survey by Allied Biological, followed by annual surveys completed by Racine-Johnson Aquatic Ecologists. The results of these surveys are summarized in Table 9. These surveys have identified a maximum of 36 aquatic plant species in 2009 and an average of 32 plant species in the following years. Sampling locations of the surveys can be seen in Figure 32 and 33. There were two protected species and three exotics. Protected were northern/autumnal water starwort (Callitriche hermaphroditica) and water marigold (Megalodonta beckii). Exotic plant species were Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), starry stonewort (Nitellopsis obtusa), and curly leafed pondweed (Potamogeton crispus). The modified floristic quality index (FQI) data indicate that the quality of the aquatic plant community is “good” (NYSDEC, 2011). In 2008,

49

Allied Biological reported 36 species with a mean of 5.1 species per sampled location. Racine-Johnson reported 36 species with a mean of 7.9 species per sampled location in 2009, 32 species with a mean of 6.6 species per sampled location in 2010, 32 species with a mean of 7.2 species recorded per sampled location in 2012, and 31 species with a mean of 7 species recorded per sampled location in 2013. This suggests the plant community remains very stable with respect to diversity and richness (Racine-Johnson Aquatic Ecologists, 2013). Most recently, in 2014, presence of European Frog-bit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae), a fourth exotic species, was detected in the northwest cove near the wetland inlet as well as near the public boat launch at Lakeland Park. Northern/autumnal water starwort (Callitriche hermaphroditica) has not been detected since 2009; therefore, only 1 protected plant species appears to exist in the lake at this time. The dominant species recorded in annual surveys from 2009-2013 were coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), elodea (Elodea sp.), eel grass (Vallisneria americana), and the benthic filamentous algae (Pithophora sp.).

The Cazenovia Lake Association has conducted an aggressive macrophyte harvesting

program since the 1980’s. Lakeshore residents also utilize benthic barriers, hand harvesting, and mechanical raking to suppress macrophytes in nearshore areas (NYSDEC, 2011). The lake has been chemically treated with Triclopyr herbicide in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2014 in order to control the Eurasian water milfoil, all of which have been funded by the Town of Cazenovia (75%) and the Cazenovia Lake Association through private donations (25%). Before treatment in 2008, Allied Biological reported the above mentioned exotic species in 281 locations (302 annual sample points). In 2009, the Eurasian water milfoil was reduced significantly in the lake and declined further down to 88 locations in 2010, resulting in a very low relative abundance in the lake. In 2011, it increased to 221 locations, while in 2012, it was down to 123 locations. In 2013 the species was present at 255 or 84% of the 302 locations (Racine-Johnson Aquatic Ecologists, 2013).

Eurasian water milfoil occurred at medium or high density (more than 10 stems, and

covering all the tines of the anchor) at 60% of its 281 locations in 2008, decreasing to 14% of 122 locations post treatment in 2009. In 2010, the species was reported in 1% of the 86 reported locations. In 2011, a non-treatment year, abundance increased to 27% of 221 locations. In 2012, 11% of the 13 locations were medium or dense, which increased to 33% of the 258 locations in 2013, a non-treatment year (Racine-Johnson Aquatic Ecologists, 2013). Yearly survey results for Eurasian water milfoil are displayed in Table 8. The results of these yearly surveys display the effectiveness and selectivity of the Triclopyr herbicide at controlling Eurasian water milfoil in Cazenovia Lake (the exception being the disappearance of white water lily and northern water milfoil). Both of these species are sensitive to Triclopyr and their decrease was expected. The herbicide treatments have not shown significant negative effects on a large number of non-target plant species (Racine-Johnson Aquatic Ecologists, 2013).

50

Table 8. Summary of Eurasian watermilfoil changes in the plant community from 2009 to 2014 influenced by management from 2009 to 2014 as documented in the late Summer/Fall survey of each year. *Designates year when triclopyr was applied to regions of Cazenovia Lake. (modified from Racine-Johnson Aquatic Ecologists, 2013).

2009* 2010* 2011 2012* 2013 2014* Species richness 36 32 33 32 31 33

Percentage watermilfoil presence out of a total of 304 sampling points 40% 29% 73% 41% 85% 68%

Percentage of medium and dense watermilfoil abundances out of 304

sampling points 6% 1% 19% 5% 28% 10%

Percentage of medium and dense watermilfoil abundances out of the number of sample points containing watermilfoil

16% 2% 27% 12% 33% 15%

51

Figure 32. Sample point locations in Cazenovia Lake where rake-toss measurements were collected, 2013. (modified from Racine-Johnson Aquatic Ecologists, 2013)

52

Figure 33. Sample point locations in Cazenovia Lake where rake-toss measurements were collected, 2013. (modified from Racine-Johnson Aquatic Ecologists, 2013)

53

(SPs) % (SPs) % (SPs) % (SPs) % (SPs) % (SPs) % (SPs) %Alisma gramineum grass-leaved water plantain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.66Callitriche hermaphroditica autumnal water starwort 1 0.3 1 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ceratophyllum demersum coontail, hornwort 187 62 248 82 200 66 174 58 226 75 204 68 229 76Chara vulgaris chara, muskgrass 99 33 129 43 167 55 129 43 153 51 134 44 148 49Elodea sp. elodea, common waterweed 129 43 203 67 186 62 204 68 196 65 201 67 209 69Fontinalis sp. water moss 3 1 64 21 80 26 41 14 59 20 42 14 52 17Heteranthera dubia water stargrass 116 38 104 34 76 25 110 36 78 26 101 33 98 32Hydrocharis morsus-ranae European frog-bit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.66Hypericum ellipticum St. John's-wort 0 0 1 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Lemna minor small duckweed 3 1 3 1 7 2 5 2 4 1 3 1 6 2Lemna trisulca forked duckweed, star duckweed 6 2 50 17 28 9 10 3 16 5 10 3 21 7Megalodonta beckii water marigold 29 10 28 9 20 7 43 14 42 14 32 11 21 7Myriophyllum sibiricum northern watermilfoil 0 0 9 3 0 0 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 0Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil 281 93 122 40 86 28 221 73 123 41 255 84 204 68Najas flexilis slender naiad, bushy naiad 60 20 46 15 28 9 28 9 39 13 54 18 17 6Najas guadalupensis southern naiad 0 0 125 41 116 38 99 33 86 28 89 29 105 35Nitella flexilis nitella, stonewort 0 0 24 8 19 6 6 2 3 1 4 1 0 0Nitellopsis obtusa starry stonewort 0 0 12 4 28 9 35 12 40 13 35 12 42 14Nuphar variegata spatterdock 12 4 10 3 9 3 8 3 5 2 5 2 2 0.66Nymphaea odorata white water l i ly 34 11 5 2 3 1 5 1.7 1 0.3 0 0 2 0.66Pithophora sp. benthic fi lamentous algae 65 22 243 80 196 65 138 46 184 61 142 47 114 38Polygonum amphibium water smartweed 0 0 1 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Potamogeton amplifolius bass weed, large-leaf pondweed 26 9 71 24 38 13 31 10 53 18 28 9 55 18Potamogeton crispus curly-leaf pondweed 14 5 46 15 27 9 5 2 34 11 35 12 47 16Potamogeton foliosus leafy pondweed 8 3 23 8 2 0.7 5 1.7 12 4 5 2 2 0.66Potamogeton gramineus variable pondweed 12 4 46 15 59 20 53 18 72 24 56 19 37 12Potamogeton illinoensis Il l inois pondweed 95 31 150 50 108 36 135 45 156 52 106 35 104 34Potamogeton praelongus white-stem pondweed 17 6 28 9 41 14 31 10 36 12 38 13 27 9Potamogeton pusillus small pondweed 0 0 41 14 36 12 29 10 7 2 11 4 9 3Potamogeton richardsonii clasping-leaf pondweed 6 2 12 4 13 4 7 2 10 3 4 1 0 0Potamogeton zosteriformis flat-stem pondweed 98 32 181 60 132 44 136 45 183 61 161 53 148 49Ranunculus trichophyllus white water crowfoot 28 9 49 16 54 18 18 6 50 17 53 18 34 11Spirodela polyrhiza great duckweed 1 0.3 4 1 9 3 8 3 4 1 2 1 3 0.99Stuckenia pectinata sago pondweed 37 12 52 17 27 9 32 11 53 18 37 12 53 18Stuckenia vaginata sheathed pondweed 0 0 57 19 15 5 7 2 1 0.3 31 10 6 2Utricularia vulgaris common bladderwort 4 1 12 4 6 2 8 3 20 7 15 5 23 8Vallisneria americana wild celery, eel grass, tapegrass 161 53 171 57 180 60 185 61 214 71 204 68 175 58Wolffia columbiana watermeal 6 2 4 1 11 4 1 0.3 4 1 8 3 1 0.33Zannichellia palustris horned pondweed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.33

2014

Racine-Johnson

2013Scientific Name Common Name

Racine-Johnson

2011

Racine-Johnson

2012

Allied Biological

Racine-Johnson

2008 2009

Racine-Johnson

2010

Racine-Johnson

Table 9. Plant species present by year, number of locations, and plots in Cazenovia Lake from 302 littoral sample points, 2008-2013. Red text indicates invasive species. (modified from Racine-Johnson Aquatic Ecologists, 2013)

54

Fish Community

The fish community was studied by Coastal Environmental Services in 1991, Professor Neil Ringer and his students from SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF) in 2006, Professor Thad Yorks and his students from Cazenovia College in 2012 and 2013, and the NYSDEC from 2012 to 2014. The 1991 survey was a simple assessment of the species present by trap netting in two locations. There were 10 species identified in 1991 and 17 species in 2006, 2012, and 2013. Table 10 lists the fish species identified in each survey.

In the 2006 study, the fish and habitat in the littoral zone of Cazenovia Lake were

analyzed using seines and trap-nets restricted to the littoral zone (≤ 1.2 m deep) in 6 sites. The main purpose was to address the question whether predation by the sunfish population was interfering with biological control of Eurasian water milfoil by introduced aquatic insects, specifically the Pyralid moth (Acentria ephemerella) and a weevil (Euchrychiopsis lecontei). This survey showed that the fish community was dominated by bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), and yellow perch (Perca flavescens). Of the 17 species collected, 33% were bluegill, 8% pumpkinseed, 27% yellow perch, and 9% were largemouth bass. The sunfish population level at the time was not likely sufficient to affect populations of introduced insect herbivores and it was not believed that aquatic insects would be hindered (Kirby & Ringler, 2006). The report stated that although the lake does not support high fish species richness, they are more evenly distributed compared to other lakes such as Oneida. It was also mentioned that plant harvesting could possibly be decreasing the fish population by eliminating suitable nesting habitat, killing juveniles and adults, and endangering fry and eggs guarded by male sunfish. Observations of the harvester in operation showed an extremely large number of fish removed with the dense weed beds, and may be causing the population to become dominated by older, larger fish (Kirby & Ringler, 2006). The 2006 report recommended that the overall fishery could be improved by limiting harvesting during early summer and designating areas of high plant densities as safe havens for fish nesting.

In August of 2010, a number of largemouth bass with open red sores were observed on

the lake and collected for analysis. Weeks later, 10 to 100’s of dead bass were reported by anglers. The results from the analysis showed an increased number of a common monogean parasite (Dactylogyrus sp.) on the gills. It was concluded that the combination of an increased parasite population with an additional stress, such as temperature, may have resulted in the fish kill (NYSDEC, 2015). These lesions declined in September; however, some fish population level decline may have occurred.

The 2012 study conducted by Professor Thad Yorks and his students consisted of trap-

nets set at 3 locations during a total of 7 sampling periods, from April 2012 to October 2012. The main objective of their survey was to better understand the lake’s littoral zone fish community

55

(VanDerKrake, 2013). There were 13 species captured and data were collected from over 3,500 individual fish. The results of this survey showed the fish community to be dominated by bluegill and pumpkinseed in the spring and fall of 2012, followed by rock bass and yellow perch being the third and fourth most abundant. Bluegill were numerous with 30% of the mean fish caught per trap-night in the spring followed by 34.8% in the fall. Pumpkinseeds made up 31.7% in the spring followed by 25.1% in the fall. Yellow perch were 9.4% in the spring and 5.3% in the fall. Rock bass accounted for 7.8% in the spring and 6.9% in the fall. Reproductive success during previous spawning years of bluegill, pumpkinseed, yellow perch, and rock bass was made evident by bell shaped length-frequency distributions for each species (VanDerKrake, 2013). Less consistent reproductive success was displayed by white sucker, brown bullhead, largemouth bass, yellow bullhead, walleye, and smallmouth bass. It was noted that these species had a very low sample size which could directly affect the validity of the calculations. With the exception of spring bluegill and pumpkinseed data, most species were significantly below the standard relative weight of 100, suggesting that several species are not obtaining enough food in order to reach appropriate relative weights (VanDerKrake, 2013). Standard relative weight is the ratio of the actual weight of a fish to what a rapidly growing healthy fish of the same length should weigh.

Two fisheries surveys were conducted by the NYSDEC in 2012. The first consisted of a

two-night electrofishing survey completed in May, and the second was a two-day gill netting study completed in July. The main objectives of these surveys were for the resumption of a NYSDEC walleye stocking program (which had ceased in 1977 due to lack of public access on the lake) and obtaining an analysis of the fish community. In previous years, the lake was stocked with walleye periodically by the NYSDEC from 1961-1978, and then continued by the Nelson Sportsman's Club until 1989. In total 1,281 fish were caught, representing 17 species. Largemouth bass were the most numerous at 484 individuals (38% of catch), followed by 190 yellow perch (15%), 155 bluegill (12%), 151 pumpkinseed sunfish (12%), 52 walleye (4%), and 50 smallmouth bass (4%) (NYSDEC, 2015). Additional sampling was recommended after the 2012 survey to determine if walleye were naturally reproducing or not. A fall 2013 walleye electrofishing survey caught only a single 4 year old walleye that was 17.6 inches (44.7 cm) long. In May of 2014, a walleye fry trawling study was conducted to determine if walleye were naturally reproducing. No walleye fry were captured during this survey (NYSDEC, 2015). Based on the most recent surveys, the NYSDEC recommends stocking the lake with walleye for five years starting in 2015. However, this is dependent on the number of walleye produced in the hatchery system.

56

Table 10. Fish species present in Cazenovia Lake. * indicates invasive species. Walleye Pike were not found in earlier studies but were periodically stocked and captured by anglers. (data sources: Coastal Environmental Services, 1992. Kirby & Ringler, 2006. NYSDEC, 2012.)

Anthropogenic Sources of Coliform Bacteria

Coliforms are bacteria that are always present in the digestive tracts of animals, including humans, and are found in their wastes. They are also found in plant and soil material (New York State Department of Health, 2015). Most coliform bacteria do not cause disease, however, some strains of Escherichia coli can cause serious illness. Escherichia coli is a species of fecal coliform that is considered to be the best indicator of fecal pollution and therefore the possible presence of pathogens, but they cannot be traced to human or animal origin without expensive DNA testing (U.S. EPA, 2012). High fecal coliform bacteria counts can also be indicative of

Scientific Name Common Name 1990-1991 2006 2012

Alosa pseudoharengus* Alewife* X Ambloplites rubestris Rock Bass X X X

Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead X Ameiurus nebulosus Brown Bullhead X X X

Catostomus commersoni White Sucker X X Esox americanus Redfin Pickerel X

Esox niger Chain Pickerel X X Etheostoma olmstedi Tesselated Darter X X Fundulus diaphanus Banded Killifish X X

Gasterosteus aculeatus Three spine stickleback X Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed X X X

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill X X X Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass X X X Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth Bass X X

Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner X X X Notropis hudsnius Spottail Shiner X

Notropis spilopterus Spotfin Shiner X Notropis volucellus Mimic Shiner X

Noturus gyrinus Margined madtom X Perca flavescens Yellow Perch X X X

Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow X Pomixis nigromaculatus Black Crappie X X X

Sander vitreus Walleye pike Stocked X

57

elevated organic phosphorus and nitrogen releases from poorly performing wastewater treatment systems.

Fecal coliform bacteria was conducted adjacent to the lake shore in 2011 by former

NYSFOLA president James Cunningham and involved E. coli enumeration, fluorimetry, and conductivity, to focus on specific locations. Submersible fluorometer and conductivity probes were used to track optical brighteners and high near shore conductivity, both of which would indicate septic system discharges into Cazenovia Lake. This alternative method was used rather than sampling the entire lake at close intervals in order to lower sampling cost, and track E. coli from anthropogenic sources and not local wildlife. The results of this survey showed higher values in all 3 variables along the developed shorelines of the lake; they were not observed in less developed areas. Of the 23 sample points, 9 exhibited characteristics of septic system leachate entering Cazenovia Lake resulting in 39% of the sample points correlating to some type of wastewater treatment discharge entering the lake. This high occurrence of under-treated septic outflow is likely due to restrictive soil features for septic systems. The soil survey in this study, paralleled with Coastal’s septic suitability classification, indicate that 69.13% of the Cazenovia Lake watershed is composed of soil that is not suitable for traditional septic treatment systems (Figure 9). Cazenovia currently has a five year septic system inspection program for households within the Cazenovia Lake watershed.

Trophic State Analysis Trophic state monitoring is an important part in assessing and managing lake ecosystems.

The trophic state depicts the potential biological productivity in lakes. There is no ideal trophic state for lakes since lakes can naturally be highly productive or unproductive. Lakes with high nutrient levels, high plant production, and an abundance of plant life are termed eutrophic, whereas lakes that have low concentrations of nutrients, low productivity and generally low biomass are termed oligotrophic. Lakes in between these two criteria are deemed moderately productive and are termed as mesotrophic.

In the 1992 management plan, Coastal Environmental Services conducted a trophic state

analysis on Cazenovia Lake with a trophic state model developed by Walker (1977). Coastal Environmental Services also calculated the percentage of the annual phosphorus load that was retained annually in the lake, and found that 76% of the phosphorus entering the lake was retained. They classified Cazenovia Lake as a meso-eutrophic waterbody, and, although the degree of eutrophication experienced by the lake was low, it was found that the lake had a very high potential to move toward a eutrophy (Coastal Environmental Services, Inc., 1992).

In this current study, Carlson’s Trophic State Index (CTSI) (Carlson, 1977) was used.

This is the most commonly used method (Cooke, Welch, Peterson, & Nichols, 2005); utilizing Secchi disc transparency (SD), chlorophyll a (CHL), and total phosphorus (TP) measurements.

58

TSI Values Chl (ug/L) SD (m) TP (ug/L) Trophic Status Attributes<30 <0.95 >8 <6 Oligotrophic Clear water, oxygen throughout the year in the hypolimnion

30-40 0.95 - 2.6 8 - 4 6 - 12 Oligotrophic A lake will still exhibit oligotrophy, but some shallower lakes will become anoxic during the summer

40-50 2.6 - 7.3 4 - 2 12 - 24 Mesotrophic Water moderately clear, but increasing probability of anoxia during the summer

50-60 7.3 - 20 2 - 1 24 - 48 Eutrophic Lower boundary of classical eutrophy, decreased transparency, warm-water fisheries only

60-70 20 - 56 0.5 - 1 48 - 96 Eutrophic Dominance of blue-green algae, algal scum probable, extensive macrophyte problems

70-80 56 - 155 0.25 - 0.5 96 - 192 Eutrophic Heavy algal blooms possible throughout the summer, often hypereutrophic

>80 >155 <0.25 192 - 384 Eutrophic Algal scum, summer fish kills, few macrophytes

Parameter 9/28/13 10/27/13 4/27/14 5/15/14 6/6/14 7/12/14 8/1/14 8/19/14 8/30/14 9/23/14 10/7/14 10/28/14 AverageTSI of SD 36 35 40 38 35 36 41 34 37 38 41 38 37TSI of TP 79 51 38 40 40 39 45 46 51 52 46 50 48

TSI of CHL 49 39 43 X 43 43 44 49 48 43 41 49 44CTSI 55 42 40 39 39 39 43 43 45 44 42 46 43

The three variables are interrelated, which means that any of the three variables, independently or combined, can be used to classify the trophic state of the water body. For the purpose of classification, priority is given to chlorophyll a as it is the most reliable of the three, using algal biomass as the basis for trophic state classification. According to Carlson (1977), TP may be better than chlorophyll a at predicting summer trophic state from winter samples (ex. Table 12), and transparency should only be used if there are no better methods available. Carlson’s trophic state index values and classifications are displayed in Table 11. Table 12 lists Cazenovia Lake’s trophic state indices for each parameter at every sampling event that all three parameters were measured. The average CTSI shows that Cazenovia Lake was mesotrophic during 2013-2014. Individually, the CTSI(TP) and CTSI(CHL) classify Cazenovia Lake as mesotrophic, whereas the CTSI(SD) classifies the lake as oligotrophic. Deeper SD’s have been observed since the establishment of the invasive zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and may be an influencing factor as to why the TSI(SD) classification does not match with the TSI(TP) and TSI(CHL) classifications. Based on the TSI(TP) value of 48, Cazenovia Lake’s trophic status is near the lower threshold of a eutrophic classification (50).

The trophic state index (CTSI) was calculated using the following simplified formulae:

TSI(SD) = 60 – 14.41 ln(SD) TSI(CHL) = 9.81 x ln(CHL) + 30.6

TSI(TP) = 14.42 x ln(TP) + 4.15 Carlson’s Trophic State Index (CTSI) = [TSI (TP) + TSI (CHL) + TSI (SD)]/3

Table 11. Carlson’s trophic state index values and classification of lakes (Carlson, 1977).

Table 12. Carlson Trophic State Index for Cazenovia Lake 2013 – 2014.

59

Nutrient Budget A nutrient budget is extremely valuable in managing a lake's trophic status. A nutrient budget provides a means to evaluate and rank nutrient sources that may contribute to plant and algal problems. In Cazenovia Lake’s watershed, the majority of nutrients originate from diffuse, non-point sources (Coastal Environmental Services, Inc., 1992). These include septic leachate, road runoff, and lawn fertilizers.

Phosphorus is often the major nutrient in shortest supply (limiting) relative to the nutritional needs of algae and aquatic plants. It is also the most effectively controlled using existing engineering and land use management strategies. Phosphorus is most likely to be the limiting nutrient in Cazenovia Lake (see Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorus (P) section), and therefore a nutrient budget and abatement strategies are compiled for P. Phosphorus input from groundwater and lake sediments was calculated using empirical data collected throughout this study, whereas tributary inflow, outflow, direct runoff, and atmospheric deposition where estimated with the use of the Lake Loading Response Model (LLRM) (Wagner, pers. comm). LLRM is spreadsheet based model that has been enhanced over the years for use in watershed management projects aimed at improving lake conditions, and has been refined as new literature has been published and experience has been gained.

Detailed instructions for setting up the LLRM were directly provided by Dr. Kenneth J.

Wagner of Water Resources Services (personal communication, February 27, 2015). Necessary data include lake morphometry data, precipitation and flow rates, watershed and sub-watershed areas and land uses from GIS databases, and water quality data for phosphorus (P), nitrogen (N), chlorophyll a (CHL), and Secchi depth (SD), as well as secondary water quality parameters that help validate primary variable validity. The types of data used and sources of those data for this study are summarized in Table 13. Delineation of the lake watershed was based on contour maps completed by Coastal Environmental Services in 1991. For this study, the Cazenovia Lake watershed GIS file was provided by the Madison County Planning Department. Using ArcGIS software, ten sub-watersheds were delineated using a combination of contour maps and LIDAR imagery data. These delineations are displayed in Figure 34. The most recent (2011) land use was obtained from National Land Cover Data (NLCD) available on the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MLRC) website (U.S. Department of the Interior & U.S. Geological Survey, 2015). This map is shown in Figure 10 (see Land Use section).

60

Table 13. Types and sources of data used for LLRM set up.

Feature Purpose in Model Sources for this Study Lake bathymetry and hypsograph

Determination of volume at any depth or water level

Past studies, primarily Coastal Environmental Services and DEC.

Watershed and subwatershed delineation

Define areas to which loading functions and water quality comparisons will be applied in the model

USGS topographic maps, watershed GIS file provided by Madison County Planning Department

Subwatershed land uses and corresponding areas

Determines range of possible loading to be used in the model

GIS maps, specifically National Land Cover Data, 2011.

Precipitation Used to calculate flows from land use and precipitation data

NOAA records for Syracuse Hancock International Airport (KSYR); long term mean of 1.21 m (47.7 inches)/yr.

Flow Data Used as a check on calculations from other data

None available for streams in the watershed

Areal Water Yield Used with watershed area as a check on flow values derived from land use and precipitation

Past study, Coastal Environmental Services, which is 1.7 cfsm

Point source P and N monitoring data Provides load from regulated sources No permitted point source

discharges to lake or tributaries

On-site wastewater treatment (septic) system locations within direct drainage to the lake

Allows estimation of septic inputs by calculation using data for distance from lake, population served, and frequency of use

Area around lake not sewered, only part of lake sewered is the Village of Cazenovia at the south end and southeast up to Seven Pines Rd.

Wildlife P and N inputs Allows estimation of inputs from wildlife, mainly waterfowl

Estimates of waterfowl population very limited; assumed 50 bird-years for model

Atmospheric P and N loading

Provides estimate of loading from the atmosphere

Literature values for concentration combined with precipitation data; model assumes 20 µg P/L and 650 µg N/L, median values from Reckhow et al. 1980, Dillon et al. 1991

Internal P and N loading Provides estimate of loading from lake sediments

Monitoring data collected in this study from 2013 -2015. Internal load can vary yearly by a significant amount.

Stream P and N concentrations Used to check model results None available for streams in the

watershed In-lake water quality (P, N, CHL, SD) Used to check model results Ongoing monitoring provides

direct measurement

61

#1

#10

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#9

#8

#7

Km 1.93 3.86 0 0.48 0.97 2.89

Figure 34. Map of sub-watershed delineations for the Cazenovia Lake watershed (data source: USGS, 2015)

62

External Loading The condition of a water body is determined primarily by the quality and quantity of

water entering it. Nearly all attempts at lake management will be overwhelmed by continued high loading of silt, organic matter, and nutrients from the watershed (Holdren, Jones, & Taggart, 2001). External sources to factor into a nutrient budget include point sources, atmospheric input, septic leachate/groundwater, tributary inflow, and wildlife. A point source is identified as a single, discrete place, from which nutrient/pollutant loading is known to occur as opposed to non-point sources such as surface runoff. A wastewater treatment plant discharging treated effluent into a lake or stream can be classified as a point source. The atmosphere contributes phosphorus compounds to waterbodies by wet (precipitation in various forms such as rain, sleet or snow) and dry (very small particles) deposition. Septic tanks and leach fields contribute phosphorus in a dissolved state into groundwater when a treatment system is either malfunctioning, or located too close to a waterbody. In a properly operating system, some phosphorus is absorbed and retained by the soil as the effluent percolates through the soil to the shallow saturated zone. Tributaries that discharge into a lake are representative of the land use in the watershed and any anthropogenic impacts, such as agriculture and development. Direct surface runoff represents water and phosphorus that does not enter the lake through groundwater or a tributary, and is a result of near shore snow melt and rainfall, especially during rain storms.

Point Sources Point source data are normally acquired from Discharge Monitoring Reports filed under

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations. There are no permitted point sources in the Cazenovia Lake watershed. The Madison County Wastewater Treatment Plant services the sewer districts in the surrounding area, and discharges treated water to Chittenango Creek (Environmental Design & Research, Landscape Architecture, Planning, Environmental Services,Engineering and Surveying, P.C., 2008).

Precipitation/Atmospheric Input Both wet and dry deposition are covered in this portion of the budget with loading

coefficients from literature (Reckhow, Beaulac, & Simpson, 1980). According to the hydrologic budget compiled by Coastal Environmental Services in 1991, Cazenovia Lake received an estimated average of 1.35 x 106 m3/yr of precipitation (corrected for evaporation). Precipitation data for this model were obtained from the Syracuse Hancock International Airport (KSYR) NOAA station in Syracuse, NY (27 miles northwest of Cazenovia Lake). Long-term average precipitation was 1.21 m (47.7 inches). There is certainly inter-annual variability, but this model assumes a steady state condition of the lake over the long term. LLRM estimated direct atmospheric precipitation of phosphorus to be 95.83 kg/yr while nitrogen is 3,124 kg/yr. In Coastal’s report, atmospheric P was estimated at 116.66 kg/yr and N was estimated at 4,643.5 kg/yr.

63

Piezometer/Groundwater Monitoring to Determine Septic System Input The majority of the land in the Cazenovia Lake watershed contains residential homes that

depend on on-site wastewater treatment systems, with the exception of 63 town residences and three commercial establishments within the six Town sewer districts of: Jepson, East Lake Road, U.S. Route 20 East, Wright Road, Seven Pines, and Ten Eyck Avenue. The bulk of the residential land in the watershed is associated with the lake’s shoreline. The LLRM model allows for the separation of this source (non-sewered houses) from the baseflow export coefficient when suspected that it may be large enough to warrant management consideration, which is the case in Cazenovia Lake. Groundwater monitoring was conducted on five non-sewered lake front properties around Cazenovia Lake, with one sewered shoreline property, and one non-residential site at the DOT parking area by Route 20, as a control. Groundwater analyses for TP concentration were conducted by sampling 37 piezometers distributed along these 7 properties. Data from this monitoring project was highly variable, with a few dates exhibiting concentrations in the raw wastewater discharge range (6 to 8 mg/l), and other dates exhibiting much lower concentrations (Appendix A). Additionally, groundwater samples consistently emitted a hydrogen sulfide odor, which indicated that the groundwater was anoxic and was readily moving P through the soil. These data and observations indicate that untreated wastewater was in fact entering Cazenovia Lake and needed to be part of the comprehensive management plan.

In the LLRM model, on-site wastewater treatment systems are divided into those within 100 ft (30.48 m) of the lake shoreline and those between 100 and 300 ft (30.48 and 91.44 m) of the lake, with each zone receiving different attenuation factors (portion of TP that reaches the lake). These are further subdivided between dwellings occupied all year vs. those used seasonally. The number of people per dwelling (3 people), P and N in septic system effluent (8 ppm TP, 20 ppm N), and water use per person (0.25 m3/day) were specified from literature (Tchobanoglous & Burton, 1991). The model then calculated the input of water, P and N from each septic system grouping. In order to enumerate the amount of households bordering the lake, buffer zones of 100 ft and 300 ft (30.48 and 91.44 m) were created in ArcGIS and then transferred onto aerial imagery in Google Earth. The amount of properties within each buffer zone were documented, resulting in 103 homes within 100 ft of the lake and 79 homes within 100 ft and 300 ft (30.48 and 91.44 m) of the lake. Days of occupancy data were not available so these homes were all placed in the “all year” subdivision. P attenuation factors were modified from original literature values (Tchobanoglous & Burton, 1991) to reflect those values of an exhausted leach field (low TP absorbing/adsorbing capacity). In Coastal’s 1991 report, their septic system survey indicated that most dwellings had treatment systems that were outdated and likely had exhausted leach fields. The same attenuation factor of 0.80 is used in this model as in Coastal’s report for dwellings within 100 ft of the lake. An attenuation factor of 0.50 was applied to dwellings within 100ft and 300 ft of the lake, assuming those leach fields were also not efficiently retaining phosphorus. According to LLRM, on-site wastewater disposal systems are

64

estimated to contribute 267 kg/yr of P and 853.6 kg/yr of N while in Coastal’s report, P was estimated at 361 kg/yr and N was not estimated.

Tributary Inflow and Surface Runoff Cazenovia Lake’s sub-watersheds generate runoff that enters the lake via two wetlands,

intermittent streams, drainage swales or as direct runoff (Coastal Environmental Services, Inc., 1992). The lake’s feeder streams were not observed during the duration of this study; therefore, I used Coastal’s data from their study (Coastal Environmental Services, Inc., 1992). They reported that most of the lake’s feeder streams exhibited no flow during the summer months. Only three sub-watersheds (#7, #8, #9), all along the lake’s eastern shore, drain to USGS-classified permanent streams. Inflow to the lake also occurs via two large wetlands at the north and south ends of the lake (sub-watersheds #6 and #1). These five sub-watersheds above deliver baseflow and stormwater runoff to the lake through streams, whereas the remaining five contribute through piped or overland drainage. All ten sub-watersheds contribute directly to the lake. Land use was determined through ArcGIS software with the most recent national land cover data from 2011 (Figure 10).

Areal water yield was calculated using data from Coastal’s hydrologic budget analysis (Coastal Environmental Services, Inc., 1992). The areal water yield was multiplied by the drainage area to get an expected mean flow for that area. This value was 1.7 cubic feet per second per square mile of watershed (cfsm) (0.019 cubic meter per square kilometer), and is used as a check on the flow calculated from division of precipitation into baseflow and runoff in the model. The model generates independent estimates of flow by partitioning precipitation into baseflow and runoff fractions. Export coefficients for P and N, based on averages from literature (Uttormark, Chapin, & Green, 1974) (Reckhow, Beaulac, & Simpson, 1980) (Miller et al., 1997) (Mitchell, Wagner, & Asbury, 1988) (Frink, 1991) (Line, Harman, & Jennings, 1998) (Sharpley et al., 1992) (Clark, Mueller, & Mast, 2000) (Rohm et al., 2002), are designated for each land use type and the model generates nutrient level estimates for runoff and baseflow. The LLRM model can be calibrated with stormwater grab samples from all major inlet points, but these were not available. Future monitoring of major inlet points for nutrients and average flow can help refine this portion of the nutrient budget modeling. According to LLRM, land use is estimated to contribute 546.6 kg/yr of P and 5297.4 kg/yr of N. In Coastal’s report, P was estimated at 641.9 kg/yr and N was estimated at 13,404.5 kg/yr.

Wildlife Aquatic birds and wildlife, when abundant, can be a significant contributing factor to a

nutrient budget. There is, however, no quantitative data estimate N & P contributed by wildlife for Cazenovia Lake. Waterfowl population in Cazenovia was not observed during this study. During one sampling period, a maximum of 30 birds were observed. Residents familiar with the lake have mentioned that waterfowl are known to gather in mass at some sections of the lake. A rough estimate of 50 birds was assigned to the model, which may be conservative. A value of

65

0.20 kg/bird/yr was assigned for P and a value of 0.95 kg/bird/yr was assigned for N, based on median values from literature (Brezonik, 1973) (Uttormark, Chapin, & Green, 1974) (Gould & Fletcher, 1978) (Portnoy, 1990) (Manny & Johnson, 1975) (Scherer et al., 1995). This source of nutrients is relatively minor, 10 kg/yr of P and 47.5 kg/yr of N, but is included in order to increase accuracy of the budget. Wildlife was not estimated in Coastal’s nutrient budget.

Internal Loading Deep water P & N concentrations were measured starting in September of 2013 and

ending in May of 2015. These were converted to an areal load on an annual basis and were used to estimate internal loading. Data for the complete year of 2013 was not available, but internal loading for that year was calculated assuming that the same stratification regime and spring P and N concentrations from 2014 were present in 2013. This assumption is important in the nutrient budget because phosphorus concentrations were ten times higher in 2013 than 2014, making it evident that significantly more internal loading occurred in 2013. Data for 2013 suggested releases of 1,536 kg P/yr and 2,161 kg N/yr. Data for 2014 estimated releases of 217 kg P/yr and 985 kg N/yr. These values were not derived from the LLRM model, and were calculated in Microsoft Excel spreadsheet using volume and concentration of TP and TN within the water column. The LLRM model, which requires the area of release and release rate to be specified, was also used to estimate internal loading of P & N. Coastal’s bathymetric survey data (Table 3) estimated/reported that 20% (206 ha) of the lake bottom area became anoxic. For 2013, LLRM estimated releases of 1,436 kg P/yr and 2,290 kg N/yr. For 2014, LLRM estimated releases of 209 kg P/yr and 1,084 kg N/yr. Comparison of estimates from the spreadsheet and LLRM model shows that, for 2013, my P load estimate is within 93% agreement and N values are within 94% agreement. For 2014, P values are within 96% and N values are within 91%. Hypolimnetic TP data and model outputs for 2013 and 2014 show that internal loading can be highly variable from year to year. In order to represent steady state conditions, the average values from the two models were calculated, then the 2013 and 2014 estimates for each year were further averaged, resulting in 850 kg/yr of P and 1,630 kg/yr of N. Compared to Coastal’s estimate, this calculated P load is within 87 % of their estimate (738 kg/yr). Internal loading of N was not estimated in Coastal’s report so there is no comparison to make. This internal source of nutrients remains in the hypolimnion until fall turnover when mixing occurs, so it is not evident until late in the growing season. Though this source of P becomes unavailable when oxygen becomes present during fall turnover, P release from lake sediment during mixing results in increased concentrations of P in the epilimnion and appearance of shoreline algae blooms in Cazenovia Lake during this time, which indicates that this source may play a major role. As mentioned in the 1991 nutrient budget, my estimated value for this source is also probably conservative considering there are other factors that also contribute phosphorus internally, such as migration of P from littoral sediments to pelagic water via macrophyte growth and decomposition. Given the density of macrophytes in the lake’s northern basin, these processes are expected to contribute significantly to the lake’s internal load (Coastal Environmental Services, Inc., 1992).

66

Watershed Public Opinion Survey Understanding public perception regarding the lake helps target high priority problems

within the lake and its watershed, and keeps residents involved in the management process. In order to gather stakeholders’ views of the lake and its watershed, a 6 page survey was distributed by mail throughout the entire Cazenovia Lake watershed in 2014. The mailing list was provided by the Madison County Planning Department and contained 861 mailing addresses. After removal of duplicate tax parcels from the mailing list, there were a total of 729 addresses to which surveys were mailed. A return envelope was included with each survey to increase the return rate. Of the 729 surveys sent 192 were returned, with a return rate of 26%. The average respondent age was 62, average household size was 3 persons. Eighty-two percent of the respondents resided in Madison County, and 79% were permanent residents.

Based on the survey results, the greatest concerns perceived by stakeholders were related

to anthropogenic eutrophication (Figure 35). Environmental quality (84%) is the greatest concern of residents, followed by safety on water (23%) and recreational facilities (7%). In terms of safety on Cazenovia Lake, boat speed, noise, and wakes were of great concern (Figure 36). Of the 192 returned surveys, 79% of the respondents owned boats. When asked about the availability of launching facilities, the majority of respondents indicated that there are enough launching facilities (79%) and the facilities are adequate (78%). It was also noted that there were unfavorable views on jet skis, with 61% of respondents indicating moderate to great concern about their effects on the lake (Figure 37).

The greatest lake use by residents occurs on weekends and holidays (45%), followed by

weekdays (9%), and no pattern of use indicated by 46% of respondents. On average, the lake is used for 31 days a year by residents and the majority of use is for swimming, relaxing at residence, rowing and canoeing, motor cruising, and aesthetics. When asked about the current usage of Cazenovia Lake, 60% view it as “about right” on summer weekends and 48% on summer weekdays. In regards to weekends, 18% viewed the lake as overcrowded, and 14% viewed the lake as underused. In regards to weekdays, 1% viewed the lake as overcrowded and 42% viewed the lake as underused.

67

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Percent

Algae & WeedsInvasive SpeciesSanitary WasteFecal PollutionWater ClarityAestheticsRunoffOther Household WasteStrip DevelopmentAgricultural PracticesLoss of Wildlife HabitatPotabilityRoad SaltEroding ShorelinesWater LevelAcid RainMotor BoatsDepletion of Fisheries

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Percent

Boat Speed

Boat Noise

Boat Wakes

Over-reg of Nav

Boat Size

Incr # of Boats

Nav. Hazards

Pres. Traff. Patterns

Lack Law Enf.

Lack of Nav Reg

Figure 35. Items of great concern regarding environmental quality, based on the 2014 Cazenovia Lake watershed survey.

Figure 36. Items of great concern regarding safety on Cazenovia Lake, based on the 2014 watershed survey.

68

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Percent

Jet Ski

Motor Cruising

Hunting

Comp. Racing

Water Skiing

WW Fishing

Trolling

Swimming

CW Fishing

Rowing/Canoeing

Wind Surfing

Ice Fishing

Sailing

Scuba Diving

Figure 37. Recreational activities of great concern regarding negative effects on Cazenovia Lake, based on the 2014 watershed survey.

Discussion & Conclusion Water-quality monitoring of physical and chemical parameters in Cazenovia Lake, from 2013 to 2015, has allowed for the update of a nutrient budget and comprehensive lake management plan. Cazenovia Lake’s dissolved oxygen/temperature profiles (Figure 11 & 14) indicate the lake to be strongly stratified and subject to long periods of low dissolved oxygen concentrations in the summer, when internal loading of phosphorus was observed. During fall turnover of both years (2013 & 2014), elevated total phosphorus (TP) concentrations (23 – 26 µg/l) in the water column made it evident that internal loading was occurring. Hypolimnetic TP concentrations towards the beginning of fall were substantially higher (688 µg/l in 2013 and 68 µg/l in 2014) than surface water concentrations (12 µg/l in 2013 and 13 µg/l in 2014). Additionally, increased chlorophyll a levels during this period can be correlated to increased phosphorus levels from internal phosphorus loading in the water column (Figure 20 & 31). The potential role of septic system phosphorus contribution to the lake has long been perceived as a major source of nutrients, which was also studied. Piezometer monitoring data around Cazenovia Lake from this study indicates that groundwater affected by septic leachate is reaching the lake, with highly variable groundwater concentrations (0.004 to 10.4 mg/l), indicating that this source may be periodic. Trophic state analysis (Carlson, 1977) of Cazenovia Lake classifies the lake as mesotrophic, based on the TSI(TP) value of 48, and indicates the lake is near the lower threshold of a eutrophic classification (50).

69

According to the model developed by Vollenweider (1968), criteria can be established to calculate the phosphorus load below which no productivity problems are expected (permissible load) and above which productivity problems are almost certain to persist (critical load) (Vollenweider, 1968). The average of phosphorus loads estimated for the lake through LLRM modeling (1,769 kg/yr) is significantly higher (2.4 times) than the calculated permissible level of 732 kg/yr, and well above the critical level of 1,464 kg/yr. This indicates that phosphorus levels in Cazenovia Lake are well above levels that would be likely to result in degraded water quality conditions. Specifically, the sources of total phosphorus input estimated with LLRM are wildlife (10 kg/yr), precipitation (95.8 kg/yr), septic systems (267 kg/yr), land use within the watershed (546.6 kg/yr), and internal loading (849.5 kg/yr). These nutrient budget estimates can be used by the Town of Cazenovia for determining the value of the various lake management alternatives and watershed development strategies.

70

Cazenovia Lake & Watershed Management Plan

MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY The Town of Cazenovia has determined the following priorities for the plan:

1. Managing, protecting, and improving the aesthetic, recreational, and water quality assets of Cazenovia Lake.

2. Reducing and stabilizing nutrient enrichment from internal and external sources, consequently eliminating symptoms such as severe weed growth and algae blooms.

3. Continued management of the exotic Eurasian water milfoil and prevention of the introduction of additional nuisance aquatic exotic species.

4. Continued long term monitoring through the CSLAP program, development of a long term monitoring program for the lake on a bi-weekly schedule, and continued monitoring of nearshore septic systems with the use of piezometers.

Introduction

This document is intended to be a comprehensive lake and watershed management plan for the Town of Cazenovia, including proper restoration measures to be implemented. The restoration of Cazenovia Lake is a long term process towards sustainable ecological function of the lake and the subsequent social well-being of the community. A Cazenovia Lake Comprehensive Management Plan was originally prepared by Coastal Environmental Services in 1992. It was not until 2009 that a new plan was drafted by the town to comply with Permit Condition 6(l) of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) permit granted to the Town of Cazenovia for a chemical treatment program to control submergent plants in Cazenovia Lake. Since the original development of this plan in 2009, there have been many changes in Cazenovia Lake and its watershed, including the involvement in the State University of New York College at Oneonta Lake Management Master’s program. In the fall of 2013, the Town of Cazenovia entered into a two year agreement with the SUNY Oneonta Foundation to engage a graduate student to begin a monitoring program to form an updated comprehensive management plan for Cazenovia Lake, from Fall 2013 to Spring 2015. This monitoring program consisted of two components: collection of physical and chemical data from the deepest (most representative) section of Cazenovia Lake and a groundwater phosphorus study on properties bordering the lake. The data collected during this study, in conjunction with yearly CSLAP data, have been used to update the previous management plan. Vision and Goals for the Resource

In 2008, the Town and Village of Cazenovia adopted a Joint Comprehensive Plan. The community vision statement is expressed as follows: “Preserve and enhance the unique characteristics of the Cazenovia community, which reflect a composition of distinctive natural, cultural, historic and scenic resources. Encourage sustainable

71

economic growth while maintaining an inviting atmosphere for all to experience Cazenovia’s historic village, magnificent lake, quaint hamlet and productive agrarian landscape.” Several community goals were articulated based on this overall vision statement, providing more specific goals related to socioeconomic conditions and natural resources. One category of community goals is “Lake and Watershed”. The goals are listed below.

1. Protect and improve the health of Cazenovia Lake

2. Implement effective stormwater management practices to minimize erosion and sediment transport to surface waters

3. Encourage and support development of educational programs for the Cazenovia community to enhance understanding of the lake, its watershed, and how best to enjoy both while protecting and restoring these valuable community resources

4. Coordinate with stakeholders at the local, state, and federal levels to enhance partnerships and opportunities for the protection and restoration of Cazenovia Lake and its watershed.

Institutional Framework: Cazenovia Lake Watershed Council In 2008, the Town and Village of Cazenovia entered into an Intermunicipal Agreement

creating the Cazenovia Lake Watershed Council. The Council is composed of five voting members, two representatives of the Town Board of Cazenovia, two Village Trustees, and one member of the Board of Directors of the Cazenovia Lake Association, a not-for-profit citizens group dedicated to lake protection and restoration. The Council has adopted the following vision and mission.

Vision: The Cazenovia Lake Watershed Council will provide an effective forum for stakeholders to come together to find effective long-term solutions that will protect and restore the environmental health and recreational quality of Cazenovia Lake and watershed. Mission: (1) Gather expert advice

(2) Reach consensus on proactive long-term solutions

(3) Identify and prioritize action steps

(4) Make recommendations to our respective legislative bodies and partners for implementation

About the Lake Cazenovia Lake is a Class A, dimictic lake of glacial origin located in Madison County,

NY. There is one major unnamed tributary that provides inflow from the north as well as numerous minor inflows from intermittent streams that discharge along the eastern and western shores. The lake discharges into Chittenango Creek by means of a Class B waterway. In the mid 1800’s, a dam was placed on the lake outlet at Chittenango Creek to create a reservoir for the

72

New York State Barge Canal System. Construction of the dam expanded the lakes natural southern basin and flooded low-lying areas to the north, creating an additional shallower basin in the north. The southern basin attains a maximum depth of 48 feet (14 m) while the northern basin is 20 feet (6 m). The lake supports a relatively diverse and productive warmwater fishery, comprised of 17 species. It is the largest lake, 1,184 acres (479 ha) within Madison County with a watershed encompassing 5,552 acres (2,247 ha). The local economy has benefited from the lake through visitors attracted to the area and increasing real estate values along the lake. Survey Results

In order to gather information on stakeholders’ social needs and perceptions of the lake, a 6 page survey was distributed by mail throughout the entire Cazenovia Lake watershed. The mailing list was provided by the Madison County Planning Department and contained 729 mailing addresses. Of the 729 surveys sent 192 were returned, with a return rate of 26%. The key issues identified and ranked by the survey include: 1. algae & weeds, 2. invasive species, 3. sanitary wastes, and 4. fecal pollution. Environmental quality of the lake was ranked as an item of most concern, followed by safety on the water and recreational facilities. It was also noted that there was discontent with jet skis having negative effects on the lake, with 61% of respondents displaying moderate to great concern. The survey results will continue to help the Town of Cazenovia meet the primary social needs of residents by prioritizing options and goals towards the protection and restoration of Cazenovia Lake. Lake Issues Primary Production

1. Algal Blooms Phytoplankton is primary producers and is the foundation of the aquatic food web. It

supports the energy base for everything from zooplankton to fish, but not all types of zooplankters are beneficial. Some species can be detrimental, causing unsightly harmful algal blooms (HABs) that can potentially be toxic to animals (and humans). Excessive algae growth is the most common complaint reported by New York State lake residents and users (NYSFOLA, 2009).

Cazenovia Lake exhibits relatively low concentrations of chlorophyll a (indicator of algal

biomass) and total phosphorus (major nutrient controlling algal growth), with the exception of the spring and fall. Fall blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) blooms have been observed in 2009, 2012, 2013, and 2014. These blooms were restricted to the shoreline and were not observed in open water (NYSDEC, 2015). The fall blooms are suspected to be a result of increased phosphorus concentrations in the water column from internal phosphorus loading. Thermal stratification of the water column in the summer depletes oxygen in the deep waters of the lake. Once oxygen is depleted, chemical processes cause the release of previously

73

sequestered phosphorus from lake sediments. This can also occur during the winter, as ice cover inhibits further oxygen diffusion from air into water.

Data from the SUNY Oneonta’s monitoring program shows that increased chlorophyll a

levels in the fall coincide with increased total phosphorus in the water column. Also, the updated phosphorus budget estimates that anywhere between 215 – 1,536 kg/yr (19 – 62 %) of phosphorus is internally loaded from anoxic sediments in the summer. Lake bottom anoxia was not observed during the winter. Increased phosphorus levels in the spring and resultant algae blooms are most likely associated with runoff from the watershed. Sanitary wastes (septic systems) are also likely to be a major contributor to these shoreline blooms (see Sanitary Wastes).

2. Aquatic Plants (Macrophytes)

The littoral zone within Cazenovia Lake makes up about 35% of the benthic habitat, supporting a large area of aquatic vegetation. Macrophytes, aquatic plants and benthic algae, play a significant role in lake ecology. In addition to capturing solar energy to support the lake’s food web, macrophytes stabilize sediments, provide spawning and nursery habitat for fish, and shelter animals present in the sediment and water column.

While macrophytes are an essential component of many lake ecosystems, excessive

growth can impair recreational and aesthetic values of the lake, as in Cazenovia Lake. A major concern of local residents, especially waterfront property owners and lake users, is the abundance of aquatic macrophytes. This concern has been expressed at a variety of public forums. Excessive growth of aquatic plants currently interferes with recreation, makes the lake unattractive, and is a source of objectionable odors as the vegetation decays. The establishment of the zebra mussel population around 1996 has only exacerbated the problem by increasing water clarity (allowing plants to grow at deeper depths) and consistently providing nutrients to the littoral sediments through pseudofeces (wastes), as a result of their highly efficient filter feeding. The chemical treatment program that began in 2009 is providing an immediate benefit by reducing the proliferation of Eurasian watermilfoil, which is associated with the most significant impairment to recreational usage, but its effects are temporary despite its high cost. The town and individual donors have invested over 1.2 million dollars in what has turned out to be a relatively short-term fix. Historically, the town has taken the following measures and initiatives to control annual plant growth in the lake.

Historical Measures

• 1967: Treatment using copper sulfate (algaecide)

• 1976: Purchase of an “underwater weed cutter” device

• 1978: Suspension of chemical treatment program and expansion of mechanical harvesting

74

• 1983- 1988: Reinstatement of chemical treatment program using copper sulfate and diquat in limited areas; harvesting continues

• 1988: Chemical treatment continues (5 acres using 2, 4-D (Aqua-Kleen); benthic mats installed; harvesting continues; capital project fund drive begins for new harvester

• 1989: new harvester purchased; 10 acres chemically treated

• 1994: Application of chemical 2,4-d in selected areas to supplement harvesting

• 1995 – 2008: Harvesting continued to be the primary method of macrophyte control.

• 1995 – 2014: Residents employ benthic barriers, suction dredging and hand pulling

• 2000: Application for chemical treatment using fluridone (Sonar), not approved

• 2009: Chemical treatment of 234 acres using liquid triclopyr (Renovate OTF).



• 2014: Chemical treatment of 176 acres using granular triclopyr (Renovate OTF). Reinstatement of mechanical harvesting program to supplement chemical treatment (estimated 780 cubic yards of plant material removed).

Approach The Town of Cazenovia has decided that the most efficient and cost effective measure to control excessive aquatic plant and algal growth is through a long term nutrient reduction strategy. Selective clearing of aquatic vegetation is currently employed by the town through mechanical harvesting and by shoreline residents through the use of benthic mats and hand pulling. Mats are rented on an annual basis and are issued on a first come, first served basis. In Cazenovia Lake’s watershed, the majority of nutrients originate from diffuse, non-point sources (Coastal Environmental Services, Inc., 1992). These sources include septic leachate, road runoff, and lawn fertilizers. Efforts to control sediment and phosphorus loading to the lake have been ongoing since the creation of the lake management plan in 1992. The Cazenovia Town Board and Cazenovia Village Trustees have adopted several local laws designed to reduce the influx of nutrients, sediment, and other potentially harmful materials to Cazenovia Lake and adjacent waterways. These measures are placed in several categories:

Monitoring and Assessment

Between 1998 and 2014, the Cazenovia Lake Association (CLA) participated in the Citizens Statewide Lake Assessment Program (CSLAP). This annual monitoring program measures trophic state indicator parameters and provides information needed to assess trends in water quality. The CLA has committed to collecting comparable samples and using the same certified laboratory that processes CSLAP samples in order to ensure data comparability. In

75

addition, the CLA began an annual monitoring program of the macrophyte community, using the standard rake-toss methodology. Robert L. Johnson of Cornell University has completed yearly investigations of the macrophyte community and has addressed the CLA on the potential for biological control of Eurasian watermilfoil using herbivorous insects. The CLA also continues to receive strong and consistent technical support from Scott Kishbaugh, Chief in the Lakes Monitoring and Assessment Section of the Bureau of Water Assessment Management at New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in Albany. In recent years, he has taken on the important issue of harmful algal blooms (HAB) which have occasionally been problematic in many lakes, including Cazenovia Lake, and has visited many times to offer his insights and guidance as the Town of Cazenovia develops tools for managing the lake. As part of developing the Joint Comprehensive Plan for the Town and Village of Cazenovia (adopted in 2008), the New York Rural Water Association delineated the recharge area of the aquifer supplying the Village of Cazenovia public supply wells. Special protective measures restricting potentially harmful land use and development practices within the contributing area were incorporated into the revised zoning and subdivision code, adopted in 2009.

Legislative Initiatives

The Cazenovia Town Board and Cazenovia Village Trustees have adopted several local laws designed to reduce the influx of nutrients, sediment and other potentially harmful materials to Cazenovia Lake and adjacent waterways.

• Detailed inspections of on-site wastewater disposal systems on a five-year rotating schedule for all properties within the lake watershed zone

• Required Planning Board review and permits of any land disturbance within the lake watershed zone

• Site plan review for all development throughout the town, with additional review of actions in the lake watershed and riparian zone

• A local law requiring aggressive stormwater management within the entire town, with additional requirements for the lake watershed and riparian zones

• A local law banning application of phosphorus-containing fertilizer within the lake watershed. The local law is accompanied by a public outreach effort.

• Abolishing the entire zoning and subdivision laws for the Town of Cazenovia, and replacing them with updated laws. Subdivision of land is now required to use the “conservation subdivision” approach. This approach requires developers to identify and avoid critical features of natural, cultural and scenic resources. In addition, the minimum lot size for the town outside village was set at 3 acres to reduce density and associated adverse environmental impacts.

76

• The Town of Cazenovia passed a comprehensive “Right to Farm” law to help keep agricultural lands in production, thus preserving open space.

• By resolution, the town agreed to sponsor interested agricultural producers in the New York State Dept. of Agriculture and Market’s Purchase of Development Rights program. To date, two farms have been accepted into the program, protecting more than 700 acres of farmland in perpetuity.

• The town designated a 20-ft buffer zone around the lake shoreline and listed streams, in addition to the aquifer recharge area supplying the Village wells as “critical environmental areas”(CEA). This designation was officially submitted to NYSDEC and will result in closer scrutiny of projects within the designated CEA. Open Space Protection

• The Cazenovia Preservation Foundation, founded in 1966, is a local land trust with more than 1000 acres of woodlands, fields and wetlands under its protection.

• Lakeland Park, Lakeside Park, Gypsy Bay Park, and the Helen L. McNitt State Park are located on the lake shoreline. Operational Measures

• The Town Highway Department has purchased and installed computer-controlled spreading devices for sand and salt for its fleet of plow trucks.

• The Town Highway Department is installing and maintaining sedimentation basins on the tributaries entering Cazenovia Lake. This program works with residents to identify potential areas for location of the sedimentation basins and complete the required easements and operational agreements.

• The Town Highway Department participates in continuing education measures, such as the Cornell Local Roads Program, to adopt environmentally-sound road and ditching maintenance procedures.

• The Village worked with SUNY-ESF and the Madison County Soil and Water Conservation District to design and construct modifications to the “willow patch” along Chittenango Creek in order to reduce exit velocity and enhance filtration of stormwater from the Village collection system. This innovative project received partial grant funding from the Central NY Community Foundation.

• The Village continues to invest in rebuilding its stormwater and wastewater collection infrastructure.

• Cazenovia Area Community Development Association (CACDA) led a collaborative program to restore a 300-ft segment of the lake shoreline at the Village’s Lakeside Park using a bioengineering approach. Existing rip-rap was removed, and the shoreline extended with coconut logs. The area was graded and replanted with native vegetation.

77

• The Town of Cazenovia is currently working with the Madison County Soil and Water Conservation District to designate areas within the watershed that are prone to erosional processes.

Sanitary Wastes

The majority of residents in the Cazenovia Lake watershed rely on septic systems (on-site wastewater treatment) to properly treat their household waste. Generally, these systems rely on a tank that accumulates wastes and separates liquid from solids, and a leach field to filter the wastewater. In properly functioning systems, some nutrients, including phosphorus are absorbed and retained by the soil as the effluent percolates through the soil to the shallow saturated zone. Therefore, properly functioning systems on adequate soils at reasonable distances from aquatic resources should contribute very little phosphorus loads to nearby waterbodies (Illinois EPA, 1996-2011). Septic system malfunction occur when there is a discharge of waste to the soil surface (where it is available for runoff), if the leach field becomes saturated, or where there is limited opportunity for phosphorus adsorption to take place. Systems within 250 feet of the lake are subject to inefficient removal of phosphorus, with those closer to the lake more likely to contribute greater loads. As a result, malfunctioning septic systems can contribute high phosphorus loads and harmful pathogens to nearby waterbodies. Water testing on Cazenovia Lake and its watershed has confirmed that groundwater affected by septic tank leachate is reaching the lake. The SUNY Oneonta phosphorus budget study estimates that 267 kg/yr of phosphorus enters Cazenovia Lake from septic systems (Kopec, 2015). This source is 23.5% of the entire phosphorus budget and is important because the phosphorus is in a dissolved state, meaning it is readily available for uptake by algae and aquatic plants. In contrast, most of the phosphorus generated by other sources is particulate, meaning phosphorus is bound to sediments/particles and not readily available. Dissolved phosphorus is logically the first priority for remedial actions because it can directly trigger algal growth in P-limited waters (Uusitalo, et al., 2015). A subsurface water management (septic suitability) survey through the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) indicates that the majority (73.8%) of the soils in the lake’s watershed are “very limited”. This classification means that the soils have one or more features that are unfavorable for the on-site septic systems, the limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation or expensive installation procedures, and poor performance can be expected.

Approach Detailed inspections of on-site wastewater disposal systems are conducted on a five-year

rotating schedule for all properties within the lake watershed zone; however, restoration of Cazenovia Lake depends on elimination of this source of phosphorus. A systematic approach, such as the formation of a sanitary sewer district and discharge of treated wastewater outside of the watershed, is essential to achieving an appreciable reduction of phosphorus input. The Town of Cazenovia has concluded that eliminating or improving septic systems will greatly benefit the

78

quality of Cazenovia Lake and enhance property values and the quality of life for residents. The four target areas are: Northeast Lake, West Lake, Overlook Terrace and Owahgena Terrace. The decision to proceed ultimately rests with the affected property owners, who will finance the districts. The town is working with Cazenovia Area Community Development Association (CACDA), Madison County Planning Department (MCPD) and the Industrial Development Agency (IDA) to pursue all options for grant funding. In order to manage such a large project, which will involve detailed evaluation of many parcels, the town is considering proceeding in stages, and hopes that the success of the first district will help remaining property owners make positive decisions. In the interim, property owners will continue to be educated on proper maintenance of their septic systems and encouraged to make preventative repairs. Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS)

1. Exotic species currently absent in Cazenovia Lake Non-native species such as plants, fish, and animals are invading New York State lakes at

an alarming rate. Under the right conditions, these organisms can increase dramatically, clogging waterways and impacting navigation and recreation. Once introduced, they may be impossible to eliminate, which is why prevention is easier and a more cost effective solution. Nuisance species not currently present in Cazenovia Lake, that can be accidentally transported by recreational boaters when caught in propellers/intakes or attached to hulls include, but are not limited to: hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), brittle naiad (Najas minor), fanwort (Cabomba spp.), water chestnut (Eleocharis dulcis), Brazilian elodea (Egeria densa), fishhook (Cercopagis pengoi) and spiny waterflea (Bythotrephes longimanus), bloody red shrimp (Hemimysis anomala), Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) and quagga mussels (Dreissena bugensis). Controlling these aquatic invasive species has been a multi-million dollar problem. The NYSDEC provides a continuously updated list of New York State Aquatic Invasive Species at http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/50272.html. Cazenovia Lake has been a host to invasive species such as zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), starry stonewort (Nitellopsis obtusa), curly leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), and most recently European frogbit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae). Beginning in 2009, the Village of Cazenovia inspects all boats entering the lake at the Lakeside boat launch for invasive species. The inspection program is funded by the sale of launch permits, and by a contribution from the town allowing residents to obtain permits at no cost.

Approach Prevention of additional introductions of AIS can be achieved through stringent boat

inspections by lake stewards at the Lakeside boat launch. The Village of Cazenovia requires permits and inspections at the boat launch to control invasive species. A checklist is administered by trained staff during the peak morning hours and a local resident during afternoon and evening hours. Microscopic larval forms of aquatic invasive species, such as zebra mussels and spiny waterflea, can live in as much as a drop of water. To ensure that these organisms are not

http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/50272.html

79

accidentally spread, anything holding water should be dried, flushed or pressure washed with hot water (60°C) to ensure that these aquatic invasive species are not spread. Any boating equipment that has been on another waterbody with a documented invasive species is required to be washed by the owner prior to entering Cazenovia Lake. Additionally, the inspection program provides an opportunity to educate boaters on the importance of invasive species. The NYSDEC provides cleaning and disinfection techniques for boaters at http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/92700.html. Currently, the Lakeside boat launch washing apparatus consists of an ordinary garden hose with cold water at low pressure. The Village of Cazenovia will be improving this approach by purchasing a heated power washer and developing a catchment basin to prevent the potentially contaminated water from entering the lake. The town would also like to expand the inspection program to include watercraft launched at the Willow Bank Yacht Club and Owera Point.

1. Alewife

The alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) is a small herring, native to the Atlantic Coast, and was documented in Cazenovia Lake by Coastal Environmental Services in their 1991 fishery survey. In high abundance, this species can be extremely detrimental to the aquatic food web. It is an efficient grazer of zooplankton and larval fish, preventing algae from being grazed upon and native fish reproduction to be stressed. Numerous studies have indicated that a reduction in zooplankton standing crop is quickly followed by an increase in algae densities.

Approach

Alewife have not been found in any fishery surveys post 1991, meaning they are not currently present in Cazenovia Lake. If introduced in the future, their populations can be managed with top-down predator control. This method utilizes the stocking of game fish such as walleye (Sander vitreus) to increase predation and keep alewife populations at a minimum. Walleye are currently present in Cazenovia Lake, but at low population levels, and the NYSDEC plans to resume stocking of the species this year, 2015.

2. Zebra Mussels

Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) are small freshwater mussels native to Eastern Europe and Western Russia that were introduced to the Great Lakes in ballast water of freighters. Judging by the sudden increase in water clarity, it is estimated that the zebra mussel population established itself in Cazenovia Lake by 1996. They negatively affect lakeshore residents and recreationists by clogging intake pipes, attaching to propellers and docks, and can cause cuts and scrapes if they grow large enough on rocks, swim rafts, and ladders. In addition to being a nuisance, this organism is an efficient filter feeder of phytoplankton from the water. This filtering process increases water clarity, allowing aquatic plants to grow at deeper depths and denser stands. Additionally, they have been found to be selective at the types of algae they consume, filtering large quantities of native algae and avoiding blue-green algae, allowing for the detrimental blue-green algae to outcompete native green algae (Vanderploeg, 2001). A large

http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/92700.html

80

population over a large area, such as in Cazenovia Lake, may be impacting the food chain and reducing food for other organisms by consuming large amounts of phytoplankton, microzooplankton, bacteria, and protozoans (the foundation of the aquatic food chain). As mentioned earlier, this species may be altering nutrient cycling by shortcutting the flow of phosphorus from the water column to the lake sediments, which provides more nutrients for plants and benthic algae. In the literature, they are now more commonly being referred to as ecosystem engineers (Coleman & Williams, 2002) due to the large scale effects they have on waterbodies, which is why it is important for recreational users of Cazenovia Lake to prevent their introduction to other waterbodies.

Approach Currently, there are no management strategies that exist for the control of zebra mussels.

Strategies have been put to use in an attempt to get rid of the infestation, many of which have toxic effects on beneficial organisms, but most scientists believe that zebra mussels cannot be eradicated. Molluscicides are available but are only effective at small scale treatments and are not effective/too costly to use on a large scale. Also, once the spot treatment is finished, there is nothing preventing the mussels from reinfesting the treated area. Winter water level drawdown is effective to some degree for managing the species around docks, but it reinfests the areas as soon as water level rebounds in the spring. The Town of Cazenovia provides an educational outreach program to supply lake users and shoreline property owners with the proper information on how to prevent the spread of zebra mussels to other uninfested water bodies. Additionally, lake users are required to wash their boating equipment upon exiting Cazenovia Lake at the public boat launch in Lakeside Park.

3. Exotic Plants (Macrophytes)

Cazenovia Lake contains four invasive plant species, Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), European frogbit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae), and the macroalgae starry stonewort (Nitellopsis obtusa). The relatively shallow waters of Cazenovia Lake, along with increased water clarity by zebra mussels prove ideal for milfoil, and decades of mechanical harvesting have done little to control the aquatic plant. Herbicide treatments (Renovate OTF) applied in 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2014 have been very effective at reducing Eurasian watermilfoil abundance, however, the results are temporary and the treatment is costly.

Approach Continued inspection of boats at the Lakeside boat launch will reduce the risk of new

invasive species. The town plans to continue mechanical harvesting, use benthic mats in recreational areas, and chemical treatment of problem areas when fundraising and budget allocations allow. Annual rake toss surveys will continue to provide an assessment of exotic plant species distribution and abundance, monitoring any changes in exotic plant populations.

81

Mechanical harvesting will begin earlier in the season given weather conditions and plant growth. The town plans to improve the efficiency of this approach (lower density of weeds) by increasing the number of unloading sites (possibly Lakeside Park), and adding GPS capability and a depth sounder to the harvester (covering more littoral area and avoiding disturbance of sediment). It is also important to make sure that all severed Eurasian watermilfoil segments (either by harvester or boat propeller) are removed from the water. These have the potential to drift to other sections of the lake and eventually re-root, setting back the progress of costly chemical treatments. Harvesting practices will be conducted in a way to prevent this as much as possible but unfortunately cannot stop this from occurring. Residents can conduct a daily or weekly inspection of their shoreline and remove any floating fragments to keep them from re-growing.

Fishery Cazenovia Lake supports a relatively diverse and productive warmwater fishery. The fish

community has been, and continues to be, extensively studied by multiple organizations. These include Coastal Environmental Services in 1991, Professor Neil Ringer and students from SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF) in 2006 (Kirby & Ringler, 2006), Professor Thad Yorks and his students from Cazenovia College in 2012 and 2013 (VanDerKrake, 2013), and the NYSDEC from 2012 – 2014 (NYSDEC, 2015).The lake has been stocked with walleye periodically by the NYSDEC from 1961-1978, and then continued by the Nelson Sportsman's Club until 1989. Most recently in 2012, seventeen fish species were documented as present in the lake (NYSDEC, 2012).

Approach The results of the Cazenovia College trap-net survey indicate a healthy and diverse warm

water fish community. Based on the most recent electrofishing NYSDEC surveys, the NYSDEC recommends stocking the lake with walleye for five years starting in 2015; however, this is dependent on the number of walleye produced in the hatchery system (NYSDEC, 2015). As a follow-up action to the aquatic plant treatment program, the CLA will continue to work with multiple organizations to periodically survey the lake’s fish community.

Recreational Use As a Class A designation, Cazenovia Lake’s usage allows for contact recreation

(swimming and bathing), aquatic life (fishing), and non-contact recreation (such as boating and aesthetics). Limited public boat access is available at the Lakeside Park boat launch for permit holder’s entry. Permits are available from the Village clerk. Willow Bank Yacht Club also provides members with boat access to the lake. Most boat use and access is mainly drawn from the residential homes dominating the lakeshore. A survey from 2007 indicated that Cazenovia Lake had the following number of recreational watercraft docked, moored, or in use on the lake:

• at least 300 powerboats

82

• over 200 sailboats • at least 40 jet skis • over 500 row boats, canoes, or kayaks

Because of its relatively small size, Cazenovia Lake reaches its maximum capacity for

safe operation on a summer afternoon or a holiday weekend when only one quarter (25%) of these recreational watercraft are on the lake (Environmental Design & Research, Landscape Architecture, Planning, Environmental Services,Engineering and Surveying, P.C., 2008). Recent (2014) Lakeside public boat launch data shows that the peak month of use was June (25%), followed by July (22%) and August (21%). Peak day of the week was Saturday (22%), followed by Sunday (21.8%) and Friday (19.1%). The least busy day of the week was Tuesday (7.7%). There were numerous written concerns from the blanket survey stating that recreational users (mostly jet skis) are not regarding boating regulations, and are endangering/disregarding the safety of other boaters. This involves excessive boat speeds and boating too close to shore/other boaters.

Approach Individuals who want to operate a boat must take an eight hour New York State boating

safety course and pass the exam given at the end of the course. The course is mandatory for every person who wants to operate a personal watercraft or jet ski, regardless of age, and has traditionally been jointly sponsored as a community service by the CLA, the Willow Bank Yacht Club, and the Madison County Sheriff at least once during the boating season. (See www.cazlake.org). The Town of Cazenovia plans to support New York State boating regulations (NYS Navigational Law §30-79) by continuing and expanding their policing program. This program will keep shoreline residents content and boaters safe by enforcing the following regulations:

• Boat vessel speed is limited to 5 mph when within 100 feet of the shore, a dock, pier, raft, float, or anchored boat. This regulation is still in effect regardless of the presence or absence of no-wake zone buoys.

• For houseboats, discharge of any sewage is not permitted on any land locked lake which is located completely within the borders of New York State. Sewage must be pumped out ashore using the proper pump-out equipment and/or facility.

Shoreline Preservation Shoreline erosion is a natural process that occurs on lakes, streams, rivers and along any

coast. Prior to human influence, Cazenovia Lake’s shoreline was once entirely naturally vegetated, acting as a buffer against shoreline erosion. Residential development around the lake has degraded the amount of natural vegetation, increasing erosion of the shoreline from wind and boat traffic. Consequently, this accelerates the process at which the lake fills in (gets shallower) and ultimately results in property loss or costly structural damage. The shoreline is a valuable

http://www.cazlake.org/

83

area, as it provides habitat for fish and wildlife, and filters stormwater runoff before it enters Cazenovia Lake, therefore, it should be preserved to the fullest extent.

Approach

The town designated a 20-ft (6m) buffer zone around the lake shoreline and listed streams, in addition to the aquifer recharge area supplying the Village wells as “critical environmental areas”. This designation was officially submitted to NYSDEC and will result in closer scrutiny of projects within the designated CEA. For residents, simple shoreline buffer zones using native vegetation should be used to slow down runoff and help it soak into the ground. These zones reduce erosion along the lakeshore and stream banks by slowing down the movement of water and sediments, as well as also being able to remove as much as 95% of nutrients and pollutants from runoff that would enter Cazenovia Lake. It is recommended that buffers consist of native vegetation and at least 20 or 25 feet (6 or 8 m) in depth measuring from the lakeshore or tributary. Shrubs and trees are more effective vegetation types for buffer benefits. Compared to woody shrubs, ordinary turf grasses have shallow roots and do not absorb as much nutrients, and thus are not a good component of a buffer zone. Residents can refer to pages 53-61 in the Cazenovia Lake Care & Use Manual to follow recommended guidelines for the types of native trees and shrubs to plant at their shoreline. Additionally, boating regulations exist to reduce the effects of wakes on shoreline erosion (see Recreational Use section). The town can improve on that approach by implementing a larger no-wake zone of 300-500 feet (91-152 m).

Streams and Tributaries

Agricultural Management Erosion of sediments from unvegetated farm fields has traditionally been identified as

one of the leading sources of sediments (NYSFOLA, 2009). Land within the Cazenovia Lake watershed that is classified as agricultural accounts for 1,132 (459 ha) (20%) of the total land use (Jin, et al., 2013). Although a small percent of the watershed, agriculture can contribute high amounts of nutrients during storm events. When manure is spread on farm fields during the winter or early spring, nitrogen and phosphorus content in the resulting runoff has been shown to be up to 15 times higher than normal (CACDA, 2007).

Approach The Town of Cazenovia does not currently have an active tributary monitoring program,

but is working with the Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) to target areas within the watershed that are prone to erosion. The Town Highway Department is installing and maintaining sedimentation basins on the tributaries entering Cazenovia Lake. This program works with residents to identify potential areas for location of the sedimentation basins and complete the required easements and operational agreements. Storm event monitoring of tributaries within the Cazenovia Lake watershed could provide valuable data on this potentially

84

large source of nutrients, and could help further refine the nutrient budget for the lake. The town plans to initiate this tributary monitoring program in the near future. Furthermore, the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) can help the lake and farmer by slowing eutrophication and retaining nutrients on the agricultural land. The NYS Agricultural Nonpoint Source Abatement & Control Grant Program assists farmers in preventing water pollution from agricultural activities by providing technical assistance and financial incentives. A guidance manual for BMPs and information for the grant program is available online at http://www.nys-soilandwater.org/aem/nonpoint.html. A few general BMPs are listed below.

• Maintenance of cover crop during winter months • Tilling and crop planting parallel to topographic contours to slow water flow and trap

sediment • Use of a filter strip along field edges to trap and slow runoff • Planned, rotation of crops and livestock • Use of grassed waterways and farm ponds to capture sediment moving from fields

Logging and Silviculture While protecting and preserving land with conservation value, it is equally important to

encourage best practices for all commercial uses involving natural resources to mitigate ongoing concerns (such as logging, natural gas extraction, and wind farms). Land disturbance can greatly increase the probability of erosion occurring and the subsequent sediment washing into the lake. Sensitive land or forest management is important for the long-term health of natural ecosystems.

Approach The Town of Cazenovia has implemented the following guidelines in order to make

environmentally sound decisions for sensitive land operations. • Required Planning Board review and permits of any land disturbance within the lake

watershed zone. • Site plan review for all development throughout the town, with additional review of

actions in the lake watershed and riparian zone.

Roadway Maintenance Each year the Cazenovia Lake Watershed is affected by the community’s actions

designed to maintain the roads. Both summer and winter maintenance and operations can affect the way water and materials move from the watershed into the lake. There are about 49 lane miles (79 km) within the lake watershed; all have open ditches (except along some private estate roads). Through Cornell’s Local Road Highway Best Practices the Town Highway Department staff members have learned the following:

• Ditches intercept about 25% of surface runoff in a watershed and move it quickly downstream where it reaches streams and water bodies, often at a high velocity.

• Ditches increase the volume and velocity of runoff, contributing to floods.

http://www.nys-soilandwater.org/aem/nonpoint.html

http://www.nys-soilandwater.org/aem/nonpoint.html

85

• Ditches carry pathogens, sediment and associated contaminants (nutrients, metals) to downstream waters.

• Annual winter maintenance and routine snow and ice removal adds approximately 6,000—12,000 tons of sand and salt into the environment town-wide each year. This leads to sedimentation, increases phosphorus loading, builds up road shoulders and fills in ditches. Approach The overall goal is to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of sand in the lake

watershed. The Highway Department has implemented the following strategies to improve overall winter maintenance and operations:

• Computer controllers installed in plow trucks have reduced material use by 50%. • Use of salt brine for deicing has enabled the Highway Department to reduce sand use by

an additional 25% in the lake watershed. The Highway Department also plans to implement the following strategies:

• Construct a salt storage building in 2015. • In the spring, rent a vacuum truck to remove sand from watershed roads. They anticipate

removing about 6 truck loads, +/- 90 tons (81,647 kg) of sand. • Map all cross culvert pipes, assessing their condition and size. Seek opportunities to

increase the number of cross culverts, which will help shorten ditches. Shorter ditches decrease the volume and speed of storm water, thus reducing disruption to the watershed.

• Identify areas where the slope of ditches and shoulders can be reduced. Many roads have inadequate right-of-way or culvert placements that constrain ditch design.

• Install hydro seeding, check dams and rock-lined ditches along roadways leading to the lake.

• Pave or oil stone road shoulders on steep grades to eliminate erosion and the need to cut shoulders.

Future projects will aim to reduce sheet runoff of water from land, disconnect ditches from streams and lakes, and add infiltration basins and constructed wetlands to help water seep into the ground and recharge the aquifers. Continued Monitoring

Baseline Monitoring As part of the Citizens Statewide Lake Assessment Program (CSLAP), trained volunteers

collect lake data following approved NYSDEC methods. The data are added to the statewide lake database to help detect changes in water quality over time. CSLAP is seasonal, only in the summertime, and therefore may be missing crucial data. Regular lake monitoring keeps track of existing problems, detects threats before they become a problem, and helps evaluate lake condition. The Fall 2013 – Spring 2015 SUNY Oneonta monitoring program has provided empirical data with a vertical profile for monthly water temperature, dissolved oxygen, total

86

phosphorus, total nitrogen, nitrate+nitrite, chlorophyll a, and water clarity. Additionally, multiple piezometers (shallow wells to sample groundwater) were installed in the summer of 2014 at five residential locations to evaluate the potential impact of phosphorus migration from septic tanks on groundwater quality.

Approach Continued monitoring of water quality is important to understand the nutrient dynamics

within Cazenovia Lake and will help the town to focus on appropriate restoration measures. This will also help document improvements within the lake and will allow the town to gauge the effectiveness of their restoration efforts. The town plans to develop a monthly monitoring program (independent of CSLAP) for Cazenovia Lake water quality and shoreline septic systems by building upon the work from the 2013-2015 SUNY Oneonta study. The necessary equipment will be purchased by the town, budget allowing, and an intern from Cazenovia College will conduct the monthly monitoring of the lake and piezometers.

Invasive Plant Monitoring Since 2009, Bob Johnson of Racine-Johnson Aquatic Ecologists has completed an annual

survey of the macrophyte community. The survey provides a quantitative assessment of the species present in the lake, their distribution, and their abundance using a rake-toss method. The same 304 specific locations (GPS recorded) have been sampled yearly since 2010. Plant species not currently present in Cazenovia Lake as of 2014 are listed earlier in this document, in the Exotic Plant Species section.

Approach The Town of Cazenovia plans to continue funding yearly plant surveys, which will

monitor the current plant community and detect any undesirable introductions. Additionally, the town will continue inspections at Lakeside Park, with the goal of 100% of watercraft inspected for invasive species. Early detection and rapid response are very important to prevent establishment of a newly introduced aquatic invasive species. As mentioned in the Exotic Species section, prevention is the most cost effective long-term solution.

87

References Allinger, L. E., & Reavie, E. D. (2013). The ecological history of Lake Erie as recorded by the

phytoplankton community. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 365-382. Analytics, X. (2012). YSI 6820 V2 Compact Sonde for Field Sampling of Dissolved Oxygen and

More. Retrieved October 17, 2013, from YSI Inc | Water quality sampling and monitoring meters for dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, turbidity: http://www.ysi.com/productsdetail.php?6820-V2-4.

Bostrom, B., Andersen, J. M., Siegfried, F., & Jansson, M. (1988). Exchange of phosphorus

across the sediment-water interface. Hydrobiologia, 229-244. Brezonik, P. (1973). Nutrient Sources and Cycling in Natural Waters. Washington DC.: U.S.

EPA. CACDA. (2007). Cazenovia Lake: A Use & Care Manual. Cazenovia Area Community

Development Association. Carlson, R. E. (1977). A Trophic State Index for Lakes. Limnology and Oceanography, 361-369. Clark, G., Mueller, D., & Mast, M. (2000). Nutrient concentrations and yields in undeveloped

stream basins of the United States. JAWRA, 849-860. Coastal Environmental Services, Inc. (1992). Cazenovia Lake: Restoration and Management

Plan. Princeton. Coleman, F. C., & Williams, S. L. (2002). Overexploiting marine ecosystem engineers: potential

consequences for biodiversity. TRENDS in Ecology & Evolution, 40-44. Cooke, D. G., Welch, E. B., Peterson, S. A., & Nichols, S. A. (2005). Restoration and

Management of Lakes and Reservoirs. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.

Environmental Design & Research, Landscape Architecture, Planning, Environmental

Services,Engineering and Surveying, P.C. (2008). Village and Town of Cazenovia Comprehensive Plan.

Epp, G. T. (1996). Grazing on filamentous cyanobacteria by Daphnia pulicaria. American

Society of Limnology and Oceonography, Inc., 560-567. Frink, C. (1991). Estimating nutrient exports to estuaries. Journal of Environmental Quality,

717-724. Gould, D., & Fletcher, M. (1978). Gull droppings and their effects on water quality. Water

Research, 665-672.

88

Holdren, C., Jones, W., & Taggart, J. (2001). Managing Lakes and Reservoirs. Madison, WI: N. Am. Lake Manage. Soc. and Terrene Inst., in coop.with Off. Water Assess. Watershed Prot. Div. U.S, Environ. Prot. Agency.

Hu, Z., Guo, L., Liu, T., Chuai, X., Chen, Q., Shi, F., . . . Yang, L. (2014). Uniformisation of

phytoplankton chlorophyll a and macrophyte biomass to characterise the potential trophic state of shallow lakes. Ecological Indicators, 1-9.

Illinois EPA. (1996-2011). Septic Systems. Retrieved from Illinois EPA:

http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/conservation/lake-notes/septic-systems/septic-systems.pdf

Jin, S., Yang, L., Danielson, P., Homer, C., F. J., & Xian, G. (2013). A comprehensive change

detection method for updating the National Land Cover Database to circa 2011. Remote Sensing of Environment, 132, 159 – 175.

Kalff, J. (2003). Limnology: Inland Water Ecosystems. Prentice Hall. Kirby, L., & Ringler, N. (2006). Survey of Fish and Habitat in the Littoral Zone of Cazenovia

Lake (June-September 2006). SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Kopec, D. (2015). Cazenovia Lake: A Comprehensive Management Plan. Oneonta: State

University of New York College at Oneonta. Line, D., Harman, W., & Jennings, G. (1998). Comparing sampling schemes for monitoring

pollutant export from a dairy pasture. JAWRA, 1265-1273. Manny, B. W., & Johnson, W. C. (1975). Annual contribution of carbon, nitrogen and

phosphorus by migrant Canada geese to a hardwater Pond. . Verhandlungen des Internationalen Verein Limnologie, 949-951.

Miller, C., Dennis, J., Ator, S., & Brakebill, J. (1997). Nutrients in streams during baseflow in

selected environmental settings of the Potomac River basin. JAWRA. Mitchell, D., Wagner, K., & Asbury, C. (1988). Direct measurement of ground water flow and

quality as a lake management tool. Lake and Reservoir Management, 169-178. New York State Department of Health. (2015, March 23). Coliform Bacteria in Drinking Water

Supplies. Retrieved from New York State Department of Health: https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/water/drinking/coliform_bacteria.htm

Nurnberg, G. K. (1994). Phosphorus Release From Sediments: What We Know And How We

Can Deal With It. Limnetica, 1-4. Nurnberg, G., & Peters, R. H. (1984). The importance of internal phosphorus load to the

eutrophication of lakes with anoxic hypolimnia. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol, 190-194.

89

NYSDEC. (2011, January 21). CSLAP 2011 Lake Water Quality Summary: Cazenovia Lake. Retrieved from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/cslrpt11cazenovial.pdf

NYSDEC. (2015). Cazenovia Lake. Retrieved January 5, 2015, from New York State

Department of Environmental Conservation: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/60506.html NYSDEC. (2015). New York State Clean Lakes Assessment. Retrieved from New York State

Department of Environmental Conservation: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/305blakes10.pdf

NYSFOLA. (2009). Diet for a Small Lake: The Expanded Guide to New York State Lake and

Watershed Management. New York State Federation of Lake Associations, Inc. Oram, B. (2014). Water Research Center. Retrieved from pH in the Environment:

http://www.water-research.net/index.php/ph-in-the-environment Portnoy, J. (1990). Gull contribution of P & N to a Cape Cod Kettle pond. Hydrobiologia, 61-69. Racine-Johnson Aquatic Ecologists. (2013). 2013 Cazenovia Lake Plant Community Response

to the 2009, 2010 and 2012 Applications of the Herbicide Triclopyr to Control Eurasian Watermilfoil. Ithaca.

Reckhow, K., Beaulac, M., & Simpson, J. (1980). Modeling phosphorus loading and Pond

response under uncertainty: a manual and compilation of export coefficients. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA.

Rohm, C., Omernik, J., Woods, A., & Stoddard, J. (2002). Regional characteristics of nutrient

concentrations in streams and their application to nutrient criteria development. JAWRA, 213-239.

Scherer, N., Gibbons, H., Stoops, K., & Muller, M. (1995). Phosphorus loading of an urban Pond

by bird droppings. Pond and Reservoir Management, 317-327. Sharpley, A., Smith, S., Jones, O., Berg, W., & Coleman, G. (1992). The transport of

bioavailable phosphorus in agricultural runoff. Journal of Environmental Quality, 30-35. Smith, T. E., Stevenson, J. R., Caraco, N. F., & Cole, J. J. (1998). Changes in phytoplankton

community structure during the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) invasion of the Hudson River (New York). Journal of Plankton Research, 1567-1579.

Solinst Canada Ltd. (2014, March 15). Solinst. Retrieved from Solinst High Quality

Groundwater Monitoring Instruments: http://www.solinst.com/ Tchobanoglous, G., & Burton, F. (1991). Wastewater Engineering Treatment, Disposal and

Reuse. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

90

U.S. Department of the Interior & U.S. Geological Survey. (2015, April 02). National Land Cover Database (NLCD). Retrieved from Multi-Resolution Land CHaracteristics Consortium (MLRC): http://www.mrlc.gov/

U.S. EPA. (2010). National Lakes Assessment A Collaborative Survey of the Nation’s Lakes

"Chapter 5: Trophic State of Lakes". Office of Wetlands, Oceans, & Watersheds, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. EPA. (2012, March 6). 5.11 Fecal Bacteria. Retrieved from Water: Monitoring &

Assesment: http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms511.cfm U.S. EPA. (2012, June 25). Natural Processes in the Great Lakes. Retrieved from Great Lakes:

http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/atlas/glat-ch2.html USDA-NRCS Soil Survey Division. (2006, March). USDA-NRCS Soil Survey Division.

Retrieved from Official Soil Series Descriptions: View By Name: https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/C/CAZENOVIA.html

USGS. (2015, February 9). Water properties: Dissolved Oxygen. Retrieved from United States

Geological Survey: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/dissolvedoxygen.html Uttormark, P., Chapin, J., & Green, K. (1974). Estimating Nutrient Loadings of Lakes from Non-

Point Sources. U.S. EPA. Uusitalo, R., Närvänen, A., Kaseva, A., Launto-Tiuttu, A., Heikkinen, J., Joki-Heiskala, P., . . .

Rasa, K. (2015). Conversion of dissolved phosphorus in runoff by ferric sulfate to a form less available to algae: Field performance and cost assessment. Ambio, 286-296.

VanDerKrake, A. J. (2013). Littoral Zone Fish Community Study of Cazenovia Lake. Cazenovia

College. Vanderploeg, H. A. (2001). Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) selective filtration promoted

toxic Microcystis blooms in Saginaw Bay (Lake Huron) and Lake Erie. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 1208-1221.

Vollenweider, R. A. (1968). Scientific fundamentals of the eutrophication of lakes and flowing

waters, with particular reference to nitrogen and phosphorus as factors in eutrophication OECD. Paris: Tech Report DA 515C1168 27. 250 p.

Wagner, K. J. (2015, February 27). How to use LLRM. Walker, W. W. (1979). Use of Hypolimnetic Oxygen Depletion Rate as Trophic State Index for

Lakes. Water Resources Research, 1463-1470.

91

WILDCO. (2015). Water Samplers. Retrieved from WILDCO: http://shop.sciencefirst.com/wildco/non-metallic-kemmerer-general-purpose/6857-kemmerer-water-sampler-pvc-kit-includes-carry-case-pvc-12l.html

YSI. (2010, February 8). Calibration, Maintenance, & Troubeshooting Tips. Retrieved from YSI

Inc.: https://www.ysi.com/File%20Library/Documents/Tips/YSI-Calibration-Maintenance-Troubleshooting-Tips-6-Series-Sondes-2-8-10.pdf

92

ID 8/20/2014 8/30/2014 9/23/2014 10/7/2014 10/18/2014 4/14/2015 4/30/2015 5/20/2015 6/3/2015 6/17/2015 7/2/20151 1920 226 62 113 635 475 97 917 125 436 8412 10450 682 39 146 610 2380 52 1677 203 15 6973 4675 410 39 142 143 419 146 920 130 15 1294 1160 504 38 467 202 705 409 1407 169 57 11605 4205 564 42 393 645 530 377 1087 144 12 1516 227 147 20 72 143 205 441 787 109 505 1407 171 416 34 49 24 44 21 50 34 18 258 107 17 47 35 32 108 39 117 78 21 709 227 44 89 34 36 126 75 762 82 18 9410 4500 812 33 189 700 24 675 1137 143 12 19111 121 25 26 109 26 255 39 157 33 24 9512 91 130 68 25 24 196 68 106 32 12 3213 544 488 16 63 37 2460 1660 28 485 12 87714 194 56 47 90 45 191 103 171 61 27 12815 126 112 71 80 NA 261 466 142 41 12 6916 114 92 161 84 70 32 67 120 63 20 9517 3490 102 135 335 80 345 72 148 86 11 82218 487 510 86 40 51 329 1300 997 143 30 10919 808 342 NA NA 176 835 1190 967 326 30 69020 21 4 4 8 16 67 23 53 8 12 3121 124 101 40 38 59 290 27 119 67 27 7922 3645 678 29 690 975 401 164 729 169 13 105023 167 330 29 81 83 63 25 47 30 16 7924 1210 498 32 447 605 172 422 1237 615 11 71825 1630 444 36 2040 68 230 141 736 78 18 6126 218 53 44 45 60 65 35 55 13 14 1927 NA 1672 520 NA 4260 143 1410 NA 171 9 9628 NA 185 29 48 25 63 68 90 22 15 67529 NA NA 132 198 NA 242 122 169 21 15 13230 NA NA NA NA NA 72 48 NA NA NA 2031 187 256 NA 77 61 205 41 153 134 21 13332 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA33 NA NA 98 NA NA 93 326 NA 76 44 8234 NA NA NA NA NA 49 NA NA NA NA 7835 390 658 37 72 144 550 154 1217 530 16 165036 NA NA 17 16 26 555 81 1457 28 15 4037 1620 836 806 630 855 154 69 915 433 168 740Re

fPr

oper

ty 1

Prop

erty

2Pr

oper

ty 3

Prop

erty

4Pr

oper

ty 5

Appendices

Appendix A. Nutrient Concentrations: Piezometers Total Phosphorus concentrations (µg/l) for installed piezometers on selected study sites surrounding Cazenovia Lake collected between August 2014 and July 2015.

93

Date Depth (m) Ammonia (mg/L) nitrate+nitrite (mg/L) Total Nitrogen (mg/L) Total Phosphorus (µg/L)

9/28/2013 0 bd bd 0.34 129/28/2013 4 bd bd 0.31 139/28/2013 8 bd bd 0.27 189/28/2013 12 1.32 bd 1.11 688

10/27/2013 0 bd bd 0.31 2510/27/2013 12 bd 0.03 0.32 27

2/1/2014 0 NA bd 0.45 92/1/2014 4 NA bd 0.35 122/1/2014 8 NA 0.03 0.44 162/1/2014 12 NA 0.06 0.28 73/1/2014 0 NA 0.11 0.47 223/1/2014 4 NA bd 0.19 113/1/2014 8 NA 0.04 0.22 143/1/2014 12 NA 0.06 0.20 173/23/2014 0 NA 0.19 0.46 73/23/2014 4 NA 0.03 0.28 93/23/2014 8 NA 0.06 0.32 73/23/2014 12 NA 0.12 0.34 64/27/2014 0 NA 0.07 0.32 94/27/2014 4 NA 0.08 0.09 94/27/2014 8 NA 0.07 0.61 114/27/2014 12 NA 0.07 0.46 114/27/2014 13.5 NA 0.07 0.40 55/15/2014 0 NA bd 0.32 115/15/2014 4 NA 0.02 0.28 135/15/2014 8 NA 0.02 0.31 145/15/2014 12 NA 0.02 0.29 106/6/2014 0 NA bd 0.28 96/6/2014 4 NA bd 0.32 146/6/2014 8 NA bd 0.28 126/6/2014 12 NA 0.04 0.28 156/6/2014 wetland inlet NA bd 0.36 167/12/2014 0 NA bd 0.25 97/12/2014 4 NA bd 0.30 127/12/2014 8 NA bd 0.29 117/12/2014 12 NA bd 0.25 127/12/2014 NE Inlet NA bd 0.41 208/1/2014 0 NA bd 0.23 118/1/2014 4 NA bd 0.81 208/1/2014 8 NA bd 0.47 158/1/2014 12 NA bd 0.30 208/19/2014 0 NA 88/19/2014 4 NA 128/19/2014 8 NA 128/19/2014 12 NA 43

LAB ERROR - samples were discarded prior to analysis

Appendix B. Nutrient Concentrations: Lake Nutrient concentrations for Cazenovia Lake collected between September 2013 and August 2014. BD = below detection level (0.02 mg/l for nitrate and ammonia, 0.04 mg/l for total nitrogen, and 4 µg/l for total phosphorus).

94

8/30/2014 0 NA bd 0.25 128/30/2014 4 NA bd 0.27 158/30/2014 8 NA bd 0.19 138/30/2014 12 NA bd 0.40 649/23/2014 0 bd bd 0.26 139/23/2014 4 0.06 bd 0.34 169/23/2014 8 0.03 bd 0.30 179/23/2014 12 0.29 bd 0.62 6810/7/2014 0 0.05 bd 0.28 2010/7/2014 4 0.08 bd 0.33 1810/7/2014 8 0.05 bd 0.28 1810/7/2014 12 0.06 bd 0.28 17

10/28/2014 0 NA 0.02 0.28 2110/28/2014 4 NA 0.03 0.32 2310/28/2014 8 NA bd 0.30 2910/28/2014 12 NA 0.03 0.29 2010/28/2014 Park Drain NA 1.45 1.47 171/29/2015 0 NA 0.04 0.32 61/29/2015 4 NA 0.04 0.27 41/29/2015 8 NA NA NA NA1/29/2015 12 NA 0.06 0.30 72/22/2015 0 NA 0.03 0.29 82/22/2015 4 NA 0.04 0.24 62/22/2015 8 NA 0.04 0.31 182/22/2015 12 NA 0.08 0.29 153/21/2015 0 NA 0.16 0.50 93/21/2015 4 NA 0.04 0.25 113/21/2015 8 NA 0.05 0.26 83/21/2015 12 NA 0.12 0.34 103/21/2015 13 NA 0.17 0.45 204/14/2015 E. INLET NA NA NA 94/30/2015 N. INLET NA NA 0.27 184/30/2015 W. INLET NA NA 0.18 54/30/2015 N. DRAIN PIPE NA NA 0.73 175/9/2015 0 NA 0.06 0.39 105/9/2015 4 NA 0.07 0.29 115/9/2015 8 NA 0.08 0.31 145/9/2015 12 NA 0.11 0.32 165/9/2015 14 NA 0.11 0.37 166/3/2015 0 NA bd NA 106/3/2015 4 NA bd NA 106/3/2015 8 NA bd NA 176/3/2015 12 NA 0.02 NA 216/3/2015 14 NA 0.08 NA 176/17/2015 0 NA bd 0.28 136/17/2015 4 NA bd 0.29 116/17/2015 8 NA bd 0.34 146/17/2015 12 NA bd 0.32 196/17/2015 14 NA bd 0.42 16

Date Depth (m) Ammonia (mg/L) nitrate+nitrite (mg/L) Total Nitrogen (mg/L) Total Phosphorus (µg/L)

Appendix B. Nutrient Concentrations: Lake Nutrient concentrations for Cazenovia Lake collected between August 2014 and June 2015.

95

Temp (°C)Depth (m) 9/28/13 10/27/13 2/1/14 3/1/14 3/23/14 4/27/14 5/15/14 6/6/14 7/12/14 8/1/14 8/19/14 8/30/19 9/23/14 10/7/14 10/28/14 1/29/15 2/22/15 3/21/15 5/9/15 6/3/15 6/17/15

0 17.8 12.37 0.39 0.76 1.51 6.58 13.14 19.49 23.87 22.65 22.48 21.39 17.56 16.11 12.59 0 0.09 0.1 16.53 18.84 23.031 17.8 12.38 1.53 1.99 1.84 6.57 13.23 19.49 23.7 22.52 21.15 21.37 17.43 16.1 12.59 0.11 0.77 1.2 14.47 18.63 22.482 17.77 12.38 1.66 2.46 2.79 6.57 13.22 19.46 23.69 22.2 20.95 21.36 17.31 16.1 12.57 0.13 0.95 1.43 12.37 18.44 22.163 17.77 12.38 1.7 2.46 2.82 6.57 13.16 19.44 23.56 22 20.87 21.35 17.28 16.1 12.56 0.13 0.99 1.45 9.91 18.35 224 17.76 12.38 1.67 2.46 2.71 6.57 13.12 19.42 23.45 21.94 20.82 21.31 17.26 16.1 12.56 0.12 1.04 1.45 9.4 18.31 21.895 17.22 12.38 1.68 2.45 2.7 6.56 13 19.38 23.3 21.91 20.76 21.3 17.25 16.09 12.55 0.12 1.08 1.45 9.02 18.25 19.996 17.07 12.38 1.74 2.52 2.72 6.56 12.75 19.25 22.85 21.88 20.73 21.29 17.24 16.09 12.55 0.17 1.15 1.45 8.55 16.35 18.467 16.89 12.37 1.82 2.58 2.73 6.56 12.77 16.05 21.61 21.79 20.7 21.26 17.24 16.08 12.54 0.25 1.22 1.52 8.16 13.51 16.878 16.83 12.37 1.88 2.71 2.77 6.56 10.15 14.4 19.75 20.6 20.63 21.05 17.23 16.08 12.54 0.37 1.33 1.65 7.68 10.94 15.189 16.79 12.36 1.95 2.74 2.85 6.53 9.8 13.24 19.07 18.32 19.85 17.18 17.19 16.08 12.54 0.52 1.46 1.81 7.4 9.2 11.3610 16.6 12.36 2.04 2.85 3 6.53 9.35 11.96 15.26 15.27 16.94 16.54 17.15 16.07 12.53 0.76 1.65 1.93 7 8.34 9.5411 15.29 12.31 2.2 3.07 3.29 6.52 9.13 10.75 13.17 13.6 13.61 15.44 16.98 16.06 12.52 0.95 1.84 2.23 6.87 7.8 8.3912 12.6 12.28 2.52 3.35 3.59 6.52 8.88 10.13 11.48 11.83 12.33 13.17 15.87 16.03 12.52 1.34 2.15 2.76 6.68 7.41 7.9613 11.85 11.99 3.46 3.91 3.88 6.52 9.85 10.77 11.8 12.16 14.49 12.49 1.79 2.8 3.15 6.62 7.1 7.4514 4.07 6.6 6.9 7.19

pHDepth (m) 9/28/13 10/27/13 2/1/14 3/1/14 3/23/14 4/27/14 5/15/14 6/6/14 7/12/14 8/1/14 8/19/14 8/30/19 9/23/14 10/7/14 10/28/14 1/29/15 2/22/15 3/21/15 5/9/15 6/3/15 6/17/15

0 8.39 7.69 9.07 8.27 8.35 8.17 7.78 8.23 8.04 8.27 8.34 8.28 8.52 8.25 8.77 8.36 9.3 8.02 8.53 8.67 8.531 8.35 7.68 8.93 8.12 8.15 8.05 7.82 8.12 8.01 8.26 8.26 8.16 8.3 8.11 8.61 8.17 9.08 7.97 8.49 8.58 8.52 8.33 7.69 8.82 8.04 8.05 7.95 7.89 8.08 8 8.27 8.22 8.1 8.21 8.05 8.48 8.1 8.97 7.95 8.47 8.47 8.483 8.32 7.72 8.71 7.99 8 7.92 8.03 8.04 8.04 8.28 8.19 8.08 8.12 8 8.42 8.06 8.89 7.94 8.44 8.46 8.464 8.31 7.73 8.62 7.9 7.91 7.88 8.09 8.03 8.04 8.24 8.19 8.06 8.08 7.97 8.37 8.05 8.83 7.93 8.42 8.45 8.455 8.21 7.75 8.56 7.82 7.83 7.85 8.15 8.01 8.01 8.22 8.14 8.06 8.05 7.92 8.34 8.05 8.78 7.91 8.4 8.43 8.46 8.13 7.76 8.5 7.77 7.79 7.84 8.17 7.99 7.96 8.19 8.14 8.04 8.02 7.9 8.31 8.03 8.72 7.89 8.35 8.37 8.297 8.08 7.78 8.45 7.72 7.71 7.83 8.21 7.9 7.74 8.17 8.13 8.02 8.01 7.88 8.28 8.02 8.67 7.87 8.3 8.29 8.228 8.04 7.79 8.41 7.66 7.66 7.83 8.19 7.85 7.5 7.76 8.09 7.95 7.98 7.87 8.25 8.02 8.63 7.85 8.24 8.22 8.169 8.03 7.8 8.37 7.67 7.6 7.83 8.14 7.81 7.38 7.45 7.82 7.54 7.96 7.85 8.24 8.02 8.6 7.81 8.18 8.18 8.1110 7.97 7.81 8.32 7.55 7.54 7.83 8.13 7.66 7.26 7.38 7.53 7.41 7.94 7.84 8.22 7.99 8.55 7.77 8.1 8.13 8.0611 7.43 7.82 8.27 7.49 7.47 7.83 8.08 7.56 7.14 7.33 7.43 7.35 7.9 7.83 8.2 7.96 8.5 7.71 8.06 8.05 8.0412 7.39 7.84 8.23 7.41 7.41 7.83 8 7.45 6.98 7.3 7.34 7.3 7.7 7.8 8.19 7.91 8.44 7.65 7.98 8.01 813 7.38 7.76 8.04 7.32 7.29 7.83 7.36 6.86 7.23 7.41 7.42 8.16 7.84 8.34 7.56 7.93 7.9 7.9514 7.4 7.66 7.39 7.89 7.79 7.89

Appendix C. Physiochemical Water Quality Data: Lake Physiochemical water quality measurements for Cazenovia Lake (surface to 13m) collected with a YSI unit between September 2013 and July 2015.

96

DO (mg/l)Depth (m) 9/28/13 10/27/13 2/1/14 3/1/14 3/23/14 4/27/14 5/15/14 6/6/14 7/12/14 8/1/14 8/19/14 8/30/19 9/23/14 10/7/14 10/28/14 1/29/15 2/22/15 3/21/15 5/9/15 6/3/15 6/17/15

0 14.34 13.13 13.45 11.91 11.33 9.13 8.71 8.33 8.41 8.53 8.47 8.18 9.8 8.18 9.8 14.56 13.02 12.29 11.28 9.11 9.211 13.54 13.13 13.21 11.93 11.38 9.11 8.82 8.41 8.48 8.5 8.41 8.15 9.75 8.15 9.75 14.38 12.81 12.15 11.52 9.05 9.262 13.27 12.93 12.82 11.93 11.4 9.09 8.87 8.51 8.43 8.48 8.36 8.14 9.69 8.14 9.69 14.33 12.59 12.08 11.92 9 9.313 13.12 12.42 12.68 11.92 11.41 9.08 8.98 8.61 8.44 8.47 8.33 8.12 9.67 8.12 9.67 14.35 12.42 11.99 12.21 8.98 9.324 12.7 11.77 11.92 11.91 11.41 9.06 8.9 8.38 8.4 8.41 8.32 8.12 9.64 8.12 9.64 14.35 12.27 11.92 12.22 8.95 9.335 12.36 11.21 11.44 11.9 11.43 9.02 8.75 8.21 8.35 8.38 8.25 8.1 9.62 8.1 9.62 14.33 12.13 11.82 12.2 8.9 9.046 11.72 11.01 10.84 11.88 11.42 8.85 8.38 8.06 8.34 8.34 8.22 8.07 9.6 8.07 9.6 14 11.83 11.55 12.15 9.1 8.427 11.26 10.64 10.55 11.85 11.43 8.8 6.61 7.96 8.26 8.25 8.2 8.05 9.57 8.05 9.57 13.71 11.8 11.3 12.05 8.93 8.898 10.83 10.17 10.15 11.84 11.1 8.83 5.57 3.71 8.04 7.58 8.17 8.03 9.55 8.03 9.55 13.47 11.64 11.24 11.68 9.5 7.739 10.51 9.81 9.62 11.78 10.68 8.66 5.05 0.97 5.65 1.38 8.08 8.02 9.55 8.02 9.55 13.29 11.37 10.41 11.1 10.18 7.8410 9.78 9.05 8.62 11.75 10.56 7.22 4.56 0.55 1.19 0.82 8 8 9.53 8 9.53 12.39 10.85 9.51 10.34 9.72 8.1511 9.18 7.63 7.35 11.73 10.55 6.1 3.53 0.37 0.38 0.66 7.79 7.95 9.5 7.95 9.5 11.72 10.13 8.47 9.91 7.66 8.1412 7.81 6.72 6.02 11.7 9.15 4.5 1.3 0.22 0.25 0.29 4.31 7.75 9.49 7.75 9.49 10.46 8.79 6.15 9.1 7.13 7.3413 1.07 5.98 4.91 11.68 2.77 0.32 0.19 0.55 0.89 9.44 0.89 9.44 9.01 6.58 5.03 8.55 3.31 614 2.59 1.17 8.15 1.55 3.14

COND (mS/cm)Depth (m) 9/28/13 10/27/13 2/1/14 3/1/14 3/23/14 4/27/14 5/15/14 6/6/14 7/12/14 8/1/14 8/19/14 8/30/19 9/23/14 10/7/14 10/28/14 1/29/15 2/22/15 3/21/15 5/9/15 6/3/15 6/17/15

0 0.283 0.293 0.323 0.312 0.320 0.321 0.318 0.306 0.303 0.298 0.298 0.291 0.297 0.290 0.294 0.337 0.307 0.324 0.335 0.332 0.321 0.283 0.293 0.3 0.311 0.318 0.321 0.318 0.306 0.303 0.298 0.297 0.291 0.297 0.290 0.294 0.323 0.304 0.336 0.335 0.322 0.3192 0.283 0.293 0.3 0.31 0.316 0.321 0.318 0.306 0.303 0.297 0.297 0.291 0.298 0.290 0.294 0.323 0.303 0.335 0.334 0.321 0.323 0.283 0.293 0.3 0.313 0.316 0.321 0.318 0.306 0.302 0.297 0.296 0.291 0.298 0.291 0.294 0.323 0.304 0.337 0.333 0.321 0.324 0.283 0.293 0.302 0.315 0.32 0.321 0.318 0.306 0.302 0.297 0.296 0.291 0.298 0.290 0.294 0.323 0.306 0.336 0.333 0.321 0.325 0.284 0.293 0.304 0.319 0.321 0.321 0.318 0.306 0.303 0.297 0.297 0.291 0.298 0.290 0.294 0.323 0.307 0.338 0.333 0.321 0.3246 0.284 0.294 0.307 0.32 0.322 0.321 0.318 0.306 0.303 0.297 0.297 0.291 0.298 0.290 0.294 0.322 0.308 0.340 0.333 0.325 0.3277 0.284 0.294 0.31 0.322 0.326 0.321 0.318 0.308 0.309 0.296 0.297 0.291 0.298 0.290 0.294 0.321 0.308 0.341 0.333 0.327 0.338 0.284 0.293 0.313 0.324 0.334 0.321 0.321 0.308 0.317 0.310 0.297 0.293 0.298 0.290 0.294 0.320 0.309 0.342 0.334 0.328 0.3329 0.285 0.293 0.318 0.332 0.342 0.321 0.320 0.309 0.324 0.323 0.304 0.316 0.298 0.290 0.294 0.322 0.310 0.346 0.335 0.327 0.335

10 0.287 0.293 0.324 0.345 0.353 0.321 0.320 0.312 0.327 0.330 0.327 0.322 0.298 0.290 0.294 0.332 0.314 0.353 0.335 0.329 0.33711 0.31 0.293 0.335 0.357 0.37 0.321 0.321 0.312 0.328 0.331 0.336 0.327 0.299 0.291 0.295 0.342 0.322 0.363 0.336 0.331 0.33612 0.341 0.294 0.351 0.375 0.383 0.321 0.322 0.313 0.330 0.336 0.340 0.335 0.315 0.291 0.295 0.356 0.336 0.376 0.337 0.33 0.33813 0.348 0.3 0.387 0.401 0.412 0.322 0.315 0.335 0.341 0.359 0.324 0.295 0.364 0.342 0.382 0.337 0.335 0.33814 0.357 0.322 0.523 0.338 0.337 0.341

Appendix C. Physiochemical Water Quality Data: Lake Physiochemical water quality measurements for Cazenovia Lake (surface to 13m) collected with a YSI unit between September 2013 and July 2015.

97

Appendix D. Watershed Survey Public opinion survey sent to 729 homeowners residing within the Cazenovia Lake watershed (5,510 acres).

I. Individual Characterization 1. Age 2. Family Size 3. Residence

Do you reside in Madison County? Are you a summer resident? Are you a permanent resident? Do you own property on Cazenovia Lake? Do you reside in rental property locally?

If you live outside of Madison County, please indicate your place of residence by City , County , State

4. Do you own a boat?

If more than 1, how many Inboard Outboard Inboard-Outboard Sailboat with auxiliary power Sailboat without auxiliary power Sailboard Rowboat or Canoe Jet Ski Other

5. How do you get the boat on the lake? Seasonal Mooring Public Launching Private Launching

6. Are you a member of an organization active on or about the lake? Local Sportsman’s Organization Local Environmental Organization Local Social Organization Other

7. What recreational activities on and around the lake are you involved in? Motor Cruising Sailing Rowing/Canoeing Wind Surfing Jet Ski

Yes No

98

Water Skiing/Tubing Cold Water Fishing Warm Water Fishing Ice Fishing Trolling Swimming Scuba Diving Hunting Natural History (e.g. waterfowl observation) Visual Aesthetics Relaxing At Residence Hiking Cross Country Skiing Golf Opera Other

8. Times you use the lake for boating purposes. How many days are you on the lake per year? Greatest use during the week

Greatest use weekends and holidays Greatest use weekdays No pattern of use

Greatest use by hours 1 a.m. – 4 a.m. 4 a.m. – 7 a.m. 7 a.m. – 10 a.m. 10 a.m. - 3 p.m. 3 p.m. – 6 p.m. 6 p.m. – 9 p.m. 9 p.m. – 12 p.m. No pattern of use

II. To what extent are the below listed items of concern to you relative to Cazenovia Lake? 1. Environmental Quality

Strip development Sanitary wastes from homes Other household wastes Runoff from land Agricultural practices Road salts Acid rain Motor boats Eroding shorelines Undesirable introduction of invasive species

Great Concern

Moderate Concern

Little Concern

I Don’t Know

99

Algae and weed growth Water clarity Potability (drinkability) Fecal pollution Water levels Loss of wildlife (fish) habitat Depletion of fisheries to commercial fishing Aesthetics Other What do you perceive as the greatest environmental threat to the lake?

2. Safety on the water Lack of navigational regulations Over-regulation regarding navigation Increasing numbers of boats on the lake Lack of law enforcement on the lake The present traffic patterns on the lake Boat size Boat noise Boat wakes Navigational hazards (e.g. ) Boat speeds Other

3. Recreational Facilities Do you feel that public access to the lake is insufficient? Are launching facilities on the lake adequate; if “no”, is it because:

the physical size of the facilities are too small the amount of parking is inadequate

I Don’t Know

Great Concern

Moderate Concern

Little Concern

Yes No I Don’t Know

100

there are too few access points

Is a lack of traffic control in the vicinity of launching sites a concern? Is a lack of washing capability for environmental control a concern? Other Are there enough public launching facilities? Is there enough car top launching on the lake? Is there enough rental boat availability on the lake? Is there adequate fuel availability on the lake? Is the amount of toilet pump out stations adequate? Is there adequate restaurant availability on the lake?

4. Are you most concerned about, environmental quality, safety on the water, or

recreational facilities defined above? Environmental quality

Safety on the water

Recreational facilities

5. What recreational activities of others have the greatest negative effects on your

enjoyment of Cazenovia Lake? Motor Cruising Sailing Rowing/Canoeing Wind Surfing Jet Ski Water Skiing Competitive Racing Cold Water Fishing Warm Water Fishing Ice Fishing

Greatest Concern

Moderate Concern

Little Concern

Great Effect

Moderate Effect

Little Effect

101

Trolling Swimming Scuba Diving Hunting Other

6. What do you think about the present numbers of boaters using Cazenovia Lake? On summer weekends the lake is:

Overcrowded About right Underused Don’t know

On summer weekdays the lake is”

Overcrowded About right Underused Don’t know

7. Your personal comments.

102

OCCASIONAL PAPERS PUBLISHED BY THE BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION (cont.) No. 38. Biocontrol of Eurasian water-milfoil in central New York State: Myriophyllum spicatum L., its insect herbivores and

associated fish. Paul H. Lord. August 2004. No. 39. The benthic macroinvertebrates of Butternut Creek, Otsego County, New York. Michael F. Stensland. June 2005. No. 40. Re-introduction of walleye to Otsego Lake: re-establishing a fishery and subsequent influences of a top Predator.

Mark D. Cornwell. September 2005. No. 41. 1. The role of small lake-outlet streams in the dispersal of zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) veligers in the upper

Susquehanna River basin in New York. 2. Eaton Brook Reservoir boaters: Habits, zebra mussel awareness, and adult zebra mussel dispersal via boater. Michael S. Gray. 2005.

No. 42. The behavior of lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush (Walbaum, 1972) in Otsego Lake: A documentation of the strains, movements and the natural reproduction of lake trout under present conditions. Wesley T. Tibbitts. 2008.

No. 43. The Upper Susquehanna watershed project: A fusion of science and pedagogy. Todd Paternoster. 2008. No. 44. Water chestnut (Trapa natans L.) infestation in the Susquehanna River watershed: Population assessment, control,

and effects. Willow Eyres. 2009. No. 45. The use of radium isotopes and water chemistry to determine patterns of groundwater recharge to Otsego Lake,

Otsego County, New York. Elias J. Maskal. 2009. No. 46. The state of Panther Lake, 2014 and the management of Panther Lake and its watershed. Derek K. Johnson. 2015. No. 47. The state of Hatch Lake and Bradley Brook Reservoir, 2015 & a plan for the management of Hatch Lake and Bradley

Brook Reservoir. Jason E. Luce. 2015. No. 48. Monitoring of seasonal algal succession and characterization of the phytoplankton community: Canadarago Lake,

Otsego County, NY & Canadarago Lake watershed protection plan. Carter Lee Bailey. 2015. No. 49. A scenario-based framework for lake management plans: A case study of Grass Lake & A management plan for Grass

Lake. Owen Zaengle. 2015. Annual Reports and Technical Reports published by the Biological Field Station are available at:

http://www.oneonta.edu/academics/biofld/publications.asp