koontz lake 2016 aquatic vegetation management plan update › gf2.ti › f › 329890 ›...

Koontz Lake

2016 Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan Update Marshall & Starke Counties, Indiana

February 13, 2017

Prepared for:

Koontz Lake Association 7952 N Kramer Lane Walkerton, IN 46574

Prepared by:

PO Box 100

Seymour, Indiana 47274

Koontz Lake AVMP Update February 2017 - i -

Executive Summary Koontz Lake is a 346 acre lake located in Marshall and Starke Counties which has a mean depth of 12 feet and a maximum depth of 31 feet. The lake has been colonized by invasive Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton

crispus). These plants are capable of producing dense mats that hinder recreational activities. In order to better address and control these invasive species, the Koontz Lake Association (KLA) sought, and was granted, cost-share assistance from the IDNR Lake and River Enhancement Program (LARE) to develop an Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (AVMP). The plan was completed in 2009 and established the following measurable benchmarks for management success:

1. Maintain at least 10 native species and a native species diversity of 0.83. 2. Reduce Eurasian watermilfoil to below 10% occurrence. 3. Reduce curly-leaf pondweed to below 10% occurrence.

Following the recommendations of the initial plan, KLA applied for LARE grants for control of Eurasian watermilfoil. The growth of Eurasian watermilfoil has been documented in Tier 2 surveys and a whole lake fluridone treatment was completed in 2012. Small containment treatments of Eurasian watermilfoil were completed in 2013, 2014, and 2015. In 2016, the KLA received a LARE grant of $24,000 for vegetation sampling, plan update, and treatment of Eurasian watermilfoil. An invasive mapping survey was completed on May 11th. The survey revealed that 32.7 acres of curly-leaf pondweed and 25.5 acres of Eurasian watermilfoil was growing in the lake. Eurasian watermilfoil was treated on May 25th with 2,4-D at 2.0 parts per million (ppm). A second invasive survey occurred on June 16th and found 18.2 acres of new Eurasian watermilfoil and 1.1 acres in a previously treated area. The milfoil was treated on June 30th with 2,4-D. A Tier 2 survey was completed on August 2, 2016 and showed little improvement in native plant diversity and abundance. Eurasian watermilfoil was collected at 11.4% of sites. The invasive survey found 5.2 acres of Eurasian watermilfoil scattered through the lake. For 2017, it is recommended that an invasive mapping survey be completed in late May/early June when Eurasian watermilfoil is growing. Any areas of Eurasian watermilfoil that are detected should be treated with 2.0 ppm of liquid or granular 2,4-D pending IDNR approval. It is estimated that there will be up to 65 acres of Eurasian watermilfoil in 2017. A Tier 2 and invasive survey should be completed in mid to late August to document changes in the native submersed plant population. It was discussed in the October 2016 IDNR biologist meeting that the KLA request a maintenance grant for 2017 which has a $10,000 cap and requires a 50% cost share from the sponsor as the Eurasian watermilfoil treatment may be limited in 2017 due to a lack of vegetation. If the treatment is not limited total treatment and sampling costs could be up to $25,500 in 2017. It is difficult to estimate treatment costs if the Eurasian watermilfoil treatment is limited as those specific limits will not be imposed until the lake is assessed in 2017.

Koontz Lake AVMP Update February 2017 - ii -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ ii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... ii 1.0 Problem Statement and Management History ............................................................................ 1 2.0 Aquatic Plant Community Characterization. .............................................................................. 6 3.0 Plant Management Discussion and Action Plan. ...................................................................... 12 4.0 Public Involvement. .................................................................................................................. 13 5.0 References Cited. ...................................................................................................................... 15 6.0 Appendix. ................................................................................................................................. 16

List of Figures Figure 1. Illustrations of Eurasian watermilfoil and curly-leaf pondweed ...................................... 1 Figure 2. Koontz Lake Invasive Species Survey Map, May 11, 2016 ............................................ 4 Figure 3. Koontz Lake Eurasian watermilfoil treatment areas, June 30, 2016 ................................ 5 Figure 4. Koontz Lake Eurasian watermilfoil and curly-leaf pondweed, August 2, 2016 .............. 6 Figure 5. Tier 2 Sample Sites .......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 6. Eurasian watermilfoil sites on Koontz Lake, August 2, 2016 .......................................... 8 Figure 7. Spiny naiad sites on Koontz Lake, August 2, 2016 ......................................................... 8 Figure 8. Eurasian watermilfoil occurrence, number of native species, and native species Diversity index from the last 11 Tier 2 surveys of Koontz Lake ................................. 11

List of Tables

Table 1. Koontz Lake plant management history ............................................................................ 3 Table 2. Koontz Lake May 25, 2016 Eurasian watermilfoil treatment ........................................... 4 Table 3. Koontz Lake June 30, 2016 Eurasian watermilfoil treatment ........................................... 5 Table 4. Tier 2 survey results, August 2, 2016 ............................................................................... 9 Table 5. Comparison of Tier 2 survey results 2008-2016 ............................................................. 10 Table 6. Lake user survey, August 13, 2016 ................................................................................. 14

Koontz Lake AVMP Update February 2017 - 1 -

1.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND MANAGEMENT HISTORY

1.1 Problem Statement Eurasian watermilfoil and curly-leaf pondweed have historically impacted large areas of Koontz Lake (Figure 1). This was documented in the 2008 Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (JFNew 2009). These invasive species have the potential to create dense surface mats. These dense beds can impact navigation, swimming, fishing, native vegetation, and property values.

Figure 1. Illustrations of Eurasian watermilfoil (left) and curly-leaf pondweed (right) (Illustrations

provided by Applied Biochemists).

1.2 Goals and Objectives An effective aquatic vegetation management plan must include well-defined goals and objectives. Listed below are four goals created in the original plan:

1. Develop and/or maintain a stable, diverse aquatic plant community that supports a good balance of predator and prey fish and wildlife species, good water quality, and is resistant to minor habitat disturbances and invasive species.

2. Direct efforts to preventing and/or controlling the negative impacts of aquatic invasive species.

3. Provide reasonable public recreational access while minimizing the negative impacts on plant and fish and wildlife resources.

4. Implement the nutrient reduction plan. The original plan established the following measurable benchmarks for management success:

• Maintain at least 10 native species and a native species diversity of 0.83.

• Reduce Eurasian watermilfoil to below 10% occurrence.

• Reduce curly-leaf pondweed to below 10% occurrence. 1.3 Plant Management History The KLA sought, and was granted, cost-share assistance from LARE to develop an Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (AVMP). The plan was completed in 2009.


Following the recommendations of the initial plan, KLA applied for LARE grants for control of Eurasian watermilfoil. KLA was awarded a grant in 2012 for vegetation sampling and plan update along with a whole-lake fluridone treatment that was completed in the spring. Following the 2012 whole lake fluridone treatment the Tier 2 survey found no invasive species and a reduction in overall native plant abundance. In 2013 KLA received LARE grants for treatment of Eurasian watermilfoil and curly-leaf pondweed as well as plant surveys and completion of a plan update. An early season invasive vegetation survey revealed that there was very little plant growth throughout the lake and that no invasive species were present. A second reconnaissance was conducted and curly-leaf pondweed beds were found, but treatments were denied due to the timing of treatment and potential impact to natives. A Tier 2 survey was completed in late summer and curly-leaf pondweed was the most abundant plant collected. No Eurasian watermilfoil was collected at the time of the 2013 Tier 2 survey, but it was observed growing in the east end of the lake. One and a half acres of Eurasian watermilfoil was treated using 2,4-D. In 2014, invasive species surveys found 51.8 acres of curly-leaf pondweed and 0.8 acres of Eurasian watermilfoil which were both treated one week later. A Tier 2 survey was completed in the summer of 2014. The survey revealed that curly-leaf pondweed was only found at 1.4% of the sites sampled and Eurasian watermilfoil was not collected. Native diversity and abundance were again found to be below the stated objective. KLA was awarded a LARE grant in 2015 for treatment of 20 acres of Eurasian watermilfoil as well as plant surveying and completion of a plan update. IDNR fisheries biologist would not permit treatment of all curly-leaf pondweed in 2015, so LARE did not fund curly-leaf pondweed treatments. An invasive species survey was completed in May. Curly-leaf pondweed was found growing in 26.6 acres of the lake. Eurasian watermilfoil was found covering 25.7 acres. Eurasian watermilfoil areas were treated in May using 2,4-D at a rate of 2.0 ppm. A second treatment was completed in July for 2.0 acres Eurasian watermilfoil. These treatments were funded by KLA and LARE. However, KLA had to contribute more funds towards this treatment as LARE funding was already exhausted. The treatment history of Koontz Lake is displayed in Table 1.


Table 1. Koontz Lake plant management history.

Year Species Targeted Acres Herbicide Herbicide

Concentration 2004 N/A 37.8 N/A N/A

2005 N/A 45.6 N/A N/A

2006 N/A 48.6 N/A N/A

2007 N/A 38.9 N/A N/A

2008 Algae, Coontail, Chara, Eurasian

watermilfoil, Curly-leaf, Large leaf Pondweed

41.4 Reward, Komeen, Aquathol, Copper Sulfate, Clearigate

N/A




N/A




N/A

2012* Algae, Coontail, Chara, Eurasian



N/A

2012* Eurasian watermilfoil 346.0 Sonar AS 5 ppb

2013* Eurasian watermilfoil 1.5 DMA 2 ppm

2014* Curly-leaf & Eurasian watermilfoil 51.8 (CLP) 0.8 (EWM)

Aquathol & DMA 1 ppm

2015* Eurasian watermilfoil 27.7 DMA 2ppm

2016* Eurasian watermilfoil 43.7 DMA 2ppm

*LARE funds used to cover portion of the treatment The KLA was awarded an $24,000.00 LARE grant in 2016 for treatment of 65 acres of Eurasian watermilfoil as well as plant surveying and completion of a plan update. IDNR fisheries biologist would not permit treatment of all curly-leaf pondweed in 2016, so LARE did not fund curly-leaf treatments. An invasive species survey was completed on May11, 2016. Curly-leaf pondweed was found growing in 32.7 acres of the lake. Eurasian watermilfoil was found covering 25.5 acres. The results from the invasive species survey can be seen in Figure 2. The Eurasian watermilfoil areas were treated on May 25, 2016 using 2,4-D at a rate of 2.0 ppm. This treatment was funded by KLA and LARE. This treatment is summarized in Table 2.


Figure 2. Koontz Lake Invasive Survey Map, May 11, 2016.

Table 2. Koontz Lake May 25, 2015 Eurasian watermilfoil treatment

Site Acres

Avg

Depth

(ft) Acre Ft

2,4-D

Application

Rate (ppm)

a 3 3.0 9 2.0

b 1 3.0 3 2.0

c 2.4 3.0 7.2 2.0

d 19.1 4.0 76.4 2.0

25.5

Another invasive species survey was conducted on June 16th. The June 16th survey revealed an additional 18.2 acres of new Eurasian watermilfoil growth and 1.1 acres still growing in the original treatment area (Figure 3). A second treatment was completed on June 30th for the areas of milfoil growth using 2,4-D herbicide at a rate of 2.0 ppm. The treatment is summarized in Table 3.


Figure 3. Koontz Lake Eurasian watermilfoil treatment areas, June 30, 2016.

Table 3. Koontz Lake June 30, 2016 Eurasian watermilfoil treatment

Site Acres

Avg

Depth

(ft) Acre Ft

2,4-D

Application

Rate (ppm)

a 8 3.0 24 2.0

TU1* 0.3 4.0 1.2

b 0.8 4.0 3.2 2.0

c 0.6 4.0 2.4 2.0

TU2* 0.8 4.0 3.2

d 3 4.0 12 2.0

e 3.2 4.0 12.8 2.0

f 1.3 4.0 5.2 2.0

G 1.3 4.0 5.2 2.0

19.3

*Represents previously treated areas (touchup areas)


A third invasive species survey was completed on August 2nd along with a Tier 2 survey. The August 2nd survey revealed that 5.28 acres of Eurasian watermilfoil and 1.51 acres curly-leaf pondweed were growing in Koontz Lake (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Koontz Lake Eurasian watermilfoil and curly-leaf pondweed areas, August 2, 2016.

2.0 AQUATIC PLANT COMMUNITY CHARACTERIZATION

Aquatic vegetation sampling must be completed in order to create an effective aquatic vegetation management plan. Sampling provides valuable data that allows managers to accomplish several tasks: locate areas of nuisance and beneficial vegetation; monitor changes in abundance of native and exotic species; monitor and react to changes in the overall plant community; monitor the effectiveness of management techniques; and compare the plant communities to other populations. In 2016, LARE and KLA funded two invasive species mapping surveys and a Tier 2 survey. Aquatic Control conducted an additional invasive survey due to summer invasive growth. The invasive surveys were discussed in Section 1.3. The Tier 2 survey was completed on August 2, 2016. 2.1 Methods The Tier 2 survey helps meet the following objectives:

1. To document the distribution and abundance of submersed aquatic vegetation within selected areas and at a lake-wide scale.

2. To compare present distribution and abundance with past distribution and abundance within select areas and at a lake-wide scale.

The same sites used in JFNew’s 2008 survey were used again in the 2012-2016 surveys (Figure 5) (JFNew 2009 & Aquatic Control 2012-2016). Once a site was reached the boat was slowed to a stop. A depth measurement was taken by dropping a two-headed standard sampling rake that was attached to a rope marked off in 1-foot increments. An additional ten feet of rope was released and the boat was reversed at minimum operating


speed for a distance of ten feet. Once the rake was retrieved the individual plant abundance on the rake was scored with either a 0 (no plants retrieved), 1 (1-20% of rake teeth filled), 3 (21-99% of rake teeth filled), or 5 (100% of rake teeth filled) (IDNR 2014).

Figure 5. Tier 2 Sample Sites.

2.2 Sampling Results Seventy sites, down to a depth of 20 feet, were included in the August 2nd survey. Aquatic vegetation was collected at 17 of the 42 littoral sites for a littoral coverage of 40.4%. A total of seven native species were collected of which slender naiad (Najas flexilis) was the most abundant (7.1%). Eurasian watermilfoil was collected at 11.4% of the sites (Figures 6). Spiny naiad (Najas marina) was collected at 1.4% of the sample sites (Figure 7). No curly-leaf pondweed was collected during the Tier 2 survey. Only filamentous algae was collected in the 10 to 15 ft. contour and the maximum depth plants were collected was 7 feet. The results of the 2016 Tier 2 survey are summarized in Table 4.


Figure 6. Eurasian watermilfoil sites on Koontz Lake, August 2, 2016.

Figure 7. Spiny naiad sites on Koontz Lake, August 2, 2016.


Table 4. Tier 2 survey results, August 2, 2016.

Occurrence and Abundance of Submersed Aquatic Plants in Koontz Lake (all depths).

County: Marshal Total Sites: 70 Mean species/site: 0.31

Date: 8/2/16 Sites with plants: 17 SE Mean species/site: 0.07

Secchi (ft): 4.0 Sites with native plants: 11 Mean native species/site: 0.19

Max Plant Depth (ft): 7.0 Number of species: 9 SE Mean natives/site: 0.05

Trophic Status: Meso # of native species: 7 Species diversity: 0.79

Littoral sites: 42 Maximum species/site: 2 Native species diversity: 0.78

All Depths

Frequency of

Occurrence Rake score frequency per sp. Plant Dominance

Species 0 1 3 5

Eurasian watermilfoil 11.4 88.6 2.9 1.4 7.1 8.6

Slender Naiad 7.1 92.9 1.4 4.3 1.4 4.3

Sago pondweed 2.9 97.1 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.1

Southern naiad 2.9 97.1 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.6

Canada waterweed 1.4 98.6 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.3

Chara 1.4 98.6 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4

Coontail 1.4 98.6 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4

Small pondweed 1.4 98.6 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4

Spiny naiad 1.4 98.6 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4

Filamentous Algae 34.3

Other species observed: Cattail, swamp loosestrife, purple loosestrife, Spatterdock, and white water lily

Occurrence and Abundance of Submersed Aquatic Plants in Koontz Lake (0-5 ft).






Littoral sites: 22 Maximum species/site: 2 Native diversity: 0.84

Depth: 0 to 5 ft

Frequency of


Species 0 1 3 5


Sago pondweed 9.1 90.9 4.5 4.5 0.0 3.6

Slender Naiad 9.1 90.9 0.0 9.1 0.0 5.5

Southern naiad 9.1 90.9 9.1 0.0 0.0 1.8

Canada waterweed 4.5 95.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.9

Chara 4.5 95.5 0.0 0.0 4.5 4.5

Coontail 4.5 95.5 0.0 0.0 4.5 4.5

Small pondweed 4.5 95.5 0.0 0.0 4.5 4.5

Spiny naiad 4.5 95.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0









Depth: 5 to 10 ft

Frequency of


Species 0 1 3 5

Slender Naiad 15.0 85.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 9.0










Depth: 10 to 15 ft

Frequency of


Species 0 1 3 5



2.3 Plant Sampling Discussion Table 5 compares Tier 2 surveys completed from 2008 through 2016 (a comparison by depth range can be found in the Appendix). The 2016 data shows the native diversity hasn’t changed since 2015 with a slight decrease in littoral coverage, but metrics are still not back to 2011 levels. There is a noticeable change in the lack of vegetation in deeper water. Several past surveys have found plants growing at 14-15 ft. deep. Plants were only found to a depth of 7 ft. in 2016. The original objectives of maintaining at least 10 native species, keeping Eurasian watermilfoil to less than 10%, and having a native diversity index of at least 0.83 were not achieved in 2016. The original objective of keeping curly-leaf pondweed to less than 10% occurrence was accomplished. Figure 8 shows Eurasian watermilfoil occurrence, number of native species, and native species diversity index from 2008 to 2016. Table 5. Comparison of Tier 2 survey results, 2008-2016.

Surveyor JFNEW JFNEW IDNR IDNR IDNR IDNR AC AC AC AC IDNR AC

Date 5/27/2008 8/29/2008 7/27/2009 5/12/2010 8/2/2010 7/27/2011 8/28/2012 8/18/2013 8/13/2014 8/5/2015 7/19/2016 8/2/2016

Total Sites 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70

Littoral Sites 56 55 42 43 41 60 48 60 38 59 65 42

Secchi (ft) 7.1 4.0 3.0 - 3.5 3.0 3.0 4.5 2.5 3.0 4.5 4.0

Sites with Plants 33 32 20 29 28 29 17 25 12 22 30 17

Sites with Native Plants 28 32 19 19 26 21 17 18 11 18 29 11

Percent Littoral Coverage 59% 58% 48% 67% 68% 48% 35% 42% 32% 37% 46% 40%

Maximum Plant Depth 15.0 14.0 9.0 10.0 7.5 15.0 9.0 12.0 6.0 12.0 17.0 7.0

Number of Species 12 14 10 10 12 10 5 6 5 9 10 9

Number of Native Species 10 13 8 8 11 9 5 5 4 6 7 7

Species Diversity 0.87 0.89 0.83 0.80 0.87 0.82 0.69 0.74 0.66 0.85 0.86 0.79

Native Species Diversity 0.85 0.88 0.79 0.78 0.86 0.82 0.69 0.68 0.61 0.78 0.80 0.78

Mean Native Species/Site 0.89 1.07 0.50 0.39 0.71 0.59 0.24 0.30 0.20 0.33 0.61 0.19

Eurasian watermilfoil 32.9 14.3 1.4 25.7 20.0 27.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 20.0 11.4

Curly-leaf pondweed 18.6 0.0 4.3 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 1.4 8.6 10.0 0.0

Spiny naiad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.9 1.4

Coontail 11.4 24.3 7.1 5.7 10.0 4.3 10.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 4.3 1.4

Sago pondweed 11.4 12.9 1.4 1.4 4.3 0.0 1.4 7.1 7.1 10.0 8.6 2.9

Chara sp. 17.1 11.4 15.7 12.9 11.4 8.6 8.6 14.3 10.0 7.1 12.9 1.4

Eel grass 4.3 11.4 8.6 1.4 17.1 17.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

White-stemmed pondweed 20.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Large-leaved pondweed 11.4 0.0 2.9 10.0 1.4 4.3 2.9 5.7 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0

Southern naiad 5.7 11.4 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9

Flat-stemmed pondweed 2.9 7.1 0.0 2.9 4.3 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0

Illinois pondweed 2.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Richardson's pondweed 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.9 5.7 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Variable pondweed 1.4 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Small pondweed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 1.4

Slender naiad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 8.6 20.0 7.1

Naiad sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Canada waterweed 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 1.4

Leafy pondweed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Northern watermilfoil 0.0 2.9 11.4 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0

Water stargrass 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Unidentified pondweed 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Filamentous algae 65.7 74.3 71.4 0.0 71.4 37.1 65.7 51.4 37.1 50.0 84.3 34.3

Species Frequency of Occurrence - Depth: 0 to 20 ft


Figure 8. Eurasian watermilfoil occurrence, number of native species, and native species divesity

index from the last 11 Tier 2 surveys of Koontz Lake.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Eurasian Watermilfoil Occurrence

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Number of Native Species

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Native Species Diversity Index


3.0 PLANT MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION & ACTION PLAN

In 2016, not all invasive plant control objectives were met and native vegetation diversity was still slightly below stated objectives. For 2017, it is recommended that an invasive mapping survey be completed in late May/early June when the Eurasian watermilfoil typically starts growing in this lake. Ideally, any areas of Eurasian watermilfoil that are detected should be treated, but IDNR will probably limit the amount of Eurasian watermilfoil control in the future in order to increase the overall amount of vegetation. Areas of Eurasian watermilfoil should be treated with 2,4-D herbicide at a rate of 2.0 ppm. It is estimated that there could be up to 65 acres of Eurasian watermilfoil in 2017. A second invasive survey should be completed in late July/early August along with a Tier 2 survey to detect any new areas of growth and to document changes in the native submersed plant population. Future LARE grant funding was discussed during the 2016 October 6th IDNR biologist meeting. IDNR suggested that KLA request a LARE maintenance grant for 2017 as they are considering limiting the amount of Eurasian watermilfoil that can be treated. The main difference with the maintenance grant is that it has a $10,000 cap and the association would be responsible for 50% ($5,000). If all Eurasian watermilfoil is treated and a typical plan update and sampling is completed, the cost of potential LARE funded proposed management activities is estimated to be $25,500. It is possible that a full LARE grant will not be awarded in 2017 and IDNR will limit treatment. If that is the case, the most that the KLA can hope for is a $10,000 maintenance grant. It should be noted that when receiving a maintenance grant an AVMP update is not required and there is an additional option of requesting a Tier 2 survey only. Individual lot owners have historically funded contact herbicide treatments to control invasive and native vegetation along their shorelines and dock areas. There was a reduction in native vegetation in 2012 following the Sonar treatment that seems to have lingered through 2016. There will likely be more native vegetation in 2017 compared to previous years, but treatments will be limited by IDNR to allow the native vegetation to increase. Homeowners should not find it necessary to treat large shoreline areas of native plants in 2017. If native plants become a problem, homeowners can control 625 square feet no deeper than 6 feet without a permit, provided that an open area of similar size does not already exist. These controls can be completed with EPA approved aquatic herbicides or with manual removal. Filamentous algae treatments may also be necessary. These treatments will likely be permitted along shoreline and dock areas. The cost of such a treatment ranges from $100.00-$300.00/acre depending on the amount being treated. It is recommended that the Association take over handling of the shoreline treatments in order to simplify the permitting process. A permit application for such treatments, along with potential invasive treatments, is included in the Appendix. One of the primary concerns the KLA experienced in 2015 was severe algae blooms. Blooms were apparent in 2016 but at reduced density. It is unclear whether blooms of this severity will occur again, but steps should be taken in order to reduce the chance of another occurrence. These steps have been outlined in the Koontz Lake Watershed Management Plan that can be found at:


http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fwKoontz_Lake_Watershed_Mgmt_Plan_Marshall_Starke_Counties_Feb_2010.pdf. If granted, LARE could partially fund many of the projects outlined in this plan, but it will also take significant private funds to make this plan work. Without a dedicated source of funding it is difficult for an Association to take on such projects. The formation of a Conservancy District would likely be needed in order to generate the needed funds to impact the watershed and overall water quality. The reduction in native submersed plant growth observed following the 2012 whole-lake treatment is also a concern. Diversity and abundance of native vegetation remained approximately the same from 2015 to 2016, but was still slightly below stated objectives. It is important that Tier 2 surveys continue to be completed in the late summer in order to document the abundance and diversity of native plant growth. Watershed and resulting water quality improvements could, over time, increase water clarity and improve native abundance and diversity. Listed below are four recommendations designed to meet the goals and objectives of the vegetation management plan:

1. Complete Invasive Species Sampling in late May/early June and August of 2017 in order to map out potential Eurasian watermilfoil treatment areas.

2. Complete treatment of invasive milfoil with 2.0 ppm 2,4-D granular in areas less than 5 acres and 2,4-D liquid in larger or isolated areas where the average depth is 5 feet or less.

3. Continue late summer Tier 2 surveys in order to monitor the changes in the native plant population and assess the effectiveness of vegetation controls.

4. Act on recommendations from previous LARE funded studies including the most recent watershed management plan. This is extremely important based on the declining water quality and lack of native vegetation seen in recent years. Potential actions in the plan include creation of ecozones, dredging, and whole lake alum treatments. Creation of a Conservancy District may be needed in order to properly fund the projects outlined in the plan.

2017 Budget if all Eurasian watermilfoil is treated and full grant awarded Cost Estimate

Two invasive surveys and a Tier 2 Survey, and plan update $5,500.00

Treatment of up to 65 acres of milfoil with 2.0 ppm 2,4-D (liquid & granular) $20,000.00

Total Cost Estimate: $25,500.00

LARE Grant Request for maximum of maintenance grant: $25,500.00

Association Cost Share if Grant Awarded (20%): $5,100.00 2017 Budget if a maintenance grant is awarded

Invasive survey and a Tier 2 Survey (no plan update) $2,500.00

Treatment of up to 65 acres of milfoil with 2.0 ppm 2,4-D (liquid & granular) $20,000.00

Total Cost Estimate: $22,500.00

LARE Grant Request for maximum of maintenance grant: $10,000.00

Association Cost Share if Grant Awarded (50%): $12,500.00


4.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Aquatic Control Inc. attended a meeting of the KLA on August 13, 2016 to present the results of the herbicide treatment and to discuss the 2017 strategy. A lake user survey was handed out at the meeting and the results are located in Table 6. Individuals indicated that the need for dredging and poor water quality were primary issues on the lake.

Table 6. Lake User Survey, August 13, 2016.

Koontz 8/13/16

Are you a lake property owner? Yes 98.0% No 2.0%

Are you currently a member of your lake association? Yes 98.0% No 2.0%

How many years have you been at the lake? 2 or Less: 2.0% 5 to 10.2%

2 to 5: 2.0% Over 10: 85.7%

How do you use the lake (mark all that apply) Swimming 89.8% Irrigation 20.4%

Boating 98.0% Drinking water 4.1%

Fishing 63.3% Other? 0%

Do you have aquatic plants at your shoreline in nuisance

quantities? Yes: 46.9% No: 40.8%

Does aquatic vegetation interfere with your use or

enjoyment of the lake? Yes: 75.5% No: 22.4%

Does the level of vegetation in the lake affect your

property values? Yes: 79.6% No: 20.4%

Are you in favor of continuing efforts to control

vegetation on the lake? Yes: 89.8% No: 4.1%

Are you aware that the LARE funds will only apply to

work controlling invasive exotic species, and more work

may need to be privately funded? Yes: 77.6% No: 14.3%

Were you satisfied with the results of the LARE funded

invasive treatments this season? Yes: 53.1% No: 26.5%

Mark any of these you think are problems on your lake:

Too many boats access the lake 12.2%

Use of jet skis on the lake 18.4%

Too much fishing 0.0%

Fish population problem 22.4%

Dredging needed 69.4%

Overuse by nonresidents 16.3%

Too many aquatic plants 28.6%

Not enough aquatic plants 8.2%

Poor water quality 63.3%

Pier/funneling problem 8.2%

Comments: Need to close public launch.

Late nite noise, bunch of drunks.

When considering weed management, please considering leaving the CLP to reduce nutrients.

(Lesser of two evils.)There are some beats using the lake such as large "racing" boats or high powered "jet" propelled

boats that I feel cause problems increasing suspension of solids from lake bottom.

Leave tax payers out of it, the funding of this lake have been misused for years, people are strapped

financially already, if you have not noticed the amount of homes for sale, due to the septic issue alone.

Especially the senior citizens, which I am not.Continuous milfoil washing up on north side of lake.

We live on north shore & get a tremendous amount of the dead milfoil & have to extract it from the water.

Please do Not treat days before a Holiday weekend.

I rake muck out of lake daily!

Boats come in too fast through public access-do not honor the wake-excess depriece is thrown up on

mine & neighbors property by lilly pads on south side.

Boats creating large wakes.

Need comprehensive plan.

Thanks for your effort.

Thanks. Keep up the good work.


5.0 REFERENCES CITED

Applied Biochemists. 1998. Water weeds and algae, 5th edition. Applied Biochemists,

J. C. Schmidt and J. R. Kannenberg, editors. Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Aquatic Control Inc. 2013. Koontz Lake 2012 Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan Update. Prepared for Koontz Lake Association. Walkerton, IN.

Aquatic Control Inc. 2014. Koontz Lake 2013 Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan

Update. Prepared for Koontz Lake Association. Walkerton, IN.



IDNR 2014. Tier 2 Aquatic Vegetation Survey Protocol. IN Department of Natural Resources. Division of Fish & Wildlife, Indianapolis, Indiana.

JFNew and Associates. 2009. Koontz Lake Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan,

2008-2012. Prepared for the Koontz Lake Association, Walkerton, Indiana.

JFNew and Associates. 2010. Koontz Lake Watershed Management Plan Prepared for the Koontz Lake Association, Walkerton, Indiana.


6.0 APPENDICIES

6.1 Tier 2 Data Sheets

WPT Lat Long Depth

Eurasian

watermilfoil

Spiny

naiad

Spiny

naiad Coontail

Slender

Naiad Chara

Sago

pondweed

Canada

waterweed

Small

pondweed

Southern

naiad

1 41.40938 -86.4619 2 5 1

2 41.4103 -86.4607 11

3 41.41046 -86.4598 3

4 41.41122 -86.4597 3 5 3

5 41.41134 -86.4605 11

6 41.41185 -86.4609 6

7 41.41258 -86.4612 3

8 41.41171 -86.4617 16

9 41.41201 -86.4624 16

10 41.41243 -86.4639 6

11 41.41354 -86.4659 4 3 5

12 41.41366 -86.4669 6

13 41.41462 -86.4677 7 5

14 41.41446 -86.4696 12

15 41.41684 -86.4705 6 5 3

16 41.41768 -86.4709 3

17 41.41574 -86.4715 17

18 41.41602 -86.473 16

19 41.41638 -86.4728 6

20 41.41693 -86.4737 11

21 41.41718 -86.474 16

22 41.41821 -86.4741 3

23 41.41812 -86.4747 6

24 41.41806 -86.4764 16

25 41.4176 -86.4767 17

26 41.41762 -86.4777 12

27 41.41816 -86.4783 6

28 41.41715 -86.4786 11

29 41.41774 -86.4819 4

30 41.41634 -86.484 3 5 5

31 41.41602 -86.4815 7

32 41.41672 -86.4789 11

33 41.4162 -86.4785 18

34 41.41589 -86.4794 11

35 41.41497 -86.4804 4 5

36 41.41532 -86.4784 16

37 41.41434 -86.4784 12

38 41.41399 -86.4794 4 5

39 41.41328 -86.4803 4

40 41.41284 -86.4835 4 5

41 41.4131 -86.4851 4 1

42 41.41229 -86.4849 6

43 41.41018 -86.4853 7 3

44 41.41076 -86.4842 6

45 41.41092 -86.4832 6 1

46 41.41089 -86.4813 6

47 41.4114 -86.4812 7

48 41.41059 -86.4801 4 1

49 41.41298 -86.4779 2 1

50 41.41387 -86.4773 11

51 41.41402 -86.4767 11

52 41.41411 -86.4758 12

53 41.413 -86.4757 6

54 41.41391 -86.4748 12

55 41.41443 -86.4728 11

56 41.41293 -86.4726 6

57 41.41396 -86.4718 11

58 41.41245 -86.4709 3 1

59 41.41292 -86.4702 4 5 1

60 41.41403 -86.47 11

61 41.41489 -86.4706 17

62 41.41252 -86.4675 4

63 41.41188 -86.466 4

64 41.41156 -86.4643 6

65 41.41053 -86.4642 2 3

66 41.41084 -86.4635 6

67 41.41131 -86.4625 12

68 41.41047 -86.4623 6

69 41.41404 -86.4711 12

70 41.41537 -86.4826 3


6.2 Tier 2 Data Comparison

Surveyor JFNEW JFNEW IDNR IDNR IDNR IDNR AC AC AC AC IDNR AC

Date 5/27/2008 8/29/2008 7/27/2009 5/12/2010 8/2/2010 7/27/2011 8/28/2012 8/18/2013 8/13/2014 8/5/2015 7/19/2016 8/2/2016

Total Sites 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70

Littoral Sites 56 55 42 43 41 60 48 60 38 59 65 42

Secchi (ft) 7.1 4.0 3.0 - 3.5 3.0 3.0 4.5 2.5 3.0 4.5 4.0

Sites with Plants 33 32 20 29 28 29 17 25 12 22 30 17

Sites with Native Plants 28 32 19 19 26 21 17 18 11 18 29 11

Percent Littoral Coverage 59% 58% 48% 67% 68% 48% 35% 42% 32% 37% 46% 40%

Maximum Plant Depth 15.0 14.0 9.0 10.0 7.5 15.0 9.0 12.0 6.0 12.0 17.0 7.0

Number of Species 12 14 10 10 12 10 5 6 5 9 10 9

Number of Native Species 10 13 8 8 11 9 5 5 4 6 7 7

Species Diversity 0.87 0.89 0.83 0.80 0.87 0.82 0.69 0.74 0.66 0.85 0.86 0.79

Native Species Diversity 0.85 0.88 0.79 0.78 0.86 0.82 0.69 0.68 0.61 0.78 0.80 0.78

Mean Native Species/Site 0.89 1.07 0.50 0.39 0.71 0.59 0.24 0.30 0.20 0.33 0.61 0.19



Spiny naiad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.9 1.4

Coontail 11.4 24.3 7.1 5.7 10.0 4.3 10.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 4.3 1.4

Sago pondweed 11.4 12.9 1.4 1.4 4.3 0.0 1.4 7.1 7.1 10.0 8.6 2.9

Chara sp. 17.1 11.4 15.7 12.9 11.4 8.6 8.6 14.3 10.0 7.1 12.9 1.4

Eel grass 4.3 11.4 8.6 1.4 17.1 17.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0



Southern naiad 5.7 11.4 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9





Small pondweed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 1.4

Slender naiad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 8.6 20.0 7.1

Naiad sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Leafy pondweed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Water stargrass 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0





Spiny naiad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 8.7 4.5

Coontail 10.5 38.5 0.0 21.1 8.3 13.0 15.6 0.0 0.0 4.5 4.3 4.5

Sago pondweed 36.8 46.2 4.3 5.3 12.5 0.0 3.1 13.3 22.7 27.3 21.7 9.1

Chara sp. 57.9 38.5 47.8 42.1 29.2 21.7 15.6 30.0 22.7 18.2 30.4 4.5

Eel grass 15.8 38.5 26.1 5.3 45.8 43.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Large-leaved pondweed 31.6 0.0 8.7 26.3 4.2 13.0 6.3 10.0 0.0 4`.5 0.0 0.0

Southern naiad 21.1 38.5 0.0 0.0 20.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1





Small pondweed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 4.5

Slender naiad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 4.5 22.7 34.8 9.1

Naiad sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Leafy pondweed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0









Coontail 21.1 35.7 14.3 0.0 26.3 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.5 0.0

Sago pondweed 5.3 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 5.0 5.3 0.0

Chara sp. 5.3 7.1 0.0 4.2 5.3 5.0 5.3 4.2 10.0 5.0 10.5 0.0

Eel grass 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 5.3 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0



Southern naiad 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0





Small pondweed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0

Slender naiad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.8 15.0






Coontail 11.8 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sago pondweed 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Chara sp. 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Eel grass 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Southern naiad 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Naiad sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Slender naiad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 11.1 0.0


Slender Naiad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0






6.3 IDNR VEGETATION PERMIT


Page 7 of 8 Koontz Lake Permit


Page 8 of 8 Koontz Lake Permit


6.3 2017 LARE Grant Application (Sponsor will need to fill out sections A and B

and sign)


6.4 Koontz Lake Species List

Scientific Name Common Name

Any algae Algae

Ceratophyllum demersum common coontail

Chara sp. Chara sp.

Elodea canadensis Canada waterweed

Heteranthera dubia water stargrass

Lemna minor small/common duckweed

Myriophyllum heterophyllum northern watermilfoil

Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil

Najas flexilis slender naiad

Najas guadalupensis southern naiad

Potamogeton amplifoilus large-leaved pondweed

Potamogeton crispus curly-leaf pondweed

Potamogeton foliosus leafy pondweed

Potamogeton gramineus variable pondweed

Potamogeton illinoensis Illinois pondweed

Potamogeton praelongus white-stem pondweed

Potamogeton richardsonii Richardon's pondweed

Potamogeton zosteriformis flatstem pondweed

Potamogeton zosteriformis flat-stemmed pondweed

Stuckenia pectinata sago pondweed

Utricularia macrorhiza common bladderwort

Vallisneria americana eel grass

Wolffia columbiana watermeal

koontz lake 2016 aquatic vegetation management plan update › gf2.ti › f › 329890 ›...

Documents