thompson lake management feasibility study report

draft

Thompson LakeManagement Feasibility Study Report

Prepared for:Thompson Lake Improvement Boardc/o Livingston County Drain Commissioner’s Office2300 E. Grand River Avenue, Suite 105Howell MI 48843-7581

Prepared by:Progressive AE1811 4 Mile Road, NEGrand Rapids, MI 49525-2442616/361-2664

February 2017

Project No: 57490101

Feas

ibili

ty S

tudy

draft

Thompson LakeManagement Feasibility Study Report

Prepared for:Thompson Lake Improvement Boardc/o Livingston County Drain Commissioner’s Office2300 E. Grand River Avenue, Suite 105Howell MI 48843-7581

Prepared by:Progressive AE1811 4 Mile Road, NEGrand Rapids, MI 49525-2442616/361-2664

February 2017

Project No: 57490101

Thompson Lake 57490101Lake Management Feasibility Study Report iii

draf

tTable of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Project Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Limnology and Lake Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Thompson Lake Historical Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Historical Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Historical Lake Management Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

STUDY METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Physical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Biological . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Sociological . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Thompson Lake Physical Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Thompson Lake Chemical Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Thompson Lake Biological Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Thompson Lake Resident Questionnaire Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

LAKE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Thompson Lake Management Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Mechanical Harvesting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Aquatic Herbicide Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Drawdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Dredging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Aeration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Bottom-Water Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Alum Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Watershed Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

APPENDICES

Appendix A Thompson Lake Resident Questionnaire Appendix B MDEQ Discharge Estimate Appendix C Aquatic Vegetation Assessment Survey Data Appendix D Summary of DNA Analysis for Thompson Lake Watermilfoil Appendix E Hybrid Milfoil: Management Implications and Challenges

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Thompson Lake 57490101Lake Management Feasibility Study Report iv

draf

tLIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Thompson Lake and Watershed Physical Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 2 Thompson Lake Watershed Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 3 Thompson Lake Deep Basin Water Quality Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 4 pH and Alkalinity of Upper Midwest Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table 5 Thompson Lake Surface Water Quality Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Table 6 Lake Classification Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Table 7 Thompson Lake Aquatic Plants, September 10, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Table 8 Thompson Lake Aquatic Plants, September 1, 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Table 9 Thompson Lake Plant Control Summary, 2004-2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Table 10 Thompson Lake Management Goals vs Technique Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Table 11 Thompson Lake Management Plan Proposed Budget, 2018 Through 2020 . . . . . . . . . . 48 Table 12 Thompson Lake Management Plan Approximate Assessments, 2018 Through 2020. . . 50

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Thompson Lake Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 2 Limnological Characteristics of a Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Figure 3 Lake Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Figure 4 General Land Office Plat of Township 3 North, Ranges 4 and 5 East, Michigan Territories, 1823-1825 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 5 McPherson’s Second Addition Subdivision Plat Map, 1874 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 6 Thompson Lake Area Topography, 1907 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 7 Thompson Lake Aerial Photograph, 1937 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 8 Thompson Lake Sampling Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 9 Thompson Lake Aquatic Plant Survey Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 10 Thompson Lake 1952 Depth Contour Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 11 Thompson Lake 2015 Depth Contour Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 12 South End of Thompson Lake, 1927 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 13 Shoreline Development Factor of Select Michigan Inland Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 14 Natural Shoreline on Thompson Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 15 Disturbed Shoreline on Thompson Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 16 Thompson Lake Dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 17 Logs in Thompson Lake Visible During Drawdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 18 Submerged Mounds in Thompson Lake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 19 Thompson Lake Watershed Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 20 Oceola Township County Drain Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 21 Thompson Lake Storm Sewer Outfall Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 22 Storm Drain Outfall #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 23 Storm Drain Outfall #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 24 Storm Drain Outfalls #3, #4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 25 MDOT Discharge Outfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 26 Thompson Lake Aerial Watershed Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 27 Thompson Lake Watershed Land Use Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 28 Thompson Lake Watershed Soils Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 29 Thompson Lake Watershed Hydrologic Soils Group Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 30 Seasonal Thermal Stratification Cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 31 Lake Chloride Levels (2001–10) in USEPA Ecoregions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 32 Secchi Disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Thompson Lake 57490101Lake Management Feasibility Study Report v

draf

t Figure 33 Benefits of Aquatic Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 34 Aquatic Plant Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 35 Eurasian Milfoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 36 Starry Stonewort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 37 Nuisance Native Aquatic Plant Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 38 Thompson Lake Aquatic Vegetation Bio-volume Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 39 Mechanical Harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 40 Eurasian Milfoil Can Spread by Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 41 Thompson Lake Winter Drawdown. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 42 Backhoe Dredging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 43 Hydraulic Dredging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 44 Geotextile Tube. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 45 Aeration Diffuser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 46 Alum Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 47 Grand River Avenue Viaduct and Pump Station. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 48 Thompson Lake Improvement Board Special Assessment District Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Thompson Lake 57490101Lake Management Feasibility Study Report vi

draf

tAcknowledgements

We thank Brian Jonckheere, Livingston County Drain Commissioner, and his staff, Michelle LaRose, P.E., and Mark Hathaway for providing historical photographs, information about the dam, and for their work in conducting the survey of lake residents.

We also thank Scott Long, Michigan Department of Transportation, for information about the Grand River Avenue pumping facility.

Thank-you to Dr. David Jude for providing a copy of the 1978 Freshwater Physicians report.

Thompson Lake 57490101Lake Management Feasibility Study Report 1

draf

tExecutive Summary

Thompson Lake is located in Oceola Township and the City of Howell in Livingston County, Michigan. In December of 2014, Progressive AE was retained by the Thompson Lake Improvement Board to conduct a management feasibility study of Thompson Lake. The study included an assessment of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the lake. In addition, residents within the Thompson Lake special assessment district were surveyed to determine residents’ preferences for use and management of the lake.

Thompson Lake was formed in 1836 by construction of a dam to operate a saw mill. The dam impounded two streams, and three pre-existing ponds became the three deep basins in Thompson Lake. Outside of the deep basins, the lake is very shallow. In particular, the south end of Thompson Lake has a maximum depth of only about 6 feet and contains many logs and stumps. At 270 acres, Thompson Lake is the 432nd largest lake in Michigan by surface area. The maximum depth is 53 feet, and the average depth is 9.8 feet. The lake is drawn down three feet every other winter in order to control nuisance aquatic plant growth. During drawdown years, the lake is stocked with pike to compensate for habitat loss and population impacts from drawdown.

Thompson Lake’s watershed, or drainage area, is 6,493 acres, which is 24 times larger than the lake itself. Between 1960 and 2010, Livingston County’s population grew from roughly 38,000 to 181,000, an increase of nearly 400 percent in that 50-year period. Thus, much of the agricultural land in the watershed was urbanized in the last 50 years.

Thompson Lake is somewhat nutrient-enriched. Surface phosphorus, Secchi transparency and chlorophyll-a readings are characteristic of a “mesotrophic,” or moderately enriched lake while bottom-water dissolved oxygen depletion, sediment phosphorus release, and abundant rooted aquatic plant growth are typical of a “eutrophic,” or highly enriched condition. Chloride concentrations in the lake have been increasing over time, likely as a result of road deicing.

Lake residents indicated in the questionnaire that “motorized boating” was their most important use of the lake. “Excessive weed growth” was identified as the most pressing problem, but respondents felt that the goal in managing plants should be to strike a balance between protecting plants that are beneficial to the health of the lake and controlling plants that interfere with recreational use of the lake.

The recommended management plan includes the following:

• Control nuisance aquatic plants with mechanical harvesting and aquatic herbicide applications.• Review the practice of biennial winter drawdowns for aquatic plant control. • Provide dredging information to residents adjacent to canals.• Review aeration with residents adjacent to the lagoon as an alternative to copper-based herbicide

treatments.• Partner with the Michigan Department of Transportation to develop a plan for pollutant removal from

the Grand River Avenue pumping system.• Discuss alternative deicing approaches with watershed municipalities to help reduce chloride levels in

Thompson Lake.• Disseminate information to lake residents regarding shorelands management, and encourage

participation in the Michigan Shoreland Stewards Program.


draf

t• Monitor water quality on a periodic basis.

Introduction

PROJECT BACKGROUND

Thompson Lake is located in Sections 30 and 31 of Oceola Township (T3N, R5E) and the City of Howell (Sections 25 and 36 of T3N, R4E) in Livingston County, Michigan (Figure 1). In December of 2014, Progressive AE was retained by the Thompson Lake Improvement Board to conduct a management feasibility study of Thompson Lake. The purpose of this report is to discuss study findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

Figure 1. Thompson Lake location map.

Livingston County

INTRODUCTION


draf

tLIMNOLOGY AND LAKE MANAGEMENT

In order to properly devise a lake management plan, it is important to first understand a lake’s limnology. Limnology is the study of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of a lake (Figure 2). Many of Michigan’s lakes were formed thousands of years ago when glaciers scraped the landscape. The size and shape of the water-filled holes left behind by the glaciers often determines a lake’s physical characteristics. Lakes can be large or small, deep or shallow, round or convoluted. Size and shape can greatly impact a lake’s chemical and biological characteristics. Lake water chemistry can also be influenced by conditions outside of the lake, that is, in the lake’s watershed. Given the wide array of physical and chemical conditions that can occur in a lake, a variety of plants and animals have adapted to living in lake environments. As such, each lake contains a unique combination of limnological characteristics.

Figure 2. Limnological characteristics of a lake.

PhysicalSize and shape of the lake basin

ChemicalChemistry of the lake water

BiologicalPlants and animals that inhabit the lake

+

+

LimnologyEach lake is unique

INTRODUCTION


draf

tThe physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of Thompson Lake were measured in order to determine the current condition of the lake. One way to classify a lake’s condition is to determine its “trophic state,” that is, how biologically productive the lake is. Lakes can be categorized as “oligotrophic,” “mesotrophic,” or “eutrophic” (Figure 3).

Oligotrophic lakes are generally deep and clear with little aquatic plant growth. These lakes maintain sufficient dissolved oxygen in the cool, deep bottom waters during late summer to support cold-water fish such as trout and whitefish.

Eutrophic lakes have poor clarity and support abundant aquatic plant growth. In deep eutrophic lakes, the cool bottom waters usually contain little or no dissolved oxygen. Therefore, these lakes can only support warm-water fish, such as bass and bluegill.

Lakes that fall between the two extremes of oligotrophic and eutrophic are called mesotrophic lakes.

Under natural conditions, most lakes will ultimately evolve to a eutrophic state as they gradually fill with sediment and organic matter transported to the lake from the surrounding watershed. The

natural lake aging or eutrophication process takes many thousands of years. However, the natural aging process can be greatly accelerated if excessive amounts of sediment and nutrients (which stimulate aquatic plant growth) enter the lake from the surrounding watershed. Because these added inputs are usually associated with human activity, this accelerated lake aging process is often referred to as cultural eutrophication. Recent sampling of 729 lakes across Michigan indicates that, of the lakes sampled, about 15% of lakes are oligotrophic, about 55% are mesotrophic, and about 30% are eutrophic (Fuller and Taricska 2012).

In addition to examining the current limnological condition of Thompson Lake, the present study also included a review of historical information. Historical mapping and other data help to place the current information in context.

Figure 3. Lake classification.

Oligotrophic

Mesotrophic

Eutrophic

Recent sampling of 729 lakes across Michigan indicates that, of the lakes sampled, about 15% of lakes are oligotrophic, about 55% are mesotrophic, and about 30% are eutrophic (Fuller and Taricska 2012).

INTRODUCTION


draf

tTHOMPSON LAKE HISTORICAL MAPPING

Oceola and Howell Townships were originally mapped in 1823 and 1825 by Sylvester Sibley as part of the General Land Office survey when Michigan was still a territory (Figure 4). The General Land Office plat shows that, prior to construction of the Thompson Lake dam, there was a small stream connecting three small lakes that are now the three deep basins within Thompson Lake.

Figure 4. General Land Office plat of Township 3 North, Ranges 4 and 5 East, Michigan Territories, 1823-1825.

INTRODUCTION


draf

tIn 1836, Moses Thompson built a saw mill and impounded the stream forming Thompson Lake. One of the oldest subdivisions around Thompson Lake, McPherson’s, was platted in 1874 (Figure 5) and is located between the present-day public boat launch and Lake View Cemetery. Topographic mapping from 1907 (Figure 6) and aerial photography from 1937 (Figure 7) show that 100 years after Moses Thompson built the dam, the Thompson Lake shoreline remained largely undeveloped. In addition, large mats of aquatic vegetation are visible at the south end, the northeast arm, and near Mount Olivet Cemetery in the 1937 aerial photograph.

Figure 5. McPherson’s Second Addition subdivision plat map, 1874.

INTRODUCTION


draf

t

Figure 7. Thompson Lake aerial photograph, 1937. Source: USDA.

Figure 6. Thompson Lake area topography, 1907. Source: USGS 15 minute series topographic map, Howell, Mich. quadrangle (1907).

INTRODUCTION


draf

tHISTORICAL DATA

Over the years, various groups and individuals have collected information about water quality, aquatic plants, and other related aspects of Thompson Lake that helped to inform the current study. Historical data sources is summarized as follows:

1975: U.S. EPA

1978: Freshwater Physicians, Inc.

1980: Edmands Engineering, Inc.

2003: Freshwater Physicians, Inc.

2005: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

2006: Michigan Department of Natural Resources

HISTORICAL LAKE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

1978: Residents formed the Thompson Lake Improvement Board to control nuisance aquatic plants in Thompson Lake. Herbicide treatments and mechanical harvesting become ongoing plant control activities.

1984: Lake level set by Circuit Court Order established summer level and 3-foot winter drawdown during odd-numbered years for the purpose of controlling nuisance aquatic plant growth. The court order also required that 1,500 to 2,000 northern pike (Esox lucius) be stocked following each drawdown year. The lake level was amended by Circuit Court Order in 1989 and 1999. Drawdown now occurs in even-numbered years. The pike-stocking requirement was retained.


draf

tStudy Methods

PHYSICAL

The Thompson Lake shoreline was digitized from 2014 USDA FSA aerial orthodigital photography using ArcGIS software. A GPS-guided hydro-acoustic survey of Thompson Lake was conducted on August 12, 2015, in which transects were established at 100-foot intervals across the lake, and the lake bottom was scanned along each transect using high-definition SONAR (Lowrance HDS 9). Hydro-acoustic data was uploaded to Navico BioBase for a kriging analysis to create interpolated mapping. Lake volume was calculated using the conical frustrum method (Wetzel and Likens 2010). Lake volume was divided by surface area to calculate mean depth. Shoreline development factor was calculated from shoreline length and surface area (Wetzel and Likens 2010). Shallowness ratio was calculated from the area less than five feet in depth divided by the total lake area (Wagner 1991).

CHEMICAL

Water quality sampling was conducted in the spring and late summer of 2015 and 2016 at the three deep basins in Thompson Lake (Figure 8). Temperature was measured using a YSI Model 550A probe. Samples were collected just below the surface, mid-depth, and just above the bottom with a Van Dorn bottle to be analyzed for dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus, chloride, pH, and total alkalinity. Dissolved oxygen samples were fixed in the field and then transported to Progressive AE for analysis using the modified Winkler method (Standard Methods procedure 4500-O C). pH was measured in the field using an Oakton EcoTestr pH2 pH meter. Samples were placed on ice for transportation. Total phosphorus and chloride were analyzed at Prein and Newhof using Standard Methods procedure 4500-P E and SM4110B, respectively. Total alkalinity was titrated at Progressive AE using Standard Methods procedure 2320 B. In addition to the depth-interval samples at each deep basin, Secchi transparency was measured and composite chlorophyll-a samples were collected from the surface to a depth equal to twice the Secchi transparency. Chlorophyll-a samples were analyzed by Prein and Newhof using Standard Methods procedure 10200 H.

BIOLOGICAL

Aquatic Vegetation Surveys

The plant survey of Thompson Lake was conducted in general conformance with Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Procedures for Aquatic Vegetation Surveys (2016). GPS reference points were established at 300-foot intervals along the shoreline (Figure 9). At each reference point, an assessment was made of the type and relative abundance of all plant species present. Plant densities were recorded in accordance with MDEQ procedures as follows: (a) = found: one or two plants of a species found at a site, equivalent to less than 2% of the total site surface area; (b) = sparse: scattered distribution of a species at a site, equivalent to between 2% and 20% of the total site surface area; (c) = common: common distribution of a species where the species is easily found at a site, equivalent to between 21% and 60% of the total site surface area; (d) = dense: dense distribution of a species where the species is present in considerable quantities throughout a site, equivalent to greater than 60% of the total site surface area. Data for each individual assessment site was then recorded, compiled and tabulated to evaluate the relative abundance of all plant species in Thompson Lake.

METHODS


draf

t

Figure 8. Thompson Lake sampling location map.

1

2

3

AccessSite

Depth contour (in feet)

2 Sampling location

N

METHODS


draf

t

Figure 9. Thompson Lake aquatic plant survey map.

!10

!20

!30

!40

!50

!52

!5

!5

!5

!5

!10!20

!25

!5

!10

!20

!30

9

8

7

65

4

3

2

1

9998

9796

95

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

82 8180

79

78

77

76

75

74

7372

71

70

69

68

6766

65

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

5756

55

54

5352

51

5049

48

47 46

45

44

43

424140

39

38

3736

35

3433

3231

30

29

2827

2625

24

23

2221

20

19

18

1716

1514

13

1211

10101

100

AccessSite

N

!10

!20

!30

!40

!50

!52

!5

!5

!5

!5

!10!20

!25

!5

!10

!20

!30

9

8

7

65

4

3

2

1

9998

9796

95

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

82 8180

79

78

77

76

75

74

7372

71

70

69

68

6766

65

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

5756

55

54

5352

51

5049

48

47 46

45

44

43

424140

39

38

3736

35

3433

3231

30

29

2827

2625

24

23

2221

20

19

18

1716

1514

13

1211

10101

100

Vegetation assessment location


!10

!20

!30

!40

!50

!52

!5

!5

!5

!5

!10!20

!25

!5

!10

!20

!30

9

8

7

65

4

3

2

1

9998

9796

95

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

82 8180

79

78

77

76

75

74

7372

71

70

69

68

6766

65

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

5756

55

54

5352

51

5049

48

47 46

4518

1716

1514

13

1211

10101

100

METHODS


draf

tNon-native Milfoil Genetic Analysis

Three samples of non-native milfoil were collected on July 21, 2014 for genetic analysis to determine whether hybrid milfoil was present in Thompson Lake. Tissue samples were transported to AquaGen1 laboratory and genetically identified using an Internal Transcribed Spacer (ITS) restriction analysis (Moody and Les. 2002; Thum et al. 2006; Moody and Les 2007; Zuellig and Thum 2012; Grafé et al. 2015).

SOCIOLOGICAL

All residents within the Thompson Lake special assessment district were polled to determine their goals in managing the lake. Residents were mailed a cover letter and questionnaire (Appendix A) and had the option of returning the hard copy of the questionnaire or could respond via the online survey website SurveyMonkey. Hard-copy results were entered into SurveyMonkey by Livingston County Drain Commissioner staff in order to compile results.

1 Robert B. Annis Water Resources Institute, 740 West Shoreline Drive, Muskegon, MI 49441.


draf

tResults and Discussion

THOMPSON LAKE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Thompson Lake was originally mapped by the Michigan Conservation Department (MCD) Institute for Fisheries Research from February 11 to 14 in 1952 (Figure 10). At that time, the maximum depths in the three deep basins were 25, 30, and 52 feet.

Figure 10. Thompson Lake 1952 depth contour map. Modified from: Michigan Conservation Department Institute for Fisheries Research.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


draf

tDuring the current study, the maximum depth of the lake was 53 feet northwest of the central islands with a 28-foot deep basin in the central portion of the lake and a 24-foot deep basin in the west bay of the lake (Figure 11). With the exception of the canal excavation at the south end of the lake, there has been very little change in Thompson Lake since 1952. The maximum depths are nearly identical, and the size and location of the deep holes and shallow regions are largely unchanged.

Figure 11. Thompson Lake 2015 depth contour map. Hydro-acoustic data collected on April 15, 2015 and processed by Navico. Lake elevation was 903.40 feet on April 15, 2015. Lake shoreline digitized from 2014 aerial orthodigital photography (Source: USDA FSA).

53

28


N

24

Tributary streams, outlet stream



draf

tA summary of the physical characteristics of Thompson Lake and its watershed, or drainage basin, is provided in Table 1. The Department of Conservation measured the surface area of Thompson Lake at 262 acres. Based on recent aerial photography, the shoreline was measured at 270 acres during the current study. Using information available from the State’s GIS Open Data, Thompson Lake is the 432nd largest inland lake in Michigan. With 10,031 lakes that are 5 acres in size or larger, Thompson Lake is in the top 4 percent of Michigan inland lakes by surface area.

TABLE 1THOMPSON LAKE AND WATERSHED PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Lake Surface Area 270 acresMaximum Depth 53 feetMean Depth 9.8 feetLake Volume 2,650 acre-feetShoreline Length 5.7 milesShoreline Development Factor 2.5 Shallowness Factor 0.4 Lake Elevation Summer 904.5 feetLake Elevation Winter (odd-numbered years) 904.5 feetLake Elevation Winter (even-numbered years) 901.5 feetWater Residence Time 180 daysWatershed Area 6,493 acresRatio of Lake Area to Watershed Area 24.0

The mean, or average, depth of Thompson Lake is 9.8 feet. Since aquatic plants can grow to a depth of about 15 or 20 feet, a significant portion of the lake bottom is shallow enough for plants to grow. The basins where the original three lake basins existed tend to be deep with rather steep side-slopes. Outside of the basins, the lake is quite shallow, particularly at the south end and the northeast arm. A photograph from 1927 shows stumps being pulled from the shallow south end (Figure 12).

Figure 12. South end of Thompson Lake, 1927. Source: Howell Area Historical Society.



draf

tThompson Lake contains 2,650 acre-feet of water, a volume which would cover an area just over four square miles to a depth of one foot.

Shoreline development factor is a measure of the irregularity in the shape of the shoreline. A lake with a perfectly circular shoreline would have a shoreline development factor of 1.0. Shoreline development factor increases as the shoreline becomes more convoluted. In Michigan, shoreline development factor ranges from 1.0 to 13.5 (Figure 13).

Figure 13. Shoreline development factor of select Michigan inland lakes. Base maps prepared by Michigan Department of Natural Resources, or predecessor agencies. Shoreline development factor calculations based on surface area and shoreline length data from Michigan GIS Open Data.

Walsh Lake, Washtenaw County1.03

Spider Lake, Grand Traverse County3.91

Smallwood Lake,Gladwin County11.37

N



draf

tShoreline development factor is significant because lakes with more irregular shorelines can accommodate more buildings and other development, which can lead to greater pollution runoff and lake overcrowding. In addition, more convoluted shorelines can support more aquatic plant growth. Wagner (1991) noted:

The ratio of the length of shoreline around the lake to the circumference of a circle with the same area as the lake [shoreline development factor] provides a size-independent measure of the lake shape and indicates much about how motorized watercraft could affect the water body. Higher ratios suggest irregular shorelines with more waterfront per unit area than smaller ratios. Numerous coves may serve to isolate impacts, but there is a greater potential for the shoreline to be affected. High ratios also imply greater safety risks as well as ecological consequences.

The shoreline development factor for Thompson Lake is 2.5 indicating that the shoreline of Thompson Lake is 2.5 times longer than if the lake were perfectly round. Thus, the potential for shoreland runoff, aquatic plant growth, and shoreline impacts from motorized watercraft in Thompson Lake is higher than if the lake were more rounded in shape.

The shallowness ratio compares the area of the lake less than 5 feet deep to the total lake area, and indicates the degree to which the lake bottom area is likely to be directly affected by motorized watercraft. Impacts of primary concern include sediment suspension, turbidity, and destruction of fish habitat. Shallowness ratios range from low (less than 0.10) for lakes unlikely to be impacted to high (greater than 0.50) for lakes with a high potential for impact. Thompson Lake has a shallowness ratio of 0.4 which indicates that the potential impact of motorized watercraft on the lake is moderate.

Currently, approximately 200 homes border Thompson Lake. Only about ten percent of the Thompson Lake shoreline is “natural,” meaning that it contains trees, shrubs, or other native plants (Figure 14). The remainder of the shoreline contains turf grass, beach, seawalls or other hardened surfaces (Figure 15).

Natural shoreline is important for habitat and water quality protection. In the first-ever nationwide assessment of lakes, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency evaluated several stressors of lakes. Of the factors evaluated, lack of shoreline vegetation was the biggest problem facing the nation’s lakes. Lakes with poor shoreline habitat were three times more likely to be in poor biological condition (U.S. EPA 2009).

Figure 14. Natural shoreline on Thompson Lake. Figure 15. Disturbed shoreline on Thompson Lake.



draf

tLake level is controlled by the dam located at the northwest end of the lake (Figure 16). Thompson Lake’s legal level of 904.5 feet in summer and 901.5 in winter of even-numbered years was set by Circuit Court order on October 10, 1984. The three-foot winter drawdown was recommended by Edmands Engineering (1980) to help control nuisance plant growth.

Thompson Lake’s outlet flows north to Bogue Creek, which flows north into the Shiawassee River, which continues north into Saginaw Bay and Lake Huron. Thompson Lake is about 325 feet higher in elevation than Lake Huron. Based on outflow estimates from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (Appendix B), it takes about 180 days for all the water in Thompson Lake to be flushed out and replaced with incoming water, a factor known as the lake residence time or flushing rate. By comparison, some impoundments can be flushed in a matter of hours while the water residence time for Higgins Lake in Roscommon County is approximately 10 years.

When the original dam was constructed, the impoundment inundated forest land, and many logs and stumps are still present in the lake, particularly at the south end. During periods of drawdown, the logs can be seen on aerial photographs (Figure 17). There are also several partially submerged mounds in the lake which appear similar to dense peat moss (Figure 18). These mounds periodically rise near the lake surface and then later submerge again. Investigations are underway to determine how best to remove the mounds as they pose a potential boating hazard.

Figure 16. Thompson Lake dam.

Figure 17. Logs in Thompson Lake visible during drawdown.

Figure 18. Submerged mounds in Thompson Lake, above water (top), underwater (bottom).



draf

tThe land area surrounding a lake that drains to the lake is called its watershed or drainage basin. The watershed boundary is determined by examining a topographic map (that shows elevation of the surrounding land area) to determine direction of flow toward and away from the lake (Figure 19).

The Thompson Lake watershed includes surface water drainage from two primary sources, both to the east of the lake. Lake Chemung outflows to the Genoa Oceola Drain which flows into Alger Creek and then empties into the southeast end of Thompson Lake. Earl Lake drains into a small canal just south of the Alger Creek inlet (Figure 20).

Figure 19. Thompson Lake watershed map. Base map source: U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Maps (Brighton, Howell photorevised 1983; Hartland, Oak Grove photorevised 1975)

Figure 20. Oceola Township county drain map. Source: Livingston County Drain Commissioner.

Lake Chemung

Earl Lake

Genoa Oceola Drain

Alger Creek

Watershed boundary

Alger Creek



draf

tStormwater drains to Thompson Lake via several storm sewer pipes (Figures 21 through 24). An additional drainpipe discharges into the canal at the end of Princeton Drive and carries groundwater as well as stormwater. In order to prevent roadway flooding, a Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) pumping facility removes water from the Grand River Avenue railroad underpass and pumps it to the nearby Thompson Lake canal (Figure 25).

Figure 21. Thompson Lake storm sewer outfall location map. Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources (1972).

53

28


N

24


Storm drain outfall #1




MDOT discharge outfall



draf

t

Figure 22. Storm drain outfall #1 (during drawdown). Figure 23. Storm drain outfall #2 (during drawdown).

Figure 24. Storm drain outfalls #3, #4 (during drawdown). Figure 25. MDOT discharge outfall (during drawdown).



draf

tThe Thompson Lake watershed is 6,493 acres, an area 24 times larger than the lake itself (Table 1; Figure 19). The majority of the Thompson Lake watershed is urban land, including the land that directly borders the lake (Table 2 and Figures 26 and 27).

TABLE 2THOMPSON LAKE WATERSHED LAND USE1

Land Use Acres Percent of Total

Urban 3,472 53%

Open Space 885 14%

Agricultural 407 6%

Forested 365 6%

Wetland 942 15%

Water 422 6%

Total 6,493 100%

1 Source: Michigan Geographic Data Library; originator: Michigan Department of Natural Resources; publication date: 1999; based on 1978 aerial photography; revised based on 2015 aerial photography.

Figure 26. Thompson Lake aerial watershed map. Photography source: USDA FSA 2014.

Lake Chemung

Earl Lake

ThompsonLake

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community

Doc

umen

t Pat

h: U

:\GIE

SRI\t

hom

pson

lk\T

hom

pson

Lak

e Ae

rial W

ater

shed

Map

.mxd

N



draf

t

Between 1960 and 2010, Livingston County’s population grew from roughly 38,000 to 181,000, an increase of nearly 400 percent in that 50-year period. Agriculture was once an important industry in the Thompson Lake watershed, but as the population grew, much of the farmland was replaced by residential, commercial, and industrial development, which now accounts for 53 percent of the watershed land area. Urban land has the potential to contribute large quantities of pollutants, such as fertilizers and sediment in runoff, and runoff rates are hastened by impervious surfaces (i.e., roads, parking lots, rooftops, etc.) and artificial drainage.

In addition, the two most significant areas of open space between Thompson Lake and Lake Chemung are golf courses, which also have the potential to contribute fertilizer to runoff. Wetlands are beneficial to water quality in that they tend to filter pollutants like fertilizer and sediment, and there are over 900 acres of wetland in the Thompson Lake watershed. However, most of the wetlands are situated in the headwaters where only limited filtration can occur. One important exception is the wetland at the south end of Thompson Lake.

Figure 27. Thompson Lake watershed land use map. Source: Michigan Geographic Data Library; originator: Michigan Department of Natural Resources; publication date: 1999; based on 1978 aerial photography; revised based on 2015 aerial photography.

Golf Club Rd

I- 96 Bus

S La

tson

Rd

N E

ager

Rd

S Hughes Rd

I- 96 Bus

Dor

r Rd

Kellogg R

d

Oak

cres

t Rd

N Ba

rnar

d St

Lake Chemung

Earl Lake

ThompsonLake

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community

Percent ofLand Use Acres Watershed

Urban 3,472 53

Open Space 885 13

Agricultural 407 6

Forested 365 5

Wetland 942 14

Water 422 10

Total 6,493 100

Watershed boundary

N

Golf Club Rd

I- 96 Bus

S La

tson

Rd

N E

ager

Rd

I- 96 Bus

Oak

cres

t R

N Ba

rnar

d St

Lake Chemung

Earl Lake

ThompsonLake

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthsIGN, and the GIS User Community

LandUse/Land Cover 1978 Source: Michigan Geographic Data LIbrary, Originator: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Publication Date: 1999, Based on 1978 Aerial PhotographyWatershed Boundary Source: Michigan Geographic Data Library, Originator: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Publication Date: 1998

January 2017

1811 4 Mile Rd NE | Grand Rapids , MI 49525 | 616-361-2664 | w ww.progressiveae.com

¯

THOMPSON LAKE GENERALIZED LAND COVER MAP

LAND COVERLIVINGSTON COUNTY, MICHIGAN

Residential/Commercial

Open Space

Agricultural

Forested

Wetland

Water

Total

Watershed Boundary

^ No Scale

Acres

% of Watershed (Includesrounding)

6,493 100%

3,472

885

407

365

942

422

52

13

6

5

14

10

Doc

umen

t Pat

h: U

:\GIE

SRI\t

hom

pson

lk\T

hom

pson

Lak

e G

ener

aliz

ed L

and

Cov

er M

ap.m

xd

Between 1960 and 2010, Livingston County’s population grew from roughly 38,000 to 181,000, an increase of nearly 400 percent in that 50-year period.



draf

tThe majority of soils in the Thompson Lake watershed are Miami loam which are, in general, poorly-drained soils with moderate to high runoff potential (Figure 28). In fact, most of the soils in the watershed have low infiltration rates and high runoff potential (Figure 29). Thus, the runoff (from residential land, golf courses, commercial, and industrial property) travels to Thompson Lake at a relatively fast rate with very little wetland filtration or soil infiltration along the way.

Figure 28. Thompson Lake watershed soils map. Source: Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed January 23, 2017.

Percent ofSoil Type Watershed

Aluvial land <1Borrow pits <1Boyer loamy sand 6Boyer-Oshtemo loamy sands <1Brady loamy sand 1Bronson loamy sand 1Brookston loam <1Carlisle muck 9Colwod fine sandy loam 2Conover loam 2Fox sandy loam 4Fox-Boyer complex 1Gilford sandy loam 7Hillsdale sandy loam 1Hillsdale-Miami loams 1Houghton muck 2Made land <1Metamora sandy loam <1Metea loamy sand <1Miami loam 44Oakvile fine sand 2Oakvile fine sand, loamy substratum <1Otoke loamy sand <1Owosso-Miami sandy loams <1Rifle muck <1Spinks-Oakvile loamy sands 1Tawas muck <1Wasepi sandy loam <1Washtenaw silt loam <1Water 10



draf

t

Figure 29. Thompson Lake watershed hydrologic soils group map. Source: Soil Survey staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Livingston County, Michigan at https://sdmdataaccess.nrcs.usda.gov/ Accessed January 4, 2016.

Lake Chemung

Earl Lake

ThompsonLake

A Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.

B Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.

C Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.

D Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. Only soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to the following dual classes, with the first letter representing drained areas and the second representing undrained areas:

A/D High infiltration rate when drained, very slow infiltration rate when undrained.B/D Moderate infiltration rate when drained, very slow infiltration rate when undrained.C/D Slow infiltration rate when drained, very slow infiltration rate when undrained.UnclassifiedTotal

Acres Percent 267 4

374 6

1,169 18

1,039 16 472 7 2,780 43

392 6 6,493 100

Earl Lake

ThompsonLake

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed January 4, 2017.Watershed Boundary Source: Michigan Geographic Data Library, Originator: Michigan Department ofEnvironmental Quality, Publication Date: 1998

January 2017


¯

THOMPSON LAKE HYDROLOGIC SOILS MAP

HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUPS

LIVINGSTON COUNTY, MICHIGAN

^ No Scale

HighRunoff

Potential

Acres

% of Watershed(Includesrounding)

LowRunoff

Potential

6,493 100%

267

374

1,169

1,039

472

2,780

392

A

B

C

A/D

B/D

C/D

Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughlywet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drainedsands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.

Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consistchiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drainedsoils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. Thesesoils have a moderate rate of water transmission.

Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consistchiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement ofwater or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have aslow rate of water transmission.

Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughlywet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential,soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at ornear the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D),the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas.



Unclassified

Total

Watershed Boundary

4

6

18

16

7

43

6

Earl Lake

ThompsonLake


January 2017


¯




^ No Scale

HighRunoff

Potential

Acres


LowRunoff

Potential

6,493 100%

267

374

1,169

1,039

472

2,780

392

A

B

C

A/D

B/D

C/D








Unclassified

Total

Watershed Boundary

4

6

18

16

7

43

6

Earl Lake

ThompsonLake


January 2017


¯




^ No Scale

HighRunoff

Potential

Acres


LowRunoff

Potential

6,493 100%

267

374

1,169

1,039

472

2,780

392

A

B

C

A/D

B/D

C/D








Unclassified

Total

Watershed Boundary

4

6

18

16

7

43

6

Earl Lake

ThompsonLake


January 2017


¯




^ No Scale

HighRunoff

Potential

Acres


LowRunoff

Potential

6,493 100%

267

374

1,169

1,039

472

2,780

392

A

B

C

A/D

B/D

C/D








Unclassified

Total

Watershed Boundary

4

6

18

16

7

43

6

Earl Lake

ThompsonLake


January 2017


¯




^ No Scale

HighRunoff

Potential

Acres


LowRunoff

Potential

6,493 100%

267

374

1,169

1,039

472

2,780

392

A

B

C

A/D

B/D

C/D








Unclassified

Total

Watershed Boundary

4

6

18

16

7

43

6

Earl Lake

ThompsonLake


January 2017


¯




^ No Scale

HighRunoff

Potential

Acres


LowRunoff

Potential

6,493 100%

267

374

1,169

1,039

472

2,780

392

A

B

C

A/D

B/D

C/D








Unclassified

Total

Watershed Boundary

4

6

18

16

7

43

6

Earl Lake

ThompsonLake


January 2017


¯




^ No Scale

HighRunoff

Potential

Acres


LowRunoff

Potential

6,493 100%

267

374

1,169

1,039

472

2,780

392

A

B

C

A/D

B/D

C/D








Unclassified

Total

Watershed Boundary

4

6

18

16

7

43

6



draf

tTHOMPSON LAKE CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS

When we refer to a lake’s “water quality,” what we often mean is “water chemistry.” Water samples are collected or probes are lowered into the water to measure various aspects of water chemistry in order to determine the lake’s current condition.

Temperature

Temperature is important in determining the type of organisms that may live in a lake. For example, trout prefer temperatures below 68°F. Temperature also determines how water mixes in a lake. As the ice cover breaks up on a lake in the spring, the water temperature becomes uniform from the surface to the bottom. This period is referred to as “spring turnover” because water mixes throughout the entire water column. As the surface waters warm, they are underlain by a colder, more dense layer of water. This process is called “thermal stratification.” Once thermal stratification occurs, there is little mixing of the warm surface waters with the cooler bottom waters. The transition layer that separates these layers is referred to as the “thermocline.” The thermocline is characterized as the zone where temperature drops rapidly with depth. As fall approaches, the warm surface waters begin to cool and become more dense. Eventually, the surface temperature drops to a point that allows the lake to undergo complete mixing. This period is referred to as “fall turnover.” As the season progresses and ice begins to form on the lake, the lake may stratify again. However, during winter stratification, the surface waters (at or near 32°F) are underlain by slightly warmer water (about 39°F). This is sometimes referred to as “inverse stratification” and occurs because water is most dense at a temperature of about 39°F. As the lake ice melts in the spring, these stratification cycles are repeated (Figure 30). Shallow lakes do not stratify. Lakes that are about 15 to 30 feet deep may stratify and destratify with storm events several times during the year.

Thompson Lake Temperatures

During springtime sampling in 2015, the surface of Thompson Lake was beginning to warm, whereas in March of 2016 the lake was still undergoing spring turnover (Table 3). At the deepest sampling station, Site 1 (Figure 8), the surface was 17 degrees warmer than the bottom in April of 2015 but only 6 degrees warmer in March of 2016. During the late-summer sampling periods, Thompson Lake was thermally stratified. At the deepest location, the thermocline formed at approximately 25 feet of depth. The surface was nearly 40 degrees warmer than at 50 feet of depth. The bottom waters of the two shallower basins, Sites 2 and 3, were warmer than Site 1. As such, Sites 2 and 3 are barely deep enough to stratify.

Spring Turnover

Thermocline

Warm water

Cool water

Water below ice cap near 32°F

Water above sediments near 39°F

Summer Stratification

Winter Stratification

Fall Turnover

Figure 30. Seasonal thermal stratification cycles.



draf

tTABLE 3THOMPSON LAKE DEEP BASIN WATER QUALITY DATA

Sample Dissolved Total Total Sampling Depth Temp. Oxygen Phosph. pH Alkalinity ChlorideDate Site (feet) (°F) (mg/L)1 (µg/L)2 (S.U.)3 (mg/L CaCO3)4 (mg/L)1

14-Apr-15 1 1 55 10.5 23 8.2 203 126

14-Apr-15 1 24 41 8.6 13 7.6 217 134

14-Apr-15 1 48 38 2.0 31 7.4 242 150

14-Apr-15 2 1 53 11.0 20 8.2 205 124

14-Apr-15 2 12 52 10.5 20 8.1 211 124

14-Apr-15 2 24 46 10.6 22 7.9 188 127

14-Apr-15 3 1 54 11.8 24 8.2 207 128

14-Apr-15 3 10 51 13.4 23 8.1 210 127

14-Apr-15 3 20 47 8.4 36 7.8 210 126

5-Aug-15 1 1 78 8.0 <5 8.7 128 147

5-Aug-15 1 25 52 1.9 5 8.2 210 143

5-Aug-15 1 50 40 0.0 252 7.8 260 159

5-Aug-15 2 1 77 8.5 8 8.8 135 151

5-Aug-15 2 13 76 7.7 11 8.7 134 150

5-Aug-15 2 26 50 3.2 169 8.0 240 138

5-Aug-15 3 1 77 9.5 10 8.7 135 148

5-Aug-15 3 10 77 7.3 13 8.7 137 148

5-Aug-15 3 20 63 1.2 81 8.0 208 139

1 mg/L = milligrams per liter = parts per million.2 µg/L = micrograms per liter = parts per billion.3 S.U. = standard units.4 mg/L CaCO3 = milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate.



draf

tTABLE 3 (continued)THOMPSON LAKE DEEP BASIN WATER QUALITY DATA

Sample Dissolved Total Total Sampling Depth Temp. Oxygen Phosph. pH Alkalinity ChlorideDate Site (feet) (°F) (mg/L)1 (µg/L)2 (S.U.)3 (mg/L CaCO3)4 (mg/L)1

28-Mar-16 1 1 47 11.8 14 7.9 185

28-Mar-16 1 24 47 12.2 12 8.0 188

28-Mar-16 1 48 41 11.2 12 7.9 194

28-Mar-16 2 1 48 12.3 7 8.0 187

28-Mar-16 2 13 48 12.0 20 8.0 185

28-Mar-16 2 26 47 11.8 12 7.8 186

28-Mar-16 3 1 48 12.2 11 7.9 182

28-Mar-16 3 11 47 11.9 <5 8.0 184

28-Mar-16 3 22 44 10.6 9 7.8 188

1-Sep-16 1 1 78 9.0 13 8.7 122 151

1-Sep-16 1 25 53 5.7 14 8.4 189 143

1-Sep-16 1 50 43 0.0 193 8.0 209 143

1-Sep-16 2 1 78 8.1 16 8.7 146 160

1-Sep-16 2 12 78 7.9 17 8.7 145 150

1-Sep-16 2 24 53 0.3 64 8.3 205 152

1-Sep-16 3 1 78 8.0 11 8.8 146 150

1-Sep-16 3 10 77 7.7 14 8.7 144 149

1-Sep-16 3 20 62 0.3 784 8.2 202 157

1 mg/L = milligrams per liter = parts per million.2 µg/L = micrograms per liter = parts per billion.3 S.U. = standard units.4 mg/L CaCO3 = milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate.



draf

tDissolved Oxygen

An important factor influencing lake water quality is the quantity of dissolved oxygen in the water column. The major inputs of dissolved oxygen to lakes are the atmosphere and photosynthetic activity by aquatic plants. Cool water can hold more oxygen than warm water, thus oxygen levels are usually higher in spring than in summer. Water at 50°F can hold 11 parts per million (ppm) of oxygen while water at 80°F can only hold 8 ppm. An oxygen level of about 5 mg/L (milligrams per liter, or parts per million) is required to support warm-water fish. In lakes deep enough to exhibit thermal stratification, oxygen levels are often reduced or depleted below the thermocline once the lake has stratified. This occurs because deep water is cut off from plant photosynthesis and the atmosphere, and oxygen is consumed by bacteria that use oxygen as they decompose organic matter (plant and animal remains) at the bottom of the lake. Lakes with bottom-water oxygen depletion cannot support cool-water fish because the cool, deep water (that the fish require to live) does not contain sufficient oxygen.

Thompson Lake Dissolved Oxygen

With the exception of a relatively low bottom water dissolved oxygen level at site 1 in 2015, dissolved oxygen levels were high at all sites and depths during the spring sampling periods in both 2015 and 2016 (Table 3). During summer stratification, the upper portions of the lake, i.e., the epilimnion, were well

oxygenated, but oxygen declined below the thermocline. Hypolimnetic (deep-water) oxygen depletion indicates Thompson Lake is biologically productive. That is, there is enough growth and decomposition of aquatic plants to cause oxygen depletion by bacteria as they decompose organic matter at the lake bottom. In addition, because the deep waters are devoid of dissolved oxygen during the summer months, Thompson Lake can only support warm- and cool-water fish such as bass and pike.

Dissolved oxygen levels measured during the current study were similar to those reported by U.S. EPA (1975), Freshwater Physicians, Inc. (1978 and 2003), and MDEQ (2005).

Phosphorus

The quantity of phosphorus present in the water column is especially important because phosphorus is the nutrient that most often controls aquatic plant and algae growth as well as the rate at which a lake ages and becomes more nutrient-enriched, i.e., eutrophic. By reducing the amount of phosphorus in a lake, it may be possible to control the amount of aquatic plant growth. In general, lakes with a phosphorus concentration above 20 ppb are able to support abundant plant growth.

In the presence of oxygen, phosphorus settles to the lake bottom and is unavailable for algae growth. However, if bottom-water oxygen is depleted, as often occurs in late summer, phosphorus is released from the sediments and may be available to promote algae growth. In some lakes, the release of phosphorus from the bottom sediments is the primary source of phosphorus loading (or input) to the lake.

Thompson Lake Phosphorus

During spring turnover sampling in 2015 and 2016, total phosphorus levels in Thompson Lake were moderate or slightly elevated (Table 3). During summer stratification, phosphorus levels were low or moderate in the epilimnion (upper waters) but were quite high in the oxygen-depleted hypolimnion (bottom

waters), indicating that internal phosphorus loading occurs in Thompson Lake. A similar deep-water phosphorus buildup was measured by Freshwater Physicians (1978 and 2003) and MDEQ (2005). However, since the deep-water portion of the lake with elevated phosphorus levels is relatively small, internal phosphorus loading in Thompson Lake does not appear to be a major source of phosphorus input to the lake. The moderately low phosphorus concentrations in the epilimnion are likely due to uptake of the phosphorus by rooted aquatic plants.

Deep-water oxygen depletion indicates Thompson Lake is biologically productive.

During summer, phosphorus levels were low or moderate in the upper waters but were quite high in the oxygen-depleted bottom waters.



draf

tTotal phosphorus levels measured during the current study were similar to those reported by U.S. EPA (1975), Freshwater Physicians, Inc. (1978 and 2003), and MDEQ (2005).

pH and Total Alkalinity

pH is a measure of the amount of acid or base in the water. The pH scale ranges from 0 (acidic) to 14 (alkaline or basic) with neutrality at 7. The pH of most lakes in the Upper Midwest ranges from 6.5 to 9.0 (MDEQ 2012; Table 4).

TABLE 4pH AND ALKALINITY OF UPPER MIDWEST LAKES

Measurement Low Moderate High

pH (in standard units) Less than 6.5 6.5 to 9.0 Greater than 9.0

Total Alkalinity or ANC (in mg/L as CaCO3)1 Less than 23 23 to 148 Greater than 148

In addition, according to MDEQ (2016):

While there are natural variations in pH, many pH variations are due to human influences. Fossil fuel combustion products, especially automobile and coal-fired power plant emissions, contain nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, which are converted to nitric acid and sulfuric acid in the atmosphere. When these acids combine with moisture in the atmosphere, they fall to earth as acid rain or acid snow. In some parts of the United States, especially the Northeast, acid rain has resulted in lakes and streams becoming acidic, resulting in conditions which are harmful to aquatic life. The problems associated with acid rain are lessened if limestone is present, since it is alkaline and neutralizes the acidity of the water.

Most aquatic plants and animals are adapted to a specific pH range, and natural populations may be harmed by water that is too acidic or alkaline. Immature stages of aquatic insects and young fish are extremely sensitive to pH values below 5. Even microorganisms which live in the bottom sediment and decompose organic debris cannot live in conditions which are too acidic. In very acidic waters, metals which are normally bound to organic matter and sediment are released into the water. Many of these metals can be toxic to fish and humans. Below a pH of about 4.5, all fish die.

The Michigan Water Quality Standard (Part 4 of Act 451) states that pH shall be maintained within the range of 6.5 to 9.0 in all waters of the state.

Alkalinity, also known as acid-neutralizing capacity or ANC, is the measure of the pH-buffering capacity of water in that it is the quantitative capacity of water to neutralize an acid. pH and alkalinity are closely linked and are greatly impacted by the geology and soil types that underlie a lake and its watershed. According to MDEQ (2012):

Michigan’s dominant limestone geology in the Lower Peninsula and the eastern Upper Peninsula contributes to the vast majority of Michigan lakes being carbonate-bicarbonate dominant [which increases alkalinity and moderates pH] and lakes in the western Upper Peninsula having lower alkalinity and thus lesser buffering capacity.

The alkalinity of most lakes in the Upper Midwest is within the range of 23 to 148 milligrams per liter, or parts per million, as calcium carbonate (MDEQ 2012; Table 4).

1 mg/L CaCO3 = milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate.



draf

tThompson Lake pH and Alkalinity

Thompson Lake’s pH was moderate and total alkalinity was moderate to high during this study (Table 3) and was similar to levels measured in previous studies. Thompson Lake’s pH is within a range that can readily support aquatic life, and alkalinity levels are such that the lake is well-buffered against pollution inputs that could impact pH.

Chloride

Normally, chloride is a very minor component of freshwater systems and background concentrations are generally less than about 10 milligrams per liter (Wetzel 2001; Fuller and Taricska 2012, Figure 31). However, chloride pollution from sources such as road salting, industrial or municipal wastewater, water softeners, and septic systems can increase chloride levels in lakes. Increased chloride levels can reduce biological diversity and, because chloride increases the density of water, elevated chloride levels can prevent a lake from completely mixing during spring and fall. Michigan’s water quality standards require that waters designated as a public water supply source not exceed 125 milligrams per liter of chlorides as a monthly average.

Thompson Lake Chloride

Chloride levels in Thompson Lake ranged from 124 to 160 parts per million (ppm) during the current

study (Table 3). Freshwater Physicians measured an average chloride level of 41 ppm in 1976 and 86 ppm in 2002. In one sample collected in 2005, MDEQ measured a chloride level of 99 ppm in Thompson Lake. These concentrations are much higher than normal background levels and are likely caused by the influx of road salt into the lake via tributary streams and storm drains. The increasing levels since 1976 are contemporaneous with the rapid population growth in the county and land development within the watershed. Although chloride levels are high, they are not currently preventing the lake from mixing during spring turnover as evidenced by temperature and water chemistry data from March of 2016 which shows complete mixing.

Chlorophyll-a

Chlorophyll-a is a pigment that imparts the green color to plants and algae. A rough estimate of the quantity of algae present in lake water can be made by measuring the amount of chlorophyll-a in the water column. Chlorophyll-a concentrations greater than 6 ppb are high, and lake water can appear green in color from algae growth.

Thompson Lake Chlorophyll-a

Thompson Lake chlorophyll-a measurements were low or moderate, indicating algae growth was not abundant in Thompson Lake at the time of sampling (Table 5). Chlorophyll-a samples collected in 1972 for the USEPA National Eutrophication Survey ranged from 1 to 30 parts per billion, with an error rate of ± 20 percent due to instrumentation problems. In 2005, MDEQ measured chlorophyll-a concentrations of 5 and 8 parts per billion. It appears that algae growth in Thompson Lake has decreased over time. It may be that rooted aquatic plants (macrophytes) are out-competing algae for available phosphorus.

Figure 31. Lake chloride levels (2001–10) in USEPA ecoregions. Source: Fuller and Taricska 2012.

Chloride concentrations are much higher than normal background levels and are likely caused by the influx of road salt into the lake via tributary streams and storm drains.



draf

tTABLE 5THOMPSON LAKE SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA

Date Station Chlorophyll-a (µg/L)1 Secchi Transparency (feet)

14-Apr-15 1 2 4.0

14-Apr-15 2 1 4.0

14-Apr-15 3 1

5-Aug-15 1 0 9.0

5-Aug-15 2 3 9.5

5-Aug-15 3 1 6.5

28-Mar-16 1 3 5.0

28-Mar-16 2 3 5.0

28-Mar-16 3 4 4.5

1-Sep-16 1 1 4.0

1-Sep-16 2 2 4.0

1-Sep-16 3 3 4.0

Secchi Transparency

A Secchi disk is often used to estimate water clarity. The measurement is made by fastening a round, black and white, 8-inch disk to a calibrated line (Figure 32). The disk is lowered over the deepest point of the lake until it is no longer visible, and the depth is noted. The disk is then raised until it reappears. The average between these two depths is the Secchi transparency. Generally, it has been found that aquatic plants can grow at a depth of approximately twice the Secchi transparency measurement. In nutrient-enriched lakes, water clarity is often reduced by algae growth in the water column, and Secchi disk readings of 7.5 feet or less are common.

Thompson Lake Secchi Transparency

During the current study, Secchi transparency in Thompson Lake was generally poor at 6.5 feet or less, except for two 9-foot readings at Sites 1 and 2 in the summer of 2015 (Table 5). The generally low water clarity was evidently not caused by algae growth since chlorophyll-a levels were quite low. Instead, the reduced clarity may have been due to boating activity which can stir sediments into the water column. Similar Secchi transparency measurements were recorded by USEPA in 1975 and by Freshwater Physicians in 1976 and 2002. MDEQ measured Secchi transparency at 5 feet in April but over 13 feet in August of 2005, which illustrates the fact that water clarity can vary depending on several factors such as algae growth, turbidity, or weather conditions.

1 µg/L = micrograms per liter = parts per billion.

Figure 32. Secchi disk.



draf

tChemical Criteria for Lake Classification

Ordinarily, as phosphorus concentrations in a lake increase, the amount of algae will also increase. Thus, chlorophyll-a levels will increase and transparency decreases. Lake scientists often use phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, and Secchi transparency to determine a lake’s trophic state. A summary of lake classification criteria developed by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources is shown in Table 6.

TABLE 6LAKE CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA

Lake Total Chlorophyll-a SecchiClassification Phosphorus(µg/L)1 (µg/L)1 Transparency (feet)

Oligotrophic Less than 10 Less than 2.2 Greater than 15.0

Mesotrophic 10 to 20 2.2 to 6.0 7.5 to 15.0

Eutrophic Greater than 20 Greater than 6.0 Less than 7.5

Study findings indicate that Thompson Lake is meso-eutrophic in that it has both mesotrophic and eutrophic characteristics. Surface phosphorus, Secchi transparency and chlorophyll-a readings are characteristic of a mesotrophic lake while bottom-water dissolved oxygen depletion, sediment phosphorus release, and abundant rooted aquatic plant growth are typical of a eutrophic condition.

THOMPSON LAKE BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

The current study included an assessment of aquatic plants and a review of Michigan Department of Natural Resources fishery reports. Although there are many other organisms that live in lakes, aquatic plants and fish are often of primary importance to lake residents due to their impact on recreational activities.

Aquatic Plants

Aquatic plants are an important ecological component of lakes. They produce oxygen during photosynthesis, provide food and habitat for fish, and help stabilize shoreline and bottom sediments (Figure 33).

1 µg/L = micrograms per liter = parts per billion.

Figure 33. Benefits of aquatic plants.

Aquatic plants are part of a healthy lake. They produce oxygen, provide food and habitat for fish, and help to

stabilize shoreline and bottom sediments.

Insects and other invertebrates live on or near aquatic plants, and become food for fish, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife.

Plants and algae are the base of the food chain. Lakes with a

healthy fishery have a moderate density of aquatic plants.

Aquatic plants provide habitat

for fish and other aquatic life.

Aquatic plants help to hold sediments in place

and improve water clarity.

Predator-fish such as pike hide among plants, rocks, and tree roots to sneak up on their prey. Prey-fish such as minnows and

small sunfish use aquatic plants to hide from predators.

Thompson Lake is meso-eutrophic.



draf

tThe distribution and abundance of aquatic plants are dependent on several variables, including light penetration, bottom type, temperature, water levels, and the availability of plant nutrients. The term “aquatic plants” includes both the algae and the larger aquatic plants or macrophytes. Macrophytes can be categorized into four groups: emergent, floating-leaved, submersed, and free-floating (Figure 34). Each plant group provides unique habitat essential for a healthy fishery.

Nuisance Aquatic Plants

While aquatic plants are essential for a healthy lake, aquatic plant management may be necessary when exotic, or non-native, species invade a lake, or if native plants grow to nuisance densities.

An exotic species is one that is found outside of its natural range. Exotic aquatic plants often have aggressive and invasive growth tendencies. They can quickly out-compete native plants and gain dominance in a lake. Two examples of exotic plant species that grow in Thompson Lake are Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and starry stonewort (Nitellopsis obtusa).

Eurasian milfoil often becomes established early in the growing season and can grow at greater depths than most plants. Eurasian milfoil often forms a thick canopy at the lake surface that can degrade fish habitat and seriously hinder recreational activity (Figure 35). Once introduced into a lake system, Eurasian milfoil may out-compete and displace more desirable plants and become the dominant species.

Starry stonewort looks like a rooted plant but it is actually an algae (Figure 36). It was first found in the Detroit River in the 1980s and has since infested hundreds of inland lakes (Brown 2015, Schloesser et al. 1986). Starry stonewort closely resembles the native aquatic plant Chara. However, unlike Chara, which is generally considered to be a beneficial plant, starry stonewort has a tendency to colonize deeper water and can form dense mats several feet thick. Starry stonewort can impede navigation, and quickly displace native plants. Fisheries biologists have expressed concern that starry stonewort may cover valuable fish habitat and spawning areas.

At times, native plants can grow to densities that interfere with navigation, swimming, and other recreational lake uses (Figure 37).

Floating-leaved

Emergent

Submersed

Free-floating

Figure 34. Aquatic plant groups.

Figure 35. Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum).

Prog

ress

ive

AEFigure 36. Starry stonewort (Nitellopsis obtusa).

Prog

ress

ive

AEPr

ogre

ssiv

e AE

Figure 37. Nuisance native aquatic plant growth.

An exotic species is one that is found outside of its natural range.



draf

tThompson Lake Aquatic Plants

In addition to information on depth, the hydro-acoustic survey on August 12, 2015 also yielded information on the location of plant beds and the relative height of plants in the water column, i.e., bio-volume (Figure 38). Plants grow to a depth of about 10 or 15 feet in Thompson Lake and cover roughly 60 percent of the lake area.

Figure 38. Thompson Lake aquatic vegetation bio-volume map. Bio-volume is a measure of the height of plants in the water column. A bio-volume measurement of 50% indicates plants occupy one-half of the water column. Hydro-acoustic data collected on August 12, 2015 and processed by Navico. Lake shoreline digitized from 2014 aerial orthodigital photography (Source: USDA FSA).

53

28

N

24


Percent Bio-volume0 - 55 - 1010 - 1515 - 2020 - 2525 - 3030 - 3535 - 4040 - 4545 - 5050 - 5555 - 6060 - 6565 - 7070 - 7575 - 8080 - 8585 - 9090 - 9595 - 100No data



draf

tIt is apparent from the vegetation bio-volume map (Figure 38) that most of the plant growth in Thompson Lake occurs at the south end, and there are extensive areas where plants grow to the lake surface, i.e., bio-volume is 100 percent, shown in red. It is important to note that the depth at the south end is generally less than 5 feet, therefore high plant bio-volume is expected. Abundant plant growth is not a new phenomenon in Thompson Lake. Michigan DNR (2006) noted:

Aquatic vegetation is the dominant form of fish cover in Thompson Lake. The overall fertility of the lake along with its relatively shallow average depth make it well suited for aquatic vegetative growth. Abundant macrophytes have conflicted with recreational uses as far back as the 1950’s.

Following the hydro-acoustic survey, plants were identified at 101 survey sites (Figure 9) within the vegetated areas of Thompson Lake on September 10, 2015 and September 1, 2016 (Tables 7 and 8, Appendix C).

TABLE 7THOMPSON LAKE AQUATIC PLANTSSeptember 10, 2015

Percent of Sites WhereCommon Name Scientific Name Group Origin Present

Naiad Najas flexilis Submersed Native 84Eurasian milfoil Myriophyllum spicatum Submersed Exotic 82Thin-leaf pondweed Potamogeton sp. Submersed Native 46Flat-stem pondweed Potamogeton zosteriformis Submersed Native 38Starry stonewort Nitellopsis obtusa Submersed Exotic 31Chara Chara sp. Submersed Native 27Water stargrass Heteranthera dubia Submersed Native 26Large-leaf pondweed Potamogeton amplifolius Submersed Native 26Sago pondweed Stuckenia pectinata Submersed Native 23Curly-leaf pondweed Potamogeton crispus Submersed Exotic 14Coontail Ceratophyllum demersum Submersed Native 14Richardson’s pondweed Potamogeton richardsonii Submersed Native 5American pondweed Potamogeton americanus Submersed Native 3Bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris Submersed Native 1Illinois pondweed Potamogeton illinoensis Submersed Native 1Wild celery Vallisneria americana Submersed Native 1

White waterlily Nymphaea odorata Floating-leaved Native 50Yellow waterlily Nuphar sp. Floating-leaved Native 2Floating-leaf pondweed Potamogeton natans Floating-leaved Native 1

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Emergent Exotic 20Cattail Typha sp. Emergent Native 17Bulrush Scirpus sp. Emergent Native 5Swamp loosestrife Decodon verticillatus Emergent Native 2



draf

tTABLE 8THOMPSON LAKE AQUATIC PLANTSSeptember 1, 2016

Percent of Sites WhereCommon Name Scientific Name Group Origin Present

Water stargrass Heteranthera dubia Submersed Native 51Flat-stem pondweed Potamogeton zosteriformis Submersed Native 32Starry stonewort Nitellopsis obtusa Submersed Exotic 31Chara Chara sp. Submersed Native 29Thin-leaf pondweed Potamogeton sp. Submersed Native 23Coontail Ceratophyllum demersum Submersed Native 18Naiad Najas flexilis Submersed Native 16Large-leaf pondweed Potamogeton amplifolius Submersed Native 12Eurasian milfoil Myriophyllum spicatum Submersed Exotic 11Sago pondweed Stuckenia pectinata Submersed Native 8Curly-leaf pondweed Potamogeton crispus Submersed Exotic 5Richardson’s pondweed Potamogeton richardsonii Submersed Native 5Wild celery Vallisneria americana Submersed Native 4Bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris Submersed Native 4Brittle-leaf naiad Najas minor Submersed Native 2Whitestem pondweed Potamogeton praelongus Submersed Native 1Robbins pondweed Potamogeton robbinsii Submersed Native 1Submersed arrowhead Sagittaria sp. Submersed Native 1Variable pondweed Potamogeton gramineus Submersed Native 1

White waterlily Nymphaea odorata Floating-leaved Native 48Yellow waterlily Nuphar sp. Floating-leaved Native 10Floating-leaf pondweed Potamogeton natans Floating-leaved Native 3

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Emergent Exotic 59Lake sedge Carex lacustris Emergent Native 29Cattail Typha sp. Emergent Native 25Bulrush Scirpus sp. Emergent Native 13Swamp loosestrife Decodon verticillatus Emergent Native 6Phragmites Phragmites australis Emergent Exotic 1

Thompson Lake contains a very diverse aquatic plant community with over 20 species found in 2015 and nearly 30 species found in 2016. Most of the species are native to Michigan but several are exotic (non-native). One major difference in survey results between the two years was the significant decline in Eurasian milfoil from 2015 to 2016 as a result of the 2016 application of the herbicide fluridone. Three milfoil plant samples collected from Thompson Lake in July of 2014 were identified as a hybrid between Eurasian milfoil and northern milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum x M. sibiricum; Appendix D). Hybrid milfoil can be more aggressive growing than Eurasian milfoil and often presents special management challenges (Appendix E).



draf

tMost of the plant species in Thompson Lake are beneficial in that they help to protect water quality and provide important food and habitat for fish and wildlife. However, Eurasian milfoil and starry stonewort are non-native plants that often interfere with recreational use of the lake. In addition, at times, some native plants grow to nuisance densities.

Review of Plant Control Activities

Thompson Lake plant control activities since 2004 are summarized in Table 9. Most of the systemic and contact herbicide treatments target non-native milfoil; most of the copper herbicide treatments are for starry stonewort (Nitellopsis obtusa); and harvesting targets

nuisance native plants and starry stonewort.

TABLE 9THOMPSON LAKE PLANT CONTROL SUMMARY (IN ACRES)2004-2016

Herbicide Treatments

Systemic Contact Herbicides Copper for Herbicides for Non-native Milfoil Filamentous and for Non-native and Nuisance Planktonic Algae and MechanicalYear Milfoil Native Plants Starry Stonewort Harvesting

2004 2841 3 14 2005 4 42 24 502006 47 67 29 162007 2791 96 2008 22 18 272009 21 5 4 452010 2801 4 352011 34 50 332012 69 38 40 332013 2801 2 352014 6 13 10 352015 22 1 352016 2911 27 35

Fish

The most recent assessment of the Thompson Lake fishery by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) was in 2005 (MDNR 2006). MDNR reported the following:

A total of 1,265 fish representing 15 species were collected with combined efforts. Black crappie, bluegill, and largemouth bass were the most abundant comprising 83% of the total catch by number and 57% by weight. Other species collected included bluntnose minnow, bowfin, carp, white sucker, golden shiner, northern pike, pumpkinseed sunfish, rock bass, redear sunfish, warmouth, yellow perch, and yellow bullhead.

1 Whole-lake treatments with the systemic herbicide fluridone were conducted in 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016. The acreage listed includes 270 acres for the fluridone treatment, plus any additional acreage for other systemic herbicides applied in that year.

Most of the plant species in Thompson Lake help to protect water quality and provide important food and habitat for fish and wildlife.



draf

tMDNR concluded:

The fish community appears in satisfactory state with some very good recreational opportunities for black crappie, bluegill, and largemouth bass. Northern pike, pumpkinseed, and redear sunfish offer additional angling opportunities but they exist in fewer numbers.

The next MDNR fishery assessment is scheduled for 2018.

THOMPSON LAKE RESIDENT QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

Of the 893 addresses in the special assessment district, residents from 76 addresses responded to the questionnaire, a 9 percent return rate. It is important to note that because the survey was not a random sampling of residents within the district, some degree of bias can be expected in the results, and the results should not be assumed to be representative of opinions within the district as a whole.

A slight majority of respondents have lived at Thompson Lake for more than 20 years, but respondents with fewer years of residency were also well represented (Appendix A). Nearly 30 percent of respondents live in Lakeshore Pointe subdivision with just under 20 percent each in the two northern bays (Butler Boulevard bay and the bay near the dam). Seventy percent of respondents are lakefront property owners.

By far, respondents chose “motorized boating” as their most important use of the lake (48%); swimming was the top choice for just under fourteen percent of respondents and fishing was the top choice for eleven percent of respondents. However, when asked about the goals for Thompson Lake, managing for motorized boating was not a top priority among respondents. The greatest number of responses (20 out of 71, or 28%) chose “aesthetics,” i.e., not seeing plants sticking up out of the water or algae floating on top, as their #1 goal, followed by “good swimming conditions” (23%) and protection of the lake’s native plants and animals (13%).

When asked to name the most pressing problems in Thompson Lake, the most common choice was excessive weed growth (69%). Other top choices included noise, recklessness, over-crowding, or other problems from boaters (34%), mucky sediment (31%), and submerged stumps and logs (30%).

A very large majority of respondents (89%) feel that, in regards to aquatic plants, the goal should be to strike a balance between protecting plants that are beneficial to the health of the lake and controlling plants that interfere with recreational use of the lake.

Seventy-three percent of respondents think herbicide treatments and mechanical harvesting have been either very effective or somewhat effective. Nearly 60 percent of respondents think conditions in Thompson Lake have either been improving or staying the same in the time they’ve lived on the lake. Eighty-six percent of respondents feel that they receive an intermediate or high value from the lake management program.

A very large majority of respondents feel that, in regards to aquatic plants, the goal should be to strike a balance between protecting plants that are beneficial to the health of the lake and controlling plants that interfere with recreational use of the lake.


draf

tLake Management Alternatives

THOMPSON LAKE MANAGEMENT GOALS

Before discussing the techniques for managing Thompson Lake, it is necessary to first establish the management goals for the lake. Using information obtained from the survey of residents within the Thompson Lake special assessment district, the following are the residents’ goals for Thompson Lake:

• Aesthetics: Not seeing plants sticking up out of the water or algae floating on top.

• Control nuisance aquatic plant growth, while striking a balance between protecting plants that are beneficial to the health of the lake and controlling plants that interfere with recreational use of the lake.

Although fishing is not a top priority for the Thompson Lake residents who responded to the questionnaire, it is for anglers who access the lake through the public boat launch. In addition, since Thompson Lake is a public water body, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality have vested and regulatory interests in the conservation, protection, and wise management of the lake. Thus, it will be important to manage Thompson Lake in a manner that protects the resource for public as well as private use.

There are several lake management alternatives available; choosing which alternative to use depends on the goal(s) to achieve (Table 10; Cooke et al. 2005; Osgood 2015).

TABLE 10THOMPSON LAKE MANAGEMENT GOALS VS TECHNIQUE EFFECTIVENESS

Lake Management Goal

Macro-algae (Starry Rooted Plant Microscopic Stonewort) DeepenLake Management Technique Control Algae Control Control Lake

Mechanical Harvesting Effective Ineffective Mixed Ineffective

Aquatic Herbicide Treatments Effective Effective Mixed Ineffective

Drawdown Mixed Ineffective ? Not Significant

Dredging Effective Ineffective Effective Effective

Aeration Ineffective Effective Ineffective Ineffective

Bottom-Water Withdrawal Ineffective Mixed Ineffective Ineffective

Alum Treatment Ineffective Effective Ineffective Ineffective

Watershed Management Long-term Long-term Long-term Ineffective

LAKE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES


draf

tMECHANICAL HARVESTING

Mechanical harvesting involves cutting and removal of nuisance aquatic plants (Figure 39). For large-scale aquatic plant control, harvesting may be advantageous over herbicide treatments since plants removed from the lake will not sink to the lake bottom and add to the buildup of organic sediments. In addition, some nutrients contained within the plant tissues are removed with the harvested plants. However, harvesting is not a highly selective method of plant removal; beneficial plants as well as nuisance plants can be removed during harvesting. In Thompson Lake, mechanical harvesting has been used to improve navigation in weed-choked portions of the lake.

AQUATIC HERBICIDE TREATMENTS

Attempts to control certain plant types by harvesting alone may not prove entirely effective. This is especially true with Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and hybrid milfoil due to the fact that milfoil may proliferate and spread via vegetative propagation, also known as fragmentation (small pieces break off, take root, and grow), if the plant is cut (Figure 40). When non-native milfoil is present, it may be possible to control the growth and spread of the plant by treating the lake with a systemic herbicide. Also, since it is not economically feasible to mechanically harvest planktonic (i.e., free-floating) algae in a lake, herbicides, such as copper sulfate and chelated copper products, are often utilized to control nuisance algae growth.

Pursuant to provisions of Part 33, Aquatic Nuisance Control, of P.A. 451 of 1994, the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, a permit must be acquired from the DEQ before any herbicides are applied to inland lakes. In Thompson Lake, aquatic herbicides have been used primarily to control non-native milfoil.

Figure 39. Mechanical harvesting.

Prog

ress

ive

AE

Figure 40. Eurasian milfoil can spread by fragmentation.



draf

tDRAWDOWN

Drawdown is a technique by which water levels are lowered, either using a lake level control structure or by pumping, in order to achieve some management objective. Drawdown has been used on many lakes, including Thompson Lake, for nuisance plant control. Winter drawdowns are used to expose plants and their roots to dessicating and freezing (Figure 41). The efficacy of winter drawdown to control aquatic vegetation is influenced strongly by climatological conditions during the period of drawdown. A mild winter or the presence of heavy snow (that acts to insulate underlying bottomlands) can negate the effectiveness of a winter drawdown. Conversely, a hard freeze of exposed bottomlands would be expected to result in maximum plant control. However, it should be noted that certain plant species are resistant to drawdown. Also, invasive plants such as Eurasian milfoil and starry stonewort may actually obtain a competitive advantage over native plant species as a result of drawdown.

Under the current circuit court order that regulates the level of Thompson Lake; biennial drawdowns of three feet are currently conducted to help control nuisance plant growth. However, given the presence of both non-native milfoil and starry stonewort, both of which appear to be somewhat tolerant to the effects of drawdown, consideration should given to modifying the practice of biennial drawdowns, at least with respect to plant control.

DREDGING

Dredging is a lake management tool that may be used to accomplish several objectives: to control aquatic plant growth; to increase water depth; to improve navigability; or to remove undesirable sediments. Dredging can be accomplished with an excavator or a hydraulic dredge (Figures 42 and 43). In some cases, dredging can also be conducted by lowering the lake level and using earth-moving equipment to remove sediments. However, this method would require a relatively firm lake bottom able to support earth-moving equipment. Given the limited operational capability of utilizing a drag-line type dredge, most lake dredging operations are conducted with hydraulic dredges. Material excavated with a hydraulic dredge is pumped in a slurry through a floating pipeline to the point of disposal.

Figure 41. Thompson Lake winter drawdown.

Prog

ress

ive

AE

Figure 42. Backhoe dredging.

Prog

ress

ive

AE

Figure 43. Hydraulic dredging.

Prog

ress

ive

AE



draf

tA primary consideration in a lake dredging project is identifying a suitable location (or locations) for the placement of dredged material. One method to dispose of sediments in a hydraulic dredging project is to construct an earthen dike to contain the dredged slurry. Given the flocculent nature of the organic sediments found in most lakes and the extended time frame for dredged material to de-water and consolidate, the disposal cell must be adequately sized to accommodate the large amount of dredged material produced. The disposal cell should be designed to maximize the settling of solids while allowing excess water to drain off-site. After dredged materials have been deposited and sufficiently drained and dried, the disposal area may be graded and seeded.

Another disposal method in hydraulic dredging projects is to pump dredged materials into geotextile tubes (Figure 44). The sediments are retained in the tube and the clarified water leaches through the permeable fabric walls of the tube and drains off site. Once dredging is complete, the geotextile tubes can be opened and the dried sediment can be spread on site or hauled away to another disposal location.

With drag-line dredging, sediments are excavated and either placed near shore to dry, or are placed in trucks to be hauled to a disposal location.

Pursuant to provisions of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of P.A. 451 of 1994, the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, a permit must be acquired from the DEQ before a dredging project on an inland lake can be initiated. Permit conditions will generally require that the dredge disposal site be located in an upland location and that steps be taken during the dredging operation to prevent excessive sediment transport to adjacent areas. The DEQ does not typically allow dredge spoils to be placed in wetland areas.

Dredging of shallow areas in Thompson Lake such as the south end would provide a means to control plant growth and improve navigation. However, dredging is expensive. The cost to dredge and dispose of dredged material can range from $20 to $30 per cubic yard or greater. Dredging 5 feet of sediment from 30 acres of Thompson Lake would require the removal and disposal of approximately 242,000 cubic yards of material. At $20 to $30 per cubic yard, the cost of a dredging project of this magnitude would range from 4.8 million to 7.3 million dollars. Thus, a large-scale dredging project in Thompson Lake would likely be cost-prohibitive.

Dredging to improve navigation in the canals may be desirable, but would pose considerable challenges. Given that much of the land at the south end of the lake is formerly wetland, soils in these areas are likely unstable. As such, adjacent shoreline areas would need to be stabilized, which would add significant cost to the project. Also, it is important to note that it is unlikely the canals could be dredged deep enough to significantly reduce plant growth due to the narrow configuration of the canals.

AERATION

There are two types of aeration: hypolimnetic aeration and artificial circulation. Hypolimnetic aeration aerates the deep bottom-waters without mixing the entire lake. Artificial circulation uses diffusers to mix the entire lake (Figure 45). Hypolimnetic aeration is used to increase oxygen in oxygen-depleted bottom waters, thereby improving fish habitat; or, it is used to stop the release of phosphorus from lake sediments, thus reducing the recycling of phosphorus and controlling algae growth. Artificial circulation is used to prevent winter fishkill and to reduce algae growth.

Figure 44. Geotextile tube.

Figure 45. Aeration diffuser.

Prog

ress

ive

AE



draf

tOsgood (2015) strongly recommends caution in evaluating whether to use artificial circulation:

Artificial circulation is not for the timid – it requires serious engineering, appropriate equipment, adequate power, and funding. When applied uncritically or lacking adequate diagnostics, engineering, or power, artificial circulation is neither reliable nor applicable and can sometimes do harm. There are many cases where artificial circulation is misapplied or applied to inappropriate problems. And sometimes, artificial circulation has been shown to harm lakes. In many of these cases, this technique is recommended based mainly on testimonials.

The potential harm to which Osgood refers is the fact that improperly designed aeration systems can increase phosphorus concentrations, increase algae growth, and reduce water clarity (Cooke et al. 2005).In addition, whole-lake circulation warms the entire water column. For lakes with cool water in the deep basins, such as Thompson Lake, artificial circulation can destroy coolwater habitat for fish.Aeration has also been used with the idea that aeration would reduce sediments by mineralization or “eating” muck. Engstrom and Wright (2002) collected multiple sediment cores from five non-aerated lakes and five lakes that had been aerated for between 8 and 18 years in Minnesota in order to evaluate the

effects of aeration on sediment accumulation. The sediment cores were widely spaced at different depths within each of the respective study lakes to encompass a range of depositional environments. The researchers concluded “[r]esults from this study do not support claims that aeration-induced circulation will enhance the removal of organic sediments from lake basins either by mineralization or offshore transport,” and “there is little to recommend aeration as a method for improving the sedimentary environment of urban lakes.”

There are currently only two peer-reviewed papers showing that aeration can be used for rooted plant control. However, one of the two papers, Laing (1979), was authored by the owner/manufacturer of an aeration system (Clean-Flo), therefore the study was not independent. Cooley et al. (1980) reported that the nuisance plant Hydrilla was reduced by 20% following aeration. In the nearly 40 years since this study, no other peer-reviewed articles on aeration-induced control of rooted plants has been published. The only other report on artificial circulation and plants (Slagowski et al. 2009) was not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The objectives of the study were to “determine if water circulation reduced milfoil biomass in plant beds, and whether circulation significantly changed water column and sediment pore-water nutrient levels.” Sediment pore water samples were collected from within aeration sites and from control (non-aerated sites). Sediment pore water was generally anoxic at all sites and on all measurement dates. Ammonia levels at most sediment depths at both aerated and non-aerated control sites were at a level well in excess of published thresholds to support milfoil growth. The report states:

Our results ... show that after two years of circulator use, there was no measurable change in milfoil extent or abundance within the study areas of the lake. These findings suggest that in anoxic sediments where oxygen mass transfer from the water column is limited by diffusion and quickly used up by biochemical reactions in the sediment, milfoil tends to thrive despite the action of upflow circulators.

Pursuant to provisions of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of PA 451 of 1994, the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, a permit must be acquired from the DEQ for aeration projects. Typically, permits issued for aeration projects will include an annual monitoring requirement to gauge the impacts of the aeration system, both in term of effectiveness and potential adverse impacts. While in some cases aeration can help control algal blooms, nuisance algae growth is not a major problem in Thompson Lake at this time. Thus, large-scale aeration is not recommended for Thompson Lake. However, in the small lagoon just south of Indiana Avenue, aeration could be an alternative to help control nuisance algae blooms in that portion of the lake.

“There is little to recommend aeration as a method for improving the sedimentary environment of urban lakes.”--Engstrom and Wright (2002)



draf

tBOTTOM-WATER WITHDRAWAL

Bottom-water withdrawal is a technique by which nutrient-enriched bottom waters are removed from a lake either by gravity draining or by pumping to an outlet in order to disrupt nutrient cycling and reduce nuisance algae growth. One drawback of bottom-water withdrawal is that the nutrient levels of receiving waters can be expected to increase; downstream property owners and regulatory officials could be expected to raise questions about potential environmental impacts associated with this approach. Also, since internal phosphorus loading does not appear to be a substantial source of phosphorus loading in Thompson Lake, and since algae growth is not currently a major concern in the main body of the lake, bottom-water withdrawal would not be an effective management approach for Thompson Lake.

ALUM TREATMENT

There are many compounds that can bind with phosphorus and remove it from the water column in order to reduce algae growth. Alum, an aluminum sulfate and/or sodium aluminate compound, is optimal for use in lake treatments in that it continues to bind phosphorus under anaerobic conditions and under most pH ranges encountered in natural waters.

Two methods may be used to reduce phosphorus availability with alum. One method is to apply alum to the lake surface in a concentration that is only slightly higher than the ambient phosphorus concentration (Figure 46). The alum-phosphorus compound forms a heavy floc, which sinks to the bottom; thus, the nutrient is no longer available for algal growth. The other technique involves adding alum just above the anaerobic sediments in very high concentrations to restrict phosphorus release from the sediments and, thus, reducing internal loading. Both techniques have been employed in many lakes across the country with good to excellent results (Cooke et al. 2005). However, it should be noted that, for long-term control of internal phosphorus recycling, the higher dose rate is required. It has been demonstrated that, at higher dose levels, up to 90 percent removal of phosphorus can be expected with continued low nutrient levels for up to 15 years after treatment (Cooke et al. 2005).

Alum is effective in controlling algae growth in the lake by removing phosphorus from the water column. Because water clarity will improve, often dramatically, when phosphorus is removed, the increased light penetration can be a stimulus for increased rooted plant growth. In other words, it may be possible to trade an algae problem for a “weed” problem since rooted plants may still extract phosphorus from the sediments. Also, lakes receiving excessive phosphorus loadings from external (i.e., watershed) sources may not be good candidates for an alum treatment in that the longevity of the alum treatment may be greatly reduced.

Given that internal phosphorus loading and nuisance algae growth are not substantial in Thompson Lake, and that an alum treatment would do little to reduce rooted aquatic plant growth, alum is not a recommended management alternative for Thompson Lake.

Figure 46. Alum application.

Prog

ress

ive

AE



draf

tWATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Over the long term, watershed management to reduce the input of nutrients, sediments and other pollutants would help to reduce accelerated eutrophication and protect water quality in Thompson Lake. The watershed of Thompson Lake is quite large compared to the lake and, as noted previously, substantial development in the watershed has occurred in recent decades.

While, overall, Thompson Lake has maintained reasonably good water quality, increasing levels of chloride are a cause for concern. Absent a county-wide change in road deicing strategies, steadily increasing chloride levels in Thompson Lake will likely persist. However, the Grand River Avenue Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) pumping station is one location that should be evaluated to determine if alternatives exist to mitigate the impact of stormwater runoff, including sediment, that is pumped to Thompson Lake from the viaduct area (Figure 47).

Another concern is that many of the once-natural areas around the lake are now developed. To address these issues, it is recommend that a shorelands management program be implemented that focuses on educating local residents about specific actions they can take to protect Thompson Lake. The importance of natural shoreline should not be underestimated. In its nationwide assessment, the U.S. Environment Protection Agency found that lakes with disturbed shorelands were three times more likely to be in poor biological condition (USEPA 2009). Preserving or reestablishing natural shoreline areas may be one of the most important things lake residents can do to protect the lake.

The lack of native vegetation along the shoreline is a threat to Thompson Lake’s water quality and habitat for fish and wildlife. Lakefront residents should consider preserving and restoring natural shoreline where and when possible. In recent years, considerable research in the Upper Midwest and around the country has shown the importance of natural shoreline for water quality and habitat protection. In addition, many agencies and organizations have developed educational materials to provide riparians with informational resources. The Michigan Natural Shoreline Partnership (MNSP) is a collaboration of state agencies, academia, nonprofit organizations and private industry. Their mission is to promote natural shorelines through the use of green landscaping technologies and bioengineered erosion control for the protection of Michigan inland lakes. The MNSP has developed the Michigan Shoreland Stewards Program to provide educational resources to help manage properties for lake protection. As part of the Thompson Lake shorelands management program, the lake board and lake residents should engage with the MNSP to restore natural shoreline areas around the lake.

WATER QUALITY MONITORING

Although water quality monitoring is not a lake management technique per se, it is a valuable component of a lake management program. Lake residents can participate in monitoring the quality of Thompson Lake by getting involved in the Michigan Cooperative Lakes Monitoring Program (CLMP). One relatively simple but worthwhile measurement included in the CLMP is weekly monitoring of water clarity using a Secchi disk. Because water clarity can be variable, weekly measurements can provide a much more accurate picture over time. Additional phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, and chloride monitoring would also be helpful in gaging water quality changes over time.

Figure 47. Grand River Avenue viaduct and pump station.

Prog

ress

ive

AE


draf

tRecommended Management Plan

In order to address problems with nuisance plant growth in Thompson Lake, the Thompson Lake Improvement Board should continue to employ mechanical harvesting and application of aquatic herbicides in a manner that targets non-native and nuisance native plants while maintaining a good diversity of beneficial native aquatic plants.

Under the current circuit court order that regulates the level of Thompson Lake; biennial drawdowns of three feet are conducted to control nuisance plant growth. Since both non-native milfoil and starry stonewort occur in Thompson Lake, both of which appear to be tolerant to the effects of drawdown, consideration should be given to modifying the practice of biennial drawdown, at least with respect to plant control.

Given the high costs of dredging, large-scale dredging at the south end of Thompson Lake is not feasible. However, residents adjacent to canals may desire to establish their own assessment district(s) to remove sediments from the canals. Before undertaking canal dredging, further study would be needed to determine dredge quantities, disposal method, shoreline stabilization methods, and costs.

Aeration could be used as an alternative to copper-based herbicides for algae control in the lagoon. The lake board should confer with residents adjacent to the lagoon to discuss advantages, disadvantages, and aeration costs.

The lake board should work with the Michigan Department of Transportation to develop a plan to remove pollutants from the Grand River Avenue pumping system. To address increasing chloride levels in Thompson Lake, the lake board should also work with municipalities in the watershed to review current deicing strategies and pursue alternative approaches where possible.

Given the importance of natural shoreline around Thompson Lake, a shorelands management program should be implemented that focuses on educating lake residents about specific actions they can take to protect the lake. As part of the program, the lake board and lake residents should work with the Michigan Natural Shoreline Partnership (MNSP) to share information and technical assistance in order to restore natural shoreline areas around the lake. The lake board should advocate for lake residents to participate in MNSP’s Michigan Shoreland Stewards Program.

Monitoring of lake water quality should be continued on a periodic basis to help inform management decision-making and to discern long term changes in lake water quality. Monitoring should include the collection of water samples over the three deep basins in the lake on a three-year basis. Parameters of interest would include temperature, dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, and chloride. Thompson Lake residents should also consider participating in Michigan’s Cooperative Lakes Monitoring Program (CLMP) in which Secchi transparency data is collected by residents on a weekly basis.


draf

tProject Implementation and Financing

Improvements for Thompson Lake are proposed to be implemented in accordance with Part 309, Inland Lake Improvements, of P.A. 451 of 1994, the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. Under this act, a lake board has been established to oversee the project. The Thompson Lake Improvement Board includes the following members:

• AThompsonLakeresident.

• ArepresentativeofOceolaTownship.

• ArepresentativeoftheCityofHowell.

• ALivingstonCountyCommissioner.

• TheLivingstonCountyDrainCommissioner.

A proposed budget for the Thompson Lake Management Plan is presented in Table 11.

TABLE 11THOMPSON LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN PROPOSED BUDGET2018 THROUGH 2020

Management Element Annual Cost

Nuisance Aquatic Plant Control

Aquatic Herbicide Treatments/Mechanical Harvesting

(60 acres at $450 per acre) $27,000

Oversight, Inspections, Mapping, and Report $14,750

Total Annual Plant Control Cost $41,750 per year

Water Quality Monitoring $1,500 per year

Watershed Management $1,500 per year

Newsletter $3,500 per year

Administration $8,000 per year

Contingency $4,000 per year

Total Annual Project Cost $60,250 per year

Pursuant to provisions of the Act, a public hearing must be held to determine if lake residents support the proposed improvements to Thompson Lake. If public support is demonstrated, a special assessment district would be established from which revenue would be generated to finance the improvements.

The Special Assessment District for Thompson Lake includes all properties that border the lake and back lots which have deeded or dedicated lake access (Figure 48).

IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING


draf

t

Figure 48. Thompson Lake Improvement Board special assessment district map. Parcel Data Source: Livingston County GIS Mapping.

N

Assessment Criteria

Lakefront

Backlot

No Assessment

IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING


draf

tBack lots with deeded or dedicated lake access are assessed ___ unit of benefit; lakefront properties are assessed _____. In addition, contiguous lots in common ownership are proposed to be assessed as one parcel provided only one house exists on the parcel.

Based on these criteria, approximately ___ assessment units exist within the proposed Thompson Lake Assessment District. It is proposed that the $60,250 annual cost of the project be assessed for a three-year period (2018 to 2020) for a total of $180,750. A breakdown of costs based on this approach is presented below:

TABLE 12THOMPSON LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROXIMATE ASSESSMENTS2018 THROUGH 2020

Units Total 3-Year of Flat Number Flat Frontage Total Benefit Rate Parcels Rate Cost Cost

Lakefront 1.00 $141 287 $40,546 $17,412 $57,958

Backlot 0.86 $121 648 $78,455 $0 $78,455

City 25% $44,337 $0 $44,337

$180,750


draf

tReferences

Brown S. 2015. Starry stonewort: Essential information for lakefront property owners. Michigan Riparian Summer 2015.

Cooke, G.D., E.B. Welch, S. Peterson, S.A. Nichols. 2005. Restoration and Management of Lakes and Reservoirs, third edition. CRC Press, New York. 616 pp.

Cooley, T.N., P.M. Dooris and D.F. Martin. 1980. Aeration as a Tool To Improve Water Quality and Reduce the Growth of Hydrilla. Water Research. 14:485-489.

Edmands Engineering, Inc. 1980. Thompson Lake Engineering Feasibility Report. Thompson Lake Improvement Board. 29 pp.

Engstrom, D.R. and D.I. Wright. 2002. Sedimentological Effects of Aeration-Induced Lake Circulation. Lake and Reservoir Management, 18(3): 201-214.

Freshwater Physicians. 1978. A Limnological and Fisheries Survey of Thompson Lake with Recommendations and a Management Plan. Holt, Michigan. 118 pp. + 10 app.

Freshwater Physicians. 2003. A Comparison of Limnological Conditions in Thompson Lake During Maximum Stratification: 1976 vs. 2002. Brighton, Michigan. 6 pp. + tables and figures.

Fuller, L.M. and C.K. Taricska. 2012. Water-quality characteristics of Michigan’s inland lakes, 2001-10: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5233, 53 p., plus CD-ROM.

Grafé SF, C. Boutin and F.R. Pick. 2015. A PCR-RFLP method to detect hybridization between the invasive Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and the native northern watermilfoil (Myriophyllum sibiricum), and its application in Ontario lakes. Botany. 93(2):117-121.

Laing, R.L. 1979. The use of Multiple Inversion and Clean-Flo Lake Cleanser in controlling aquatic plants. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management. 17:33-38.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 2005. Michigan Surface Water Information Management System. Thompson Lake Northeast Basin Water Quality Data, STORET Number 470096, http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/miswims/details.aspx?detailType=2&id=470096, accessed December 28, 2016.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 2016. Water Quality Parameters: pH, accessed February 14, 2017, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wb-npdes-pH_247233_7.pdf.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 2016. Procedures for Aquatic Vegetation Surveys, accessed February 14, 2017, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wrd-illm-surveyprocedure_445615_7.pdf.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 2012. Michigan National Lakes Assessment Project 2007. MI/DEQ/WRD-12/006.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1972. Report of a Water Quality Study at Thompson Lake, Livingston County, April 25, 1972. Michigan Water Resources Commission, Lansing MI. 3 pp.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Thompson Lake, Status of the Fishery Resource Report. 2006-21. 8 pp. + tables and figures.

REFERENCES


draf

tMoody M.L. and D.H. Les. 2002. Evidence of hybridity in invasive watermilfoil (Myriophyllum) populations.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 19(23):14867-14871.

Moody, M.L. and D.H. Les. 2007. Geographic distribution and genotypic composition of invasive hybrid watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum x M. sibiricum) populations in North America. Biological Invasions 9:559–570.

Osgood, D. 2015. Do You Want Something That Works? LakeLine. 35:8–16.

Schloesser. D.W., P.L. Hudson, and J. Nichols. 1986. Distribution and habitat of Nitellopsis obtusa (Characeae) in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Hydrobiologia 133: 91-96.

Slagowski, N., M. Mann-Stadt and J.L. Durant 2009. Use of Upflow Water Circulators for Managing Eurasian Watermilfoil in Lake Cochituate (eastern Massachusetts). Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University, Medford MA. Prepared for Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, Boston, MA 42 pp.

Thum, R. A., J.T. Lennon, J. Connor, and A.P. Smagula. 2006. A DNA fingerprinting approach for distinguishing among native and non-native milfoils. Lake and Reservoir Management 22:1-6.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1975. Report on Thompson Lake, Livingston County, Michigan. National Eutrophication Survey Working Paper No. 214. Pacific Northwest Environmental Research Laboratory. Corvallis, OR. 15 pp. + app.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. National Lakes Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation’s Lakes. EPA 841-R-09-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.

Wagner, K.J. 1991. Assessing impacts of motorized watercraft on lakes: Issues and perceptions. Pages 77-93 in: Proceedings of a National Conference on Enhancing the States’ Lake Management Programs. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission.

Wetzel, R.G. 2001. Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems, third edition. Academic Press. San Diego, CA.1006 pp.

Wetzel, R.G. and G.E. Likens. 2010. Limnological Analyses. Third edition. Springer Science+Business Media, New York.

Zuellig M.P. and R.A. Thum. 2012. Multiple introductions of invasive Eurasian watermilfoil and recurrent hybridization with native northern watermilfoil in North America. J Aquat Plant Manage. 50:1-19.

Thompson Lake 57490101Lake Management Feasibility Study Report

draf

tAppendix A

Thompson Lake Resident Questionnaire and Results

21.62% 16

17.57% 13

17.57% 13

10.81% 8

32.43% 24

Q1 Please indicate the length of time youhave lived on the lake or on property that

enjoys access to the lake (e.g. easement ordedicated park access).

Answered: 74 Skipped: 2

Total 74

Less than 5years

Between 5 and10 years



More than 20years

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

Answer Choices Responses

Less than 5 years

Between 5 and 10 years



More than 20 years

1 / 21

Thompson Lake Management Survey - 2015

5.41% 4

27.03% 20

14.86% 11

6.76% 5

18.92% 14

17.57% 13

9.46% 7

Q2 Please choose an answer that bestrepresents the location of your home.


Total 74

Public launchbay

LakeshorePointe...

South end ofLake (Indian...

Canal access

Northeast Bay(Butler Blvd...

North portionof Lake (nea...

Off-lakeresident wit...

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


Public launch bay

Lakeshore Pointe Subdivision

South end of Lake (Indiana Dr. area)

Canal access

Northeast Bay (Butler Blvd, Thompson Shore Dr)

North portion of Lake (near dam/swimming beach)

Off-lake resident with lake access (excluding Lakeshore Pointe)

2 / 21


70.31% 45

23.44% 15

6.25% 4

Q3 Do you own lakefront property, backlot,or both?


Total 64

Lakefront

Backlot withprivate lake...

Both lakefrontand backlot...

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


Lakefront

Backlot with private lake access

Both lakefront and backlot parcels

3 / 21


Q4 How do you use Thompson Lake?Please choose your top 5 answers. (1 =

your most important/most frequent use, 5 =your least important/least frequent use.)


Use of Lake

Use of Lake

Viewing Fishing, ice fishing Motorized boating

Waterskiing, wakeboarding, jet skiing

Non-motorized boating (sailing, windsurfing, canoeing, kayaking, paddle boating, paddle bo...

Swimming, wading, snorkeling, SCUBA diving Winter sports or activities

Irrigation of lawn, flowers, shrubs, trees, gardens, etc. Recreation for your pet(s)

I don't use Thompson Lake

1

2

3

4

5

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

4 / 21


8.22%6

10.96%8

47.95%35

4.11%3

5.48%4

13.70%10

0.00%0

4.11%3

0.00%0

5.48%4

73

0.00%0

11.94%8

22.39%15

14.93%10

16.42%11

25.37%17

1.49%1

5.97%4

1.49%1

0.00%0

67

1.61%1

12.90%8

11.29%7

12.90%8

16.13%10

32.26%20

6.45%4

6.45%4

0.00%0

0.00%0

62

1.89%1

16.98%9

9.43%5

7.55%4

16.98%9

11.32%6

11.32%6

15.09%8

9.43%5

0.00%0

53

4.88%2

12.20%5

4.88%2

14.63%6

21.95%9

17.07%7

14.63%6

4.88%2

4.88%2

0.00%0

41

Viewing Fishing,icefishing

Motorizedboating

Waterskiing,wakeboarding,jet skiing

Non-motorizedboating(sailing,windsurfing,canoeing,kayaking,paddleboating,paddleboarding)

Swimming,wading,snorkeling,SCUBAdiving

Wintersportsoractivities

Irrigationof lawn,flowers,shrubs,trees,gardens,etc.

Recreationfor yourpet(s)

I don't useThompsonLake

Total

1

2

3

4

5

5 / 21


81.33% 61

16.00% 12

2.67% 2

Q5 Were you aware that a LakeImprovement Board makes the decisionsregarding the annual lake management

program?Answered: 75 Skipped: 1

Total 75

Yes

No

Unsure

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


Yes

No

Unsure

6 / 21


5.41% 4

2.70% 2

47.30% 35

29.73% 22

14.86% 11

Q6 What is your understanding of how lakeimprovement activities are funded?


Total 74

Billedperiodically...

Funded fromincome tax

Specialassessment o...

Funded bylocal proper...

Don't know

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


Billed periodically to each home

Funded from income tax

Special assessment on winter taxes

Funded by local property taxes

Don't know

7 / 21


77.46% 55

2.82% 2

1.41% 1

4.23% 3

14.08% 10

Q7 Who, in your understanding, maintainsthe dam and the level of the lake?


Total 71

DrainCommissioner...

City of Howell

Oceola Township

Thompson LakeAssociation

Thompson LakeImprovement...

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


Drain Commissioner's Office

City of Howell

Oceola Township

Thompson Lake Association

Thompson Lake Improvement Board

8 / 21


32.43% 24

27.03% 20

13.51% 10

17.57% 13

9.46% 7

Q8 In the time that you have lived near thelake, do you think the overall conditions in

Thompson Lake have been:Answered: 74 Skipped: 2

Total 74

Improving

Staying thesame

Declining

Some years aregood, some a...

I haven't beenhere long...

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


Improving

Staying the same

Declining

Some years are good, some are bad

I haven't been here long enough to know

9 / 21


Q9 During the past five years, what is youropinion of the overall effectiveness of the

various components of the lakemanagement program?


24.66%18

47.95%35

10.96%8

16.44%12

73

1.81

21.92%16

50.68%37

12.33%9

15.07%11

73

1.79

HerbicideApplications

Harvesting

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Very Effective Somewhat Effective Not Effective Unsure Total Weighted Average

Herbicide Applications

Harvesting

10 / 21


Q10 How responsive do you feel that theLake Board is in addressing weed control

issues on the lake? For instance, whenplants become a problem, does the Lake

Board respond effectively with treatments,harvesting, etc.?


42.19%27

54.69%35

3.13%2

64

2.39

(no label)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Very Responsive Somewhat Responsive Not Responsive Total Weighted Average

(no label)

11 / 21


69.01% 49

12.68% 9

28.17% 20

25.35% 18

30.99% 22

16.90% 12

29.58% 21

23.94% 17

33.80% 24

Q11 In your opinion, what are the mostpressing problems facing Thompson Lake?

Choose up to 3 responses.Answered: 71 Skipped: 5

Total Respondents: 71

Excessive weedgrowth

Quality offishing

Excessivealgae growth

Water clarity

Mucky sediment

Navigationproblems due...

Submergedstumps and logs

Floatingislands

Noise,recklessness...

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


Excessive weed growth

Quality of fishing

Excessive algae growth

Water clarity

Mucky sediment

Navigation problems due to shallow water

Submerged stumps and logs

Floating islands

Noise, recklessness, over-crowding, or other problems from boaters

12 / 21


5.48% 4

2.74% 2

89.04%65

1.37% 1

1.37% 1

Q12 Some of the assessment funds arecurrently used to control the growth of

nuisance aquatic plants in Thompson Lake.What statement best describes how you feel

about aquatic plants, in general?Answered: 73 Skipped: 3

Total 73

All aquaticplants are a...

Aquatic plantsare natural....

We should tryto strike a...

I don't wantto pay money...

No opinion.

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


All aquatic plants are a nuisance, and I would like to see them gone from the lake.

Aquatic plants are natural. We should reduce or eliminate herbicide applications, even if that means there will be more weeds.

We should try to strike a balance between protecting plants that are beneficial to the health of the lake and controlling plants that interfere withrecreational use of the lake.

I don't want to pay money to control plants.

No opinion.

13 / 21


Q13 What do you think are the mostimportant goals in managing Thompson

Lake? Please choose your top 3 responses,with Goal #1 being most important.


58.82%20

11.76%4

29.41%10

34

2.29

22.22%6

48.15%13

29.63%8

27

1.93

25.00%1

75.00%3

0.00%0

4

2.25

38.10%16

33.33%14

28.57%12

42

2.10

9.52%2

52.38%11

38.10%8

21

1.71

Aesthetics (Idon't want t...

Motorizedboating (I w...

Non-motorizedboating (I w...

Good swimmingconditions

Good fishing

Good waterclarity

Lake ecology(Protection ...

Removenavigation...

Improvenavigation...

Stopmanagement...

Financialhardship (I...

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Goal # 1 Goal #2

Goal #3

Total WeightedAverage

Aesthetics (I don't want to see plants sticking up out of the water or algae floating on top)

Motorized boating (I want to be able to navigate around the lake without having to clear mypropeller)

Non-motorized boating (I want to boat in quiet water without big waves)

Good swimming conditions

Good fishing

14 / 21


20.69%6

34.48%10

44.83%13

29

1.76

50.00%9

22.22%4

27.78%5

18

2.22

25.00%4

31.25%5

43.75%7

16

1.81

30.77%4

53.85%7

15.38%2

13

2.15

0.00%0

0.00%0

0.00%0

0

0.00

100.00%1

0.00%0

0.00%0

1

3.00

Good water clarity

Lake ecology (Protection of the lake's native plants and animals)

Remove navigation hazards (Remove submerged stumps and logs from the lake)

Improve navigation (Dredge shallow areas of the lake)

Stop management (Leave Thompson Lake alone to evolve naturally)

Financial hardship (I don't want to pay money to manage the lake)

15 / 21


Q14 Please rate the following lake areas interms of navigability of those areas (abilityto access with boat) and acceptable level of

plant growth.Answered: 69 Skipped: 7

16.18%11

50.00%34

20.59%14

0.00%0

0.00%0

13.24%9

68

3.43

1.59%1

9.52%6

23.81%15

12.70%8

12.70%8

39.68%25

63

1.56

0.00%0

9.38%6

18.75%12

29.69%19

12.50%8

29.69%19

64

1.66

0.00%0

0.00%0

7.46%5

17.91%12

28.36%19

46.27%31

67

0.87

9.23%6

36.92%24

20.00%13

9.23%6

1.54%1

23.08%15

65

2.74

13.43%9

52.24%35

17.91%12

1.49%1

1.49%1

13.43%9

67

3.34

8.96%6

56.72%38

16.42%11

2.99%2

0.00%0

14.93%10

67

3.27

Public launchbay

LakeshorePointe marin...

South end ofLake (Indian...

Canals atsouthern end...

Northeast Bay(Butler Blvd...

North portionof Lake (nea...

Island areanear cemetery

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Excellent Good Average Poor VeryPoor

Don'tKnow

Total WeightedAverage

Public launch bay

Lakeshore Pointe marina areas

South end of Lake (Indiana Dr. area)

Canals at southern end of lake

Northeast Bay (Butler Blvd, Thompson Shore Dr)

North portion of Lake (near dam/swimming beach)

Island area near cemetery

16 / 21


1.45% 1

0.00% 0

98.55% 68

Q15 What would be your preference on thefuture of the lake management program on

Thompson Lake?Answered: 69 Skipped: 7

Total 69

Discontinuecurrent...

Residentsshould form...

Continueexisting...

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


Discontinue current treatment program altogether.

Residents should form association and continue program on their own.

Continue existing program through Lake Improvement Board.

17 / 21


5.63% 4

14.08% 10

7.04% 5

21.13% 15

7.04% 5

2.82% 2

4.23% 3

38.03% 27

Q16 How much do you pay annually for theLake Management Program?


Total 71

$0-$50

$51-$100

$101-$150

$151-$200

$201-$250

$251-$300

$301+

Unsure

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


$0-$50

$51-$100

$101-$150

$151-$200

$201-$250

$251-$300

$301+

Unsure

18 / 21


Q17 Please indicate your opinion of thevalue you receive from the lake

management program, based on how muchyou pay for the program annually.


40.58%28

44.93%31

13.04%9

1.45%1

69

3.25

Value youreceive from...

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

High Value Intermediate Value Little Value No Value Total Weighted Average

Value you receive from program

19 / 21


83.33% 60

61.11% 44

6.94% 5

4.17% 3

2.78% 2

1.39% 1

Q18 Would you be interested in receivinginformation about lake management

activities through any of the followingmeans of communication? (check all that

apply)Answered: 72 Skipped: 4

Total Respondents: 72

Letters and/orPostcards

E-mail

Facebook

Twitter

LinkedIn

No, I am notinterested i...

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


Letters and/or Postcards

E-mail

Facebook

Twitter

LinkedIn

No, I am not interested in any of these.

20 / 21



draf

tAppendix B

Michigan Department of Environmental QualityDischarge Estimate

This reply is being sent via email only. We have estimated the low flow discharges requested in your email of November 4, 2015 (Process No.8780), as follows:

Bogue Creek Trib At Thompson Lake Dam, NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 25,

T3N, R4E, Howell Township, Livingston County, has a drainage area of 10.3

square miles. The 50% and 95% exceedance and mean monthly flows in cubic feet per second (cfs) are:

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

50% 5 5.9 12 12 7.6 4.5 3.3 2.8 2.8 3.4 4.9 5.9 95% 2.7 2.8 4.4 5.8 3.2 2.2 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 2 2.5 Mean 7.2 9.1 14 14 9.6 5.9 4.5 3.3 3.7 4.8 5.7 7.1 If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Marlio Lesmez, Water Resources Division, Hydrologic Studies Unit, at 517-284-5580, or by e-mail at: [email protected]. Sincerely, Byron P. Lane, P.E., Chief Hydrologic Studies Unit Water Resources Division 517-241-9862 MWL cc: Lisa Huberty, MDEQ (T-27-SW)


draf

tAppendix C

Aquatic Vegetation Assessment Survey Data

Standard Aquatic Vegetation Summary Sheet

Lake Name: Thompson Lake

County:

Surveyor: Rick Buteyn, Garrett Groves Survey Date:

101

A B C D A x 1 B x10 C x 40 D x 80 Sum %

1 Eurasian milfoil 7 54 22 7 540 880 0 1,427 14.1 1 Eurasian milfoil

2 Curly leaf pondweed 5 8 1 5 80 40 0 125 1.2 2 Curly leaf pondweed

3 Chara 18 8 1 0 180 320 80 580 5.7 3 Chara

4 Thinleaf pondweed 9 35 2 9 350 80 0 439 4.3 4 Thinleaf pondweed

5 Flatstem pondweed 7 31 7 310 0 0 317 3.1 5 Flatstem pondweed

6 Robbins pondweed 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 6 Robbins pondweed

7 Variable pondweed 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 7 Variable pondweed

8 Whitestem pondweed 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 8 Whitestem pondweed

9 Richardson's pondweed 1 4 1 40 0 0 41 0.4 9 Richardson's pondweed

10 Illinois pondweed 1 1 0 0 0 1 0.0 10 Illinois pondweed

11 Large leaf pondweed 1 25 1 250 0 0 251 2.5 11 Large leaf pondweed

12 American pondweed 3 0 30 0 0 30 0.3 12 American pondweed

13 Floating leaf pondweed 1 0 10 0 0 10 0.1 13 Floating leaf pondweed

14 Water stargrass 7 19 7 190 0 0 197 2.0 14 Water stargrass

15 Wild celery 1 0 10 0 0 10 0.1 15 Wild celery

16 Sagittaria 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 16 Sagittaria

17 Northern milfoil 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 17 Northern milfoil

18 M. verticillatum 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 18 M. verticillatum

19 M. heterophyllum 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 19 M. heterophyllum

20 Coontail 3 10 1 3 100 40 0 143 1.4 20 Coontail

21 Elodea 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 21 Elodea

22 Utricularia spp. 1 1 0 0 0 1 0.0 22 Utricularia spp.

23 Bladderwort-mini 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 23 Bladderwort-mini

24 Buttercup 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 24 Buttercup

25 Najas spp. 1 31 43 10 1 310 1,720 800 2,831 28.0 25 Najas spp.

26 Brittle naiad 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 26 Brittle naiad

27 Sago pondweed 20 2 1 0 200 80 80 360 3.6 27 Sago pondweed

28 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 28

29 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 29

30 Nymphaea 4 34 10 3 4 340 400 240 984 9.7 30 Nymphaea

31 Nuphar 2 0 0 80 0 80 0.8 31 Nuphar

32 Brasenia 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 32 Brasenia

33 Lemna minor 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 33 Lemna minor

34 Spirodella 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 34 Spirodella

35 Watermeal 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 35 Watermeal

36 Arrowhead 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 36 Arrowhead

37 Pickerelweed 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 37 Pickerelweed

38 Arrow arum 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 38 Arrow arum

39 Cattails 1 9 7 1 90 0 560 651 6.4 39 Cattails

40 Bulrushes 1 2 2 1 20 80 0 101 1.0 40 Bulrushes

41 Iris 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 41 Iris

42 Swamp loosestrife 1 1 0 10 40 0 50 0.5 42 Swamp loosestrife

43 Purple loosestrife 17 3 17 30 0 0 47 0.5 43 Purple loosestrife

44 Starry stonewort 18 10 3 0 180 400 240 820 8.1 44 Starry stonewort

45 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45

Total: 94.0

Livingston County

10-Sep-15

Total Number of AVAS Sites:

Code

NoPlant Name

Occurrence per

Density CategoryRelative Density Calculations

Relative Density for

Entire Littoral ZoneCode

NoPlant Name

P:\57490101\Civ\Design\Thompson AVAS.xlsx

buteynr

Text Box

9-10-2015

Standard Aquatic Vegetation Summary Sheet


County:

Surveyor: Rick Buteyn, Ryan Groves Survey Date:

99

A B C D A x 1 B x10 C x 40 D x 80 Sum %

1 Eurasian milfoil 5 6 0 50 240 0 290 2.9 1 Eurasian milfoil

2 Curly leaf pondweed 2 3 2 30 0 0 32 0.3 2 Curly leaf pondweed

3 Chara 4 18 7 4 180 280 0 464 4.7 3 Chara

4 Thinleaf pondweed 9 14 9 140 0 0 149 1.5 4 Thinleaf pondweed

5 Flatstem pondweed 10 20 2 10 200 80 0 290 2.9 5 Flatstem pondweed

6 Robbins pondweed 1 1 0 0 0 1 0.0 6 Robbins pondweed

7 Variable pondweed 1 1 0 0 0 1 0.0 7 Variable pondweed

8 Whitestem pondweed 1 0 10 0 0 10 0.1 8 Whitestem pondweed

9 Richardson's pondweed 2 3 2 30 0 0 32 0.3 9 Richardson's pondweed

10 Illinois pondweed 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 10 Illinois pondweed

11 Large leaf pondweed 4 8 4 80 0 0 84 0.8 11 Large leaf pondweed

12 American pondweed 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 12 American pondweed

13 Floating leaf pondweed 3 0 30 0 0 30 0.3 13 Floating leaf pondweed

14 Water stargrass 13 34 3 13 340 120 0 473 4.8 14 Water stargrass

15 Wild celery 3 1 3 10 0 0 13 0.1 15 Wild celery

16 Sagittaria 1 0 10 0 0 10 0.1 16 Sagittaria

17 Northern milfoil 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 17 Northern milfoil

18 M. verticillatum 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 18 M. verticillatum

19 M. heterophyllum 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 19 M. heterophyllum

20 Coontail 4 11 3 4 110 120 0 234 2.4 20 Coontail

21 Elodea 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 21 Elodea

22 Utricularia spp. 2 2 2 20 0 0 22 0.2 22 Utricularia spp.

23 Bladderwort-mini 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 23 Bladderwort-mini

24 Buttercup 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 24 Buttercup

25 Najas spp. 3 10 3 3 100 120 0 223 2.3 25 Najas spp.

26 Brittle naiad 2 2 0 0 0 2 0.0 26 Brittle naiad

27 Sago pondweed 2 6 2 60 0 0 62 0.6 27 Sago pondweed

28 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 28

29 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 29

30 Nymphaea 7 37 4 7 370 160 0 537 5.4 30 Nymphaea

31 Nuphar 8 2 0 80 80 0 160 1.6 31 Nuphar

32 Brasenia 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 32 Brasenia

33 Lemna minor 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 33 Lemna minor

34 Spirodella 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 34 Spirodella

35 Watermeal 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 35 Watermeal

36 Arrowhead 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 36 Arrowhead

37 Pickerelweed 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 37 Pickerelweed

38 Arrow arum 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 38 Arrow arum

39 Cattails 3 10 9 3 3 100 360 240 703 7.1 39 Cattails

40 Bulrushes 7 6 7 60 0 0 67 0.7 40 Bulrushes

41 Iris 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 41 Iris

42 Swamp loosestrife 3 3 3 30 0 0 33 0.3 42 Swamp loosestrife

43 Purple loosestrife 32 22 4 32 220 160 0 412 4.2 43 Purple loosestrife

44 Starry stonewort 7 18 6 7 180 240 0 427 4.3 44 Starry stonewort

45 Lake sedge 16 12 1 16 120 40 0 176 1.8 45 Lake sedge

46 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 46

47 Phragmites australis 1 1 0 0 0 1 0.0 47 Phragmites australis

Total: 49.9

1-Sep-16

Livingston County

Total Number of AVAS Sites:

Code

NoPlant Name

Occurrence per

Density CategoryRelative Density Calculations

Relative Density for

Entire Littoral Zone Code

NoPlant Name

P:\57490101\Civ\Design\Thompson AVAS.xlsx

schenke

Line

schenke

Line


draf

tAppendix D

Summary of DNA Analysis for Thompson Lake Watermilfoil

Summary of DNA Data for Watermilfoil

Grand Valley State University’s Robert B. Annis Water Resources Institute

Result Details (By Lake):


Date Received: 7/22/2014

Number of Samples Sent: 3

Number of Samples Processed: 3

Comments: NA

Genetic IDs:

Area/site Sample # ID

Thompson/ site# 67 1 hybrid watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum x

Myriophyllum sibiricum)






draf

tAppendix E

Hybrid Milfoil: Management Implications and Challenges

The Michigan Riparian Winter 201512

BackgroundMillions of dollars are spent annually on programs to combat invasive aquatic plants in Michigan. A primary focus of many of these programs is the control of Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), an aggressive-growing exotic plant introduced into the United States from Europe and Asia.

Eurasian milfoil is not the only type of milfoil found in Michigan. There are several native milfoil species, such as northern milfoil (Myriophyllum sibiricum). Some native species closely resemble Eurasian milfoil and are commonly mistaken for it. However, the native milfoils rarely form dense, impenetrable plant beds like Eurasian milfoil often does. In some lakes, hybridization between exotic Eurasian milfoil (M. spicatum) and native northern milfoil (M. sibiricum) is occurring. Genetic testing has found milfoil hybrids to be widely dispersed across the northern portion of the United States and hybrid milfoil appears to be widespread in Michigan. The documentation of the presence of hybrid milfoil is important because hybridity in plants is often linked to invasive traits. In fact, hybrid milfoil may be more invasive than Eurasian milfoil. There is concern in the scientific community that hybrids could have a competitive advantage over, and ultimately displace both northern milfoil and Eurasian milfoil.

In terms of physical appearance, hybrid milfoil is difficult to distinguish from Eurasian milfoil. For positive identification, genetic testing is required. Further, not all hybrid milfoils are the same. There is considerable genetic variability within hybrids.

Herbicide TreatmentsHerbicide applications are the most commonly-used method to control Eurasian milfoil. However, in some lakes, herbicide treatments have become less effective. Dose rates that historically provided good control of milfoil are sometimes only partially effective, and plant die-back is incomplete and/or regrowth occurs more rapidly.

Recent research indicates that hybrid milfoils may exhibit increased tolerance to some herbicides. On average, hybrid milfoil is less susceptible to control with the commonly-used aquatic herbicide 2,4-D in comparison with Eurasian milfoil. The decreased sensitivity to 2,4-D appears to be common across different hybrid lineages. Lakes that have been treated historically with 2,4-D have a higher incidence of hybrid milfoil than non-treated lakes. This research suggests that use of certain herbicides may inadvertently allow tolerant hybrid milfoil to gain dominance.

With the aquatic herbicide fluridone (Sonar®), hybrid tolerance appears to be limited to fewer hybrid lineages. While hybrid resistance to fluridone has been observed in a small percentage of lakes, hybridity does not necessarily infer fluridone tolerance.

Management ImplicationsManagement of hybrid milfoil presents new challenges. Fortunately, there are some new tools available to document the presence of hybrid milfoil and to evaluate the potential for herbicide resistance.

Hybrid Milfoil:Management Implications and ChallengesBy: Tony Groves, Paul Hausler, and Pam TyningWater Resources Group, Progressive AE

Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum)

Hybrid milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum x Myriophyllum sibiricum)

The Michigan Riparian Winter 201513

Genetic Testing: As discussed in an article in the Summer 2014 issue of the Michigan Riparian, genetic testing is now commercially available and can be used to determine the presence and distribution of Eurasian versus northern versus hybrid milfoil in a given lake. This data can, in turn, be used to inform management decisions.

Herbicide Susceptibility Screening: Another approach that is being used is herbicide susceptibility screening in which milfoil samples are collected from various locations in a lake and exposed to typical herbicide dose rates to evaluate plant response. If plant response is diminished, it may indicate the presence of hybrid milfoil and the need for reevaluation of a treatment approach, before substantial resources are committed to a treatment protocol that may not be very effective.

As with most invasive species, early detection and rapid response is key to effective control. Annual monitoring of the type and abundance of aquatic plants is an essential first step in this endeavor. In areas of the lake where milfoil is found, plant samples can be collected for further analysis.

In general, the use of herbicides with different modes of action, rather than using the same type of herbicide year after year, may help stem the spread of hybrids that are showing resistance to a particular herbicide or class of herbicides.

Given the potential management implications, genetic testing and herbicide susceptibility screening may soon become standard practices for lake managers. Additional research is ongoing to better evaluate the distribution of hybrid milfoil, its biological characteristics, herbicide treatment impacts, and its susceptibility to control measures.

Bibliography

Berger S.T, M.D. Netherland, and G.E. Macdonald. 2012. Evaluating fluridone sensitivity of multiple hybrid and Eurasian watermilfoil accessions under mesocosm conditions. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 50:135-144.

LaRue E.A., M.P. Zuellig, M.D. Netherland, M.A. Heilman, and R.A. Thum. 2012. Hybrid watermilfoil lineages are more invasive and less sensitive to a commonly used herbicide than their exotic parent (Eurasian watermilfoil). Evolutionary Applications 6:462-471.

Moody, M. L., and D.H. Les. 2007. Geographic distribution and genotypic composition of invasive hybrid watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum x M. sibiricum) populations in North America. Biological Invasions 9:559–570.

Slade, J.G., A.G. Poovey, and M.D. Netherland. 2007. The Efficacy of fluridone on Eurasian and hybrid watermilfoil. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 45:116-118.

Sturtevant, A.P., N. Hatley, G.D. Pullman, R. Sheick, D. Shorez, A. Bordine, R. Mausolf, A. Lewis, R. Sutter, A. Mortimer. 2009. Molecular characterization of Eurasian watermilfoil, northern milfoil, and the invasive interspecific hybrid in Michigan lakes. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 47:128-135.

Thum R.A., M.A. Heilman, P.J. Hausler, L.E. Huberty, P.J. Tyning, D.J. Wcisel, M.P. Zuellig, S.T. Berger, L.M. Glomski, and M.D. Netherland. 2012. Field and laboratory documentation of reduced fluridone sensitivity of a hybrid watermilfoil biotype (Myriophyllum spicatum x Myriophyllum sibiricum). Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 50:141-146.

Parks, S, R. Thum, J. Pashnick, P. Tyning, and L. Huberty. Incorporation genetic identifications of watermilfoils into aquatic vegetation mapping to inform management decisions. Michigan Riparian Summer 2014.

Zuellig M.P. and R.A. Thum 2012. Multiple introductions of invasive Eurasian watermilfoil and recurrent hybridization with northern watermilfoil in North America. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 50:1-19.

thompson lake management feasibility study report

Documents