Crooked, Chapman, Tippecanoe, and Wawasee Lakes Steuben … · 2010-08-05 · Littoral Zone...

Littoral Zone Restoration Research Project 2007-2009 Final Report (Year 3)

Crooked, Chapman, Tippecanoe, and Wawasee Lakes Steuben and Kosciusko Counties, Indiana

December 2009

Prepared for: Crooked Lake Association

c/o Keith Hoskins P.O. Box 273

Angola, Indiana 46703

Prepared by:

c/o John Richardson 708 Roosevelt Road

Walkerton, Indiana 46574 (574) 586-3400

Page i File #061055.00

LITTORAL ZONE RESTORATION RESEARCH PROJECT 2007-2009

CROOKED, CHAPMAN, TIPPECANOE, AND WAWASEE LAKES STEUBEN AND KOSCIUSKO COUNTIES, INDIANA

FINAL REPORT (Year 3)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A three year study was initiated on re-establishing native vegetation in the littoral zones of four northeast Indiana lakes: Crooked Lake in Steuben County and Lake Wawasee, Lake Tippecanoe, and Chapman Lake in Kosciusko County. Goals for the project were to develop and evaluate methods to successfully establish plants within open water (littoral) environments and to re-establish vegetation on former vegetated areas within each of the four lakes. Each of the 4 treatment types developed for this project consisted of 36 plants (4 each of 9 species) installed within a 1-square meter area. The four treatments included: 1) vegetation that were directly planted into the lake bottom substrate, 2) vegetation planted into an coconut mat that was attached to the substrate, 3) vegetation installed inside a small concrete donut buried into the substrate, and 4) vegetation installed into a wooden pallet filled with soil and then secured to the lake bottom. In addition, a 1-square meter (10.8 sq ft.) control treatment was defined and all treatments were surrounded by a 1 m X 10 m (3.3 ft x 33.8 ft) exclosure that was secured to the substrate and extended above the water surface. Identical treatments were installed in each of the 4 lakes during the week of June 18, 2007 and were monitored by a lake volunteer on a regular basis throughout the summers of 2007, 2008, and 2009 for structural integrity and water clarity. In August of each year, each treatment type including internal exclosure and external control sites was monitored by inventorying plant species. The exclosure was collapsed each November within the planting area and reconstructed the following April. Overall survival of each plant species varied by treatment type within each of the four lakes. The concrete donut and wood pallet structures and the adjacent unplanted areas had the greatest number of individual plants surviving into 2009. Eel grass dominated the plants community by 2009 along with volunteer species. Plant survival rates observed using the erosion control mats and direct planting into the substrate were significantly less than the structural components. Only 1/3 of the individuals planted survived the first three months in and by year 3 the number of individuals, volunteer and planted, never reached the 36 individuals planted at the start of the project. The final plant community was dominated by eel grass. Data suggest that a structurally sound medium for planting results in better survival of planted individuals in two-three feet of water. The data also suggests that just providing an exclosure encourages volunteer species survival. Outside control areas remained constant from year to year while survival of volunteer and a few planted species within

Littoral Zone Restoration Research Project 2007-2009, Final Report December 2009 Crooked, Chapman, Tippecanoe and Wawasee Lakes, Steuben and Kosciusko Counties, Indiana

Page ii File #061055.00

the exclosure continued to increase or remained constant. In general, only one of the planted species we utilized (eel grass) might be considered successfully established at 3 of 4 sites. However, some success with a number of planted and volunteer native pondweeds was realized in 2 of the 4 lakes. Future work will focus on smaller portable exclosures that can be removed from the lake after the growing season without damaging the planting area and the number of planted species will be reduced to one or two at a time.


Page iii File #061055.00

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Littoral Zone Restoration Research Project was made possible with funding from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Division of Fish and Wildlife. The Littoral Zone Restoration Research Project was completed by JFNew with assistance from the Crooked Lake Association, Chapman Lake Conservation Association, Lake Tippecanoe Property Owners, and Wawasee Area Conservancy Foundation. Contributors to this study included Jed Pearson, Neil Ledet, Stu Shipman, Angela Sturdevant, and Gwen White with the IDNR Division of Fish and Wildlife. Special thanks to the dedicated members of the above referenced lake associations for their initiative and assistance in getting this study completed. Area residents who completed weekly monitoring throughout the summers and participated in the study design included: Keith Hoskins, Crooked Lake Association; Kathy Kostro, Bill Magurany, and Len Draving, Chapman Lake Conservation Association; Holly LaSalle, Jeff Thornburg, and Megan Ennis, Lake Tippecanoe Property Owners; and Heather Harwood, Wawasee Area Conservancy Foundation. Thanks also to everyone who assisted with the project set-up, project design, and treatment installation, and maintenance including: Stu Shipman, Gwen White, Neil Ledet, Angela Sturdevant, and Jed Pearson, IDNR-DFW; Shaun Warkentin, Chris White, Aaron Johnson, Tom Estrem, Mark Pranckus, Scott Namestnik, John Richardson and Sara Peel, JFNew; Keith Hoskins, Crooked Lake Association; Dan Lee and Bill Magurany, Chapman Lakes Conservation Association; and Heather Harwood, Wawasee Area Conservancy Foundation. Authors of this final report included Tom Estrem and John Richardson, with assistance from Heather Cecrle, at JFNew.


Page iv File #061055.00

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope of Project ........................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................ 3 2.0 Historic Research ...................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Historic Littoral Zone Restoration Projects ................................................................ 4 2.2 Historic Plant Communities ....................................................................................... 6 3.0 Project Planning ........................................................................................................ 8 3.1 Location Assessment ................................................................................................ 8 3.2 Permitting ................................................................................................................ 13 3.3 Planting Design ....................................................................................................... 13 4.0 Project Installation and Maintenance ....................................................................... 16 4.1 Initial Planting .......................................................................................................... 16 4.2 Volunteer Monitoring ............................................................................................... 16 4.3 Maintenance Activities ............................................................................................. 18 5.0 Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 19 5.1 Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring ......................................................................... 19 5.2 Aquatic Plant Growth Monitoring ............................................................................. 20 6.0 Project Summary ..................................................................................................... 46 7.0 Literature Cited ........................................................................................................ 47


Page v File #061055.00

TABLE OF FIGURES

PAGE

Figure 1. Lakes included in littoral zone restoration research project .......................... 3 Figure 2. Restoration research location within Crooked Lake .................................... 10 Figure 3. Restoration research location within Chapman Lake .................................. 11 Figure 4. Restoration research location within Lake Tippecanoe .............................. 12 Figure 5. Restoration research location within Lake Wawasee ................................. 13 Figure 6. Completed exclosure structure immediately following installation .............. 15 Figure 7. Typical sign posted at each planting site .................................................... 18 Figure 8. Lake Tippecanoe planting area August 2009 monitoring, .......................... 21 Figure 9. Wooden pallet treatment at Chapman Lake August 2009 monitoring ......... 21 Figure 10. Wooden pallet treatment at Lake Wawasee August 2009 monitoring ........ 21 Figure 11. Crooked Lake planting area August 2009 monitoring ................................. 21 Figure 12. Total number of individuals plant in each lake in 2007 and 2008 ............... 23 Figure 13. Total number of individuals within treatment types for each lake from 2007-2009 .......................................................................................... 24 Figure 14. Plant presence in sampled plots within Crooked Lake by treatment type and year .............................................................................................. 25 Figure 15. Number of individuals in expansion areas between treatment types Crooked Lake ............................................................................................ 27 Figure 16. Total number of individuals within Crooked Lake exclosure structure 2007-2009 .................................................................................. 28 Figure 17. Plant presence in sampled plots within Chapman Lake by treatment type and year .............................................................................................. 29 Figure 18. Number of individuals in expansion areas between treatment types Chapman Lake ........................................................................................... 31 Figure 19. Total number of individuals within Chapman Lake exclosure structure 2007-2009 ................................................................................... 32 Figure 20. Plant presence in sampled plots within Lake Tippecanoe by treatment type and year .............................................................................................. 33 Figure 21. Number of individuals in expansion areas between treatment types Lake Tippecanoe ........................................................................................ 34 Figure 22. Total number of individual in the Lake Tippecanoe exclosure structure 2008-2009 ................................................................................... 35 Figure 23. Plant presence in sampled plots within Lake Wawasee, by treatment type and year .............................................................................................. 37 Figure 24. Number of individuals in expansion areas between treatment types Lake Wawasee .......................................................................................... 38 Figure 25. Total number of individual plants in Lake Wawasee exclosure structure 2007-2009 ................................................................................... 39 Figure 26. Total number of individuals of planted species excluding eel grass by species & year ....................................................................................... 40 Figure 27. Total number of individuals of planted species including eel grass by species & year ...................................................................................... 41


Page vi File #061055.00

TABLE OF TABLES

PAGE

Table 1. Secchi disk transparencies measured in the treatment lakes by volunteers .................................................................................................. 19 Table 2. Species presence and abundance in expansion areas at Crooked Lake 2008-2009 .............................................................................................. 27 Table 3. Species presence and abundance in expansion areas at Chapman Lake 2008-2009 ............................................................................. 32 Table 4. Species presence and abundance in expansion areas at Lake Tippecanoe 2008-2009 ................................................................................... 34 Table 5. Species presence and abundance in expansion areas at Lake Wawasee 2008-2009 ............................................................................. 39 Table 6. Total number of individuals of volunteer species at each lake 2007-2009 ...... 42

TABLE OF APPENDICES

A. Annotated bibliography of aquatic plant restoration B. Historic aquatic plant species by lake C. Laboratory sediment sampling results D. Permits E. Pre-planting photographs of planted species F. Treatment design drawings G. Treatment installation photos H. August monitoring and volunteer monitoring data sheets I. Public meeting informational handouts

File #061055.00


CROOKED, CHAPMAN, TIPPECANOE, AND WAWASEE LAKES STEUBEN AND KOSCIUSKO COUNTIES, INDIANA

FINAL REPORT (Year 3)

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The Crooked Lake Association requested the assistance of JFNew in 2004 to restore vegetation to a former “island” or shallow water area in the center of the lake which had once been dominated by hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus). JFNew had been working with several other lake associations who also expressed interest in restoring or enhancing native plant communities within their lakes. With the commitment of the Crooked Lake Association to proceed with a revegetation project, JFNew facilitated the application for a joint IDNR Lake and River Enhancement grant between four lake associations: the Crooked Lake Association, Chapman Lake Conservation Association, Lake Tippecanoe Property Owners, and the Wawasee Area Conservancy Foundation. The application for funding proposed identical plant restoration treatments in each of the respective lakes that would allow statistically valid analysis of certain variables between lakes to document reasons for the success or failure of the re-plantings over a three year monitoring program. Each of the four project lakes (Crooked Lake in Steuben County and Chapman, Tippecanoe, and Wawasee lakes in Kosciusko County) identified areas where emergent and rooted floating aquatic vegetation had once existed but were no longer present. In each area, wind and wave action, water quality impacts, and anthropogenic factors, such as skiing and personal watercraft use in these areas, were thought to be the contributing factors to the loss of this vegetation. Lake Manitou, in Fulton County, was originally included in the restoration project; however, with the discovery of hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) in 2006 and subsequent fluridone treatments, Chapman Lake was substituted for Lake Manitou. The “submerged prairie” in Lake Manitou will be a good candidate for restoration once fluridone treatments have controlled or eradicated hydrilla.. The LARE program funded the project in 2006 with the Crooked Lake Association acting as the grant administrator. A contract was signed with JFNew in late 2006 to implement the project. Each of the participating lake associations also signed contracts that covered specific duties including input on the design of the treatment types, location of the treatment area, and weekly monitoring of the structure and associated water quality. The lake association’s work on the project counted for the in-kind match.


Page 2 File #061055.00

1.2 Scope of Project The scope of this project included all items necessary to develop a statistically-valid, experimentally-based restoration project for Crooked, Chapman, Tippecanoe, and Wawasee Lakes (Figure 1). Specifically, the scope included the following:

a literature search to identify previous in-lake planting projects, techniques, and success rates;

an investigation of the treatment lakes to determine appropriate experimental restoration locations and to document the status and nature of the selected treatment area within each lake prior to installation;

development of a statistically-valid design to be installed within each lake; installation of the four pre-determined techniques within each of the four

treatment lakes; establishment of a project steering committee to oversee project development

and assist with on-lake information distribution; weekly structure and water quality monitoring by volunteers; quarterly structure monitoring by JFNew; annual aquatic plant monitoring following a standard and repeatable protocol; acquisition of all necessary permits prior to project installation; public outreach through the development of lake-specific informational handouts

and public meetings; and annual progress reports and an end of project final report.


Page 3 File #061055.00

Figure 1. Lakes included in littoral zone restoration research project. 1.3 Goals and Objectives The primary goal of the project was to develop and evaluate methods to successfully establish plants within open water (littoral) environments within Crooked Lake, Lake Wawasee, Lake Tippecanoe, and Chapman Lake. The secondary goal was to restore aquatic vegetation within the selected 10 square meter (107.64 sq. ft.) treatment locations. Specifically, the project was designed to research the influence of various factors, including plant species, planting techniques, locations within a lake, and exclosures, on the survival and growth of planted aquatic vegetation, and to determine realistic expectations for plant survival, growth, and reproduction for future planting projects. Our null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in survivability among all plant species between lakes, between treatments, or between species. No expectations of survival for any species or any technique were forecast.


Page 4 File #061055.00

2.0 HISTORIC RESEARCH 2.1 Historic Littoral Zone Restoration Projects Prior to design and construction, JFNew conducted a review of the available literature on aquatic plant restoration. Littoral zone restoration projects have been conducted in many areas; however, a majority of these projects did not include any post-planting monitoring. Of those that did monitor the plantings, few included a control plot for comparison and many have not released their results. Consequently, the success/failure rate for littoral zone restorations is not well-documented. A quick web search of communities and groups that have attempted littoral zone restorations indicates a high success rate but this may be because groups that did not observe successful vegetation establishment did not publicize their project. Data from monitored and documented projects exhibit varying results. A review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife program in Wisconsin, which provided the largest dataset of restoration results, suggests approximately equal numbers of low, medium, and high-quality vegetation communities after planting. This study did not include comparison to any control areas so it is unclear if the plantings were the cause of any improvements or if they were the result of successional processes (Kitchen 1987-1999). Despite the sparse documentation, some general guidelines for restoration design emerged from the literature and case studies. Choices of planting locations tend to focus on the availability of light and the consistency of the substrate. Ideal planting sites contain ample light (sites are usually planted to the 1 percent light level) and, although the reason is not well understood, healthy populations of submerged aquatic vegetation are associated with a substrate with organic content less than 5 percent (Koch, 2001). Preferred species vary based on individual site locations; therefore, many sources recommend choosing plants found in neighboring lakes or documented in historical studies. Furthermore, research indicates that past restoration efforts focused on a core group of factors to plan and locate planting areas. These factors include: light availability, substrate, wave action, and water level fluctuation. The following sections detail specifics with relation to these factors. The annotated bibliography in Appendix A details other studies reviewed prior to beginning the Littoral Zone Restoration Research Project. Light availability is the key factor in aquatic planting projects and has been used extensively in project planning to determine the optimal location for plant installation. In general, the 1 percent light level was used to determine the maximum planting depth. Specific studies utilized light levels, and specifically the 1 percent light level, in a variety of ways. In one study, the 1 percent light level overestimated the lower planting depth limit with plant growth limited to between the 10 percent and 20 percent light levels (Chambers and Kaliff, 1985). Middelboe and Markager (1997) studied 153 lakes and discovered a wide range in the maximum plant depth. Variations could be explained by both differences between plant species and differences in lake characteristics. Despite the variation, the 1 percent light level has remained the general guideline used in littoral zone restoration projects


Page 5 File #061055.00

Most documented projects cited substrate as an important factor in determining plant growth but information is scarce on how substrate actually affects the plants. Part of the confusion has arisen due to the number of factors associated with substrate that could affect project success. Texture (Barko and Smart, 1996; Koch, 2001; Weisner, 1987; Weisner, 1991), organic matter content (Barko and Smart, 1996; Koch, 2001), and slope (Hawes et al., 2003) have all been used to explain limitation of growth. How each of these factors affects different species or types of plants can also vary, complicating the matter even more. Of the substrate characteristics, texture may play the largest role in determining the probability of plant growth. A majority of the reviewed studies cited substrate texture as a determining factor of plant growth. Lower growth rates have been documented on sandy substrates and mucks (Barko and Smart, 1986). In both substrates, nutrient limitation was used to explain the diminished growth. Sands naturally contain low nutrient concentrations. Additionally, nutrients bind to the organic matter in mucks, making those nutrients unavailable to plants. After excluding those substrates, not much consensus could be found on an optimal texture and variation is likely between different species. In general, a substrate must provide both stability and nutrients. Wave action can also inhibit plant growth. The primary mechanism of this inhibition is attributed to the shifting of substrate. Wave action can scour the planting area, removing sediment from the base of the plants, or deposit sediment, burying the plants. Either scenario can inhibit plant growth or cause recession among already established plant beds. In addition, wave action can increase turbidity, thereby negatively affecting the light availability in an area. As such, most aquatic plant restoration projects have accounted for lake fetch. To reduce lake fetch projects have been located in sheltered locations, such as bays or by placing structure like silt fences, or in one case, hydraulic dredge pipes to encircle the planted area (Personal communication, Ron Bedwell). While most well established aquatic plants can endure large water level fluctuations, those fluctuations have been cited as potential reasons for failure among newly planted restoration beds. In addition, most established aquatic plant beds can endure some level of herbivory, but carp, waterfowl, turtles, and muskrats can cause restoration failure if they impact plants before they are properly established. Once suitability has been ensured, the primary obstacles to establishment tend to be herbivory and water level fluctuation. Herbivory is typically limited through the use of exclosures. The effect of fluctuating water levels is typically limited by taking fluctuations into account during site selection and choosing plants that can tolerate the typical range of water levels at a particular depth. In some cases, wave action can be a consideration. When considered, planting areas were protected by coir logs (biologs) or breakers placed in front of the planting zones. Despite the presence of general guidelines, much of the design process depends on the specific site requirements and goals of the project. For example, actual recommended planting depths depend on the


Page 6 File #061055.00

species used and substrate on-site, which in turn depend on the location of the lake and goals of the project. Restoration of littoral zone vegetation has been attempted by numerous lake associations, towns, and other citizen groups. The majority of these projects focused more on education and volunteer participation than on actual results. As a result, most projects have not included any post-planting monitoring or documentation of techniques and results. Of those groups that did monitor the plantings, few included a control plot for comparison and many have not publicly released their results. Consequently, the success rate for littoral zone restoration techniques is not well-documented, especially over the long-term (five years after planting or more). Analysis of the few studies that included monitoring (Hellsten et al., 1996; Smart et al., 1998; Burdick et al., 2004; Dick et al., 2004 a, b, c) found that short-term (five years or less after planting) success rates were highly variable. The few sites monitored after five years (Dick et al., 2004a) found low survival rates. However, no maintenance activities were implemented at these sites, which allowed herbivores to breach the exclosures. In general, an effective littoral zone planting requires two aspects. First, the plan must take into account the site-specific requirements of the lake and match the plants to the lake. Second, all potential impairments to plant growth (high turbidity, herbivory) must either be reduced within the lake or accounted for through the use of structures such as exclosures. 2.2 Historic Plant Communities 2.2.1 Crooked Lake Historically, Crooked Lake contained a diverse aquatic plant community. In 1966, soft rush (Juncus effusus) was noted to be the most dominant emergent species (possibly misidentification of bulrush [Scirpus sp.]), where it was noted to grow in two isolated patches in the First and Second Basins of the lake (Hudson 1967); it was also noted that the remaining emergent vegetation in these basins was “unimportant.” Nonetheless, nine emergent and rooted floating species and ten submerged species were identified within Crooked Lake during the 1966 assessment. Aquatic plant species identified within Crooked Lake historically are detailed in Appendix B. Peterson (1973) identified seventeen species within the first basin during the 1972 assessment (Appendix B). This species survey documented aquatic plants representing each of the three strata (submerged, emergent, and floating). A map included with this report indicated the location of the emergent plant community on the submerged island within Crooked Lake’s First Basin. Subsequent surveys document similar plant communities; however, Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) fisheries biologists noted only twelve species during their 1978 survey (Peterson, 1979). A total of 22 species were identified throughout the lake during the 2001 survey (Ledet, 2002). Aquatic Control (2007) identified 24 species during Tier I and Tier II LARE-funded aquatic plant surveys completed in the spring and summer of 2006. Throughout this time span, it is likely that the aquatic plant community changed little despite the differing diversities; rather, it is likely that different survey methodologies account for the variation of plant diversity.


Page 7 File #061055.00

2.2.2 Chapman Lake IDNR fisheries surveys have recorded brief descriptions of the rooted plants in Chapman Lake. A 1964 survey (McGinty, 1964) reports “extensive areas without aquatic vegetation” in Big Chapman Lake. It noted that the manmade channels supported the densest macrophyte growth. Dominant submerged species included coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), bushy pondweed (Najas flexilis), elodea (Elodea canadensis), milfoil (Myriophyllum sp.), and chara (Chara sp.). The report lists soft rush as the dominant emergent, although it is possible that this is a misidentification of bulrush. A decade later, an IDNR Fisheries Survey (Shipman, 1976) highlighted the relatively low productivity of the lake. Bulrush, cattails (Typha spp.), and milfoil dominated the lake according to this survey. The report reiterates that vegetation is of concern in the channels. Surveys conducted in the 1990’s (Pearson, 1991 and 1999) found similar dominant species as those listed in the 1976 survey. The reports notes an increased abundance of curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), but again large areas of unvegetated shallows existed at the time of the survey. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) was first noted in the 1991 survey. Submerged plant density in the channels remained a concern. Appendix B provides a complete list of macrophyte species found in historical surveys on Big Chapman. A diverse mix of native pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.), eel grass (Vallisneria americana), and emergent vegetation grows in patches throughout Big Chapman Lake. The lake is also characterized by large expanses of shallow water in which rooted plant growth is absent. Because in-lake sampling suggests sufficient light is present for the establishment of rooted plant growth throughout much of Big Chapman Lake, growth is likely limited by the marl and sand substrate in many portions of the lake. This substrate may not provide enough nutrients to support dense vegetative growth. JFNew (2000) noted that the heaviest plant growth was noted in the channels and Nellie’s Bay. The muck substrate in these areas provides a rich nutrient source for plants. Nuisance levels of Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) are limited to the channels and the eastern shoreline. During the most recent assessments, JFNew (2007) identified approximately 50 aquatic species within Big Chapman Lake. Dan Lee, a long time lake resident, informed JFNew of the prior existence of vegetation on the shallows where the planting site was selected (personal communication). 2.2.3 Lake Tippecanoe Like the other lakes previously discussed, Lake Tippecanoe contains a diverse aquatic plant community. The first documented aquatic plant survey on the lake occurred in 1976, at which time the IDNR noted eighteen aquatic plant species throughout the lake chain (Lake James, Oswego Lake, Lake Tippecanoe; Shipman, 1977). Subsequent surveys identified fewer species. Fifteen species were identified in 1995 (Pearson, 1995) at which time, Pearson noted that emergent species were relatively sparse throughout the lake. Pearson further indicated that emergent species occurred in isolated patches throughout the lake (Pearson, 1995). Aquatic Control (2005) documented 25 submerged species that were identified within the Tippecanoe Chain in 2002, 2003, and 2004. Aquatic Control also detailed aquatic plant management history


Page 8 File #061055.00

within Lake Tippecanoe. Aquatic plant species identified within Lake Tippecanoe historically are detailed in Appendix B. During surveys completed in 2005, Aquatic Control identified ten submerged species in Lake Tippecanoe (Aquatic Control, 2006). In 2006, similar surveys indicate that fourteen submerged species were present in Lake Tippecanoe (Aquatic Control, 2007). The IDNR indicated concern over the relatively sparse aquatic plant community present throughout the lake and suggested that shoreline property owners should minimize alterations to the shoreline (Pearson, 2007). Pearson further suggested that owners should restore native plants, install natural boulders in front of existing bulkhead seawalls, and control nuisance invasive species but leave native plant beds intact. Additionally, Pearson (2007) noted the presence of isolated patches of spatterdock (Nuphar advena) and white water lily (Nymphaea tuberosa) throughout the lake. 2.2.4 Lake Wawasee Shipman (1975) identified a variety of aquatic plants in Lake Wawasee during the IDNR’s initial aquatic plant survey of the lake in 1975. At that time, 17 aquatic plant species representing all three strata (submerged, emergent, and floating) were present within the lake. Aquatic plant species identified within Lake Wawasee historically are detailed in Appendix B. Shipman (1975) also indicated that aquatic plants within the man-made channels surrounding Lake Wawasee posed continuous problems for lake residents and stated that the wetland vegetation present within Conklin and Johnson Bays should remain “as intact as possible to protect and preserve water filtration and fish spawning habitat”. Subsequent surveys in 1985 indicated that Lake Wawasee contained a diverse aquatic plant community where coontail, elodea, and milfoil dominated the submergent zone. Dense cattail and purple loosestrife stands were noted within Conklin and Johnson Bays and around the mouth of Turkey Creek (Pearson, 1986). During surveys completed in 2004, the IDNR identified seventeen aquatic plant species (Fink, 2005). Subsequent surveys completed by V3 included identification of nineteen submerged species throughout Lake Wawasee (V3 Companies Ltd, 2007). 3.0 PROJECT PLANNING 3.1 Location Assessment Prior to the planting, JFNew biologists met with each lake representative to select the planting site and to perform preliminary sampling at the site. The site within each lake was chosen by the lake representative based on JFNew’s specifications, which included historic presence of a plant community, water depths of 0.61 to 0.91 m (2 to 3 ft), and at least some wave action; in addition, the site could not be in a location that would severely affect navigation. Aerial photographs documenting the former vegetation at these sites are not available; historic presence of a plant community was largely based on lake residents’ recollections, and evidence that the sites are well within the expected littoral zone is contained within the LARE early Feasibility or Diagnostic study reports for each lake. The preliminary sampling included assessment of Secchi disk reading and light level at the deepest part of the lake; description of the substrate at the selected


Page 9 File #061055.00

site; collection of a sediment sample for laboratory analysis; documentation of existing plant communities and species present in April, which is prior to when most species are identifiable in Indiana lakes; observation of fauna present during the survey; determination of water depth and slope of the substrate across the 10 m (32.81 ft) long planting zone; and observation of adjacent shoreline characteristics. The visual observations of the bottom were completed using snorkel gear, while the substrate was collected using a 3.81 cm (1.5-inch) diameter PVC pipe inserted into the substrate from 15.24 to 30.48 cm (6 to 12 inches). To collect the sample, the pipe was inserted into the sediment, and then capped. The PVC pipe was pulled from the water before removing the cap and allowing the sediment to flow into a 1.0 liter (.26 gal) laboratory-provided collection jar. The collected samples were analyzed for total phosphorus and total nitrogen by EIS Analytical in South Bend, Indiana and for percent solids and overall composition by Shilts and Graves in South Bend, Indiana. Appendix C contains copies of the laboratories’ findings. The following sections detail findings from the investigations completed on each lake in April 2007. 3.1.1 Crooked Lake The selected area was located in unprotected open water approximately 152.4 m (500 ft) off the shoreline within the First Basin of Crooked Lake at coordinates 41.6782 N, -85.0447 W (Figure 2). The closest shoreline consisted of residentially developed land protected by concrete seawalls. Boat traffic and wind from all directions cause significant wave action at the site. Additionally, the area serves as a recreational sandbar for basin water sports activities and is a popular destination during the height of the summer boating season. A preliminary survey of Crooked Lake on April 19, 2007 documented a Secchi disk transparency of 4.6 m (15 ft) at the deepest part of the lake. At the selected project site, the water depth measured 0.85 to 0.88 m (2.8 to 2.9 ft) with 36 percent of the available light present at the bottom. The substrate was sand and less than 5 percent cover of filamentous algae was present during the April assessment. No other plants were visible during the assessment. Additionally, no fauna were observed within the area of the site. The bottom slope was 0.005 (one-half of 1 percent) across the selected treatment area. The analyzed sediments contained 3.1 percent fine gravel, 93.7 percent sand, 1.2 percent silt, 2.0 percent clay, and 0.8 percent organic matter. Total phosphorus measured 110 mg/kg and total nitrogen measured 1080 mg/kg (both are wet weights).


Page 10 File #061055.00

Figure 2. Restoration research location within Crooked Lake. 3.1.2 Chapman Lake The selected area was exposed to significant wave action being just 15.2 m (50 ft) off a concrete seawall-lined shoreline near Hog Point at coordinates 41.2859 N, -85.7924 W (Figure 3). The site is located on the north side of Big Chapman Lake with approximately 1,609.3 m (1 mile) of open water located to the south. This area generally serves as a recreational spot for boaters to park their boats and swim during the summer. A preliminary survey of Chapman Lake on April 18, 2007 documented a Secchi disk transparency of 1.8 m (6 ft) at the deepest part of the lake. The water depth at the project site measured 0.6 m (2.0 ft) and 29 percent of the available light was present at the bottom. The substrate was sand and marl with approximately 15 percent cover of filamentous algae as the only plants visible. Red worms and zebra mussel shells were observed within the area of the site. The bottom slope measured 0.005 (one-half of 1 percent) across the selected treatment area. The analyzed sediments contained 3.3 percent fine gravel, 39.2 percent sand, 38.9 percent silt, 18.6 percent clay, and 6.7 percent organic matter. Total phosphorus was 13 mg/kg and total nitrogen was 1850 mg/kg (both are wet weights).


Page 11 File #061055.00

Figure 3. Restoration research location within Chapman Lake. 3.1.3 Lake Tippecanoe The selected area was somewhat protected as it is located 9.1 m (30 ft) off the shoreline of the Ball Nature Preserve and is near an existing 10 mph zone for entrance into the channel between Lake Tippecanoe and Lake James at coordinates 41.3222 N, -85.7394 W (Figure 4). Winds from the west may cause significant waves in addition to the boat traffic funneling through the channel nearby. In addition, this shallow, protected area is adjacent to a popular skiing area for lake users. A preliminary survey of Lake Tippecanoe on April 18, 2007 documented a Secchi disk transparency of 3.1 m (10 ft) at the deepest part of the lake. The water depth at the project site measured 0.90 to 0.94 m (2.95 to 3.1 ft) and 28 percent of the available light was present at the bottom. The substrate was comprised of sand and marl. The site contained nearly 100 percent cover of filamentous algae. No fauna were observed within the area of the site. The bottom slope was 0.005 (one-half of 1 percent) across the selected treatment area. The analyzed sediments contained 8.5 percent fine gravel, 61 percent sand, 19.5 percent silt, 11 percent clay, and 5.2 percent organic matter. Total phosphorus measured 82 mg/kg and total nitrogen measured 2040 mg/kg (both are wet weights).


Page 12 File #061055.00

Figure 4. Restoration research location within Lake Tippecanoe. 3.1.4 Lake Wawasee The selected area is located within Conklin Bay on the northwest side of the lake and is somewhat protected being located 6.1 m (20 ft) off of a vegetated shoreline at coordinates 41.4073 N, -85.7408 W (Figure 5). However, boat traffic from two adjacent channels, which have 50 residential structures each, increases wave action at the site. Winds from the south may cause some additional wave action; in addition, this area does experience significant recreational boating activity. A preliminary survey of Lake Wawasee on April 18, 2007 documented a Secchi disk transparency of 5.0 m (16.5 ft) at the deepest point of the lake. The water depth at the project site measured 0.85 to 0.91 m (2.8 to 3.0 ft). In addition, 15 percent of the available light was present on the bottom at the selected site. The substrate was sandy marl over peat. The site contained approximately 20 percent cover of filamentous algae; one white water lily was the only plant visible. Zebra mussel and freshwater unionid shells were observed; however, no live specimens were observed within the area of the site. The bottom slope was 0.01 (1 percent) across the selected treatment area. The analyzed sediments contained 4.0 percent fine gravel, 89.9 percent sand, 3.0 percent silt, 3.1 percent clay, and 7.7 percent organic matter. Total phosphorus measured 110 mg/kg and total nitrogen measured 4580 mg/kg (both are wet weights).


Page 13 File #061055.00

Figure 5. Restoration research location within Lake Wawasee. 3.2 Permitting Planting directly into the substrate of a lake or wetland does not require any permits as long as no mechanized equipment (generally meaning no motor operated equipment) is utilized in the process. Since the experiment designed by JFNew included an exclosure, it required a Public Freshwater Lake permit from the Division of Water within the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). During the review process for the permit, which included a public notice to the landowners adjacent to the proposed structure locations, no public resistance was discovered. Concerns were raised by the IDNR Division of Law Enforcement (DLE). Specific concerns identified by the DLE were that the structure was considered a navigation hazard; therefore, the DLE required the installation of navigational marking buoys around the structure. In addition, the DLE required that the structure be dismantled each winter to prevent snow machines from hitting the structure. Ultimately, the Division of Water granted the permit with the above conditional changes. Copies of the final permits are included in Appendix D. 3.3 Planting Design 3.3.1 Aquatic Plant Selection Nine species of aquatic plants representing all three strata (submergent, floating, and emergent) were identified for planting. The selected species were historically present in all four lakes and included eel grass, grassy pondweed (Potamogeton gramineus), Illinois pondweed (Potamogeton illinoensis), common waterweed (Elodea canadensis), water shield (Brasenia schreberi), white water lily, chairmaker’s rush (Scirpus pungens), hard-stem bulrush (Scirpus acutus), and pickerel weed (Pontederia cordata). The plants


Page 14 File #061055.00

consisted of bare root stock or 6.4-cm (2.5-inch) diameter by 10.2-cm (4-inch) long nursery-grown plugs. All plants were photo-documented prior to pre-planting (Appendix E). Additionally, all plants had at least three months of growth prior to installation (incubation period), and were in a healthy condition at the time of installation. The incubation period was within a rubber-lined, shallow-water (20-40 cm or 8-16 inch) pond. Four individual plants of each of the nine species were utilized for each treatment type for a total of 36 plants per treatment. Since there were four treatment types as detailed below, a total of 144 plants were installed in each lake. 3.3.2 Treatment Types Four active methods of plant installation were developed by JFNew for attempting to hold the plants within the substrate. Each treatment method covered one square meter within each lake. Design specifications and photographs of each of the planting techniques are included in Appendix F and G, respectively. The same four treatment methods and number of plants were utilized in each of the lakes. The four methods were as follows:

Method 1: Direct planting of the 36 plants into the substrate utilizing 2.5 cm by 15.24 cm (1-inch by 6-inch) sod staples to secure the plant to the bottom. Plants were incubated within the containerized flats as purchased or as bare root stock placed in potted soil medium.

Method 2: Planting of plugs and bare root specimens directly into a coir fiber pillow and then securing the mat to the substrate using 2.5 cm by 30.48 cm (1-inch by 12-inch) steel staples (6-8) with no incubation period. Plants were incubated within the containerized flats as purchased or as bare root stock placed in potted soil medium.

Method 3: Constructing four 50 cm by 50 cm by 10 cm (19.69 inch by 19.69 inch by 3.94 inch) wooden pallets with defined 8 cm by 8 cm (3.15 inch by 3.15 inch) openings for each of nine plants. Four of these pallets formed a one meter square (10.76 sq ft) treatment and contained 36 plants. These pallets were filled with loamy sand, planted, and incubated at least six weeks before being brought into the field in a larger plastic or rubber lined container.

Method 4: Manufacturing a concrete container system for each plant (36) for each square meter treatment. The concrete container resembled a donut with a total diameter of approximately 10 cm (3.94 inch) and an inside hole diameter of approximately 4 cm (1.57 inch). The thickness or height of the donut structure was approximately 5 cm (1.97 inch). A hardware cloth tube (mesh size openings of 0.5 cm [.20 inch]) was inserted into one end of the concrete donut during the manufacturing process to support the plug or bare root plant. This hardware cloth extension was driven into the substrate so that the top of the concrete structure was even with the substrate. These concrete donuts were pre-planted by putting the containerized plug directly into the opening (no additional soil was required) and then grown in a soil lined plastic container which was subsequently placed into a shallow water, rubber-lined incubation pond for six weeks before being transferred to the installation site.


Page 15 File #061055.00

Two controls were established as part of this project. The first control was located within the exclosure structure. This control was included to allow researchers to determine whether protection from the open water environment would allow for plants to grow without any planting required. The second control was outside of the exclosure and served as an example of the routine environment within each of the lakes. Each control measured 1 square meter (9.6 sq ft). In addition, four unplanted 1 square meter plots between each of the planted treatments within the exclosure remained in order to monitor any migration of the plants from each square meter treatment. A 1 meter by ½ meter (9.6 sq ft by 5.4 sq ft) area at each end of the exclosure also acted as a control to monitor expansion of the plant communities within the exclosure. 3.3.3 Exclosure Structure The exclosure structures measured 10 m (32.8 ft) long, 1 m (3.3 ft) wide, and 1.2 m (4 ft) high. They consisted of a frame constructed of 3.8-cm (1.5-inch) diameter PVC pipe and hardware cloth (mesh opening 0.318 cm or 0.125 in). There were eight vertical PVC posts spaced 2.5 m (8.2 ft) along the 10 m (32.8-ft) length of the structure. These vertical posts were driven approximately 0.6 to 1.2 m (2 to 4 ft) into the substrate with connectors to the horizontal structures for rigidity. The top of the structure is completely framed by PVC. The hardware cloth was cut into two 1 m (3.3-ft) long and eight 2.5-m (8.2-ft) long sections and stapled to wooden slats (1 cm thick by 3 cm wide by 1 meter long or 0.4 inches thick by 1.2 inches wide by 3.3 feet long) placed along each edge. The wooden slats were then pre-drilled to receive cable ties on approximately 10 cm (3.9-inch) spacing. Each hardware cloth panel was then secured to the PVC frame horizontal and vertical posts and to the adjacent panel using a minimum of 16 plastic cable ties per panel. The structures extended 5.1 cm to 20.3 cm (2 to 8 inches) of clearance above the water level after installation. Figure 6 displays a typical structure installed during Year 1 of the project. Appendix F details design of the structures.

Figure 6. Completed exclosure structure immediately following installation.


Page 16 File #061055.00

All four exclosure structures were marked to increase visibility in several ways. The entire PVC and hardware cloth frame was wrapped with high visibility orange snow fence which was then stapled to the wooden structure and cable tied to the PVC frame. A sign was posted on a PVC post adjacent to each structure briefly describing the project and providing a contact for additional information. Two navigational buoys were cabled to 30.5 cm (12-inch) wide concrete blocks and sunken into the substrate (one on either side of the structure). The navigational buoys were cylinder type buoys measuring approximately 0.8 m (2.5 ft) high and rode approximately 0.5 m (1.5 ft) above the water line. A minimum of four 15.2 to 20.3 cm (6 to 8-inch) inflated yellow ball-type buoys were tied or cabled to the structure itself. Additionally, reflective tape was applied to each end and at several places along each side of the PVC frame above the water line. Visibility was at least 50 m (165 ft) and some structures could be seen from across the lake without visual aids. 4.0 PROJECT INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE 4.1 Initial Planting All in-lake planting occurred June 18 to 21, 2007, with Chapman Lake planting occurring on June 18, Lake Tippecanoe planting on June 19, Crooked Lake planting on June 20, and Lake Wawasee planting on June 21, 2007. Project construction followed a similar pattern in each lake. The PVC structure was installed initially followed by the connection of one long side 10 m (32.81 ft) and one short side 1 m (3.28 ft) of the exclosure structure. Subsequently, one team consisting of two individuals continued exclosure construction, while the second team of two individuals began treatment installation. In all cases, the direct planting occurred first, followed by planting into the coconut mat, installation of the concrete treatment, and finally, placement of the wooden treatments. Plantings began 0.5 m (1.6 ft) from the end of the exclosure; treatments were equally spaced 1 m (3.3 ft) apart with expansion zones located within each 1 m (3.3 ft) unplanted area between treatments. Following installation of the plant treatments, the final piece of the exclosure was attached and the entire structure was covered by snow fence. 4.2 Volunteer Monitoring Each lake association identified an individual to serve as the representative for their lake to the project committee and as the volunteer monitor for the length of this project. Each volunteer monitored the plot weekly from two weeks following planting through September 2007, and from June to September in 2008 and 2009. Volunteers were instructed to monitor the condition of the exclosure, the general health of the plants, and to measure the Secchi depth at the deepest point of the lake. JFNew provided a datasheet to all volunteers to record their observations and notes. Appendix H contains a copy of the volunteer monitoring datasheet. After monitoring, volunteers sent the datasheets electronically or as a hard copy to JFNew where information was summarized on an Excel spreadsheet (Appendix H). If any damage to the exclosure


Page 17 File #061055.00

was observed that required repair, the volunteers were instructed to contact JFNew so repairs could be made. Volunteers generally conducted weekly monitoring through the point in October when they removed their boat from the lake or the last week in October, whichever came later. Between August 19 and August 25, 2007, nearly 21.6 cm (8.5 inches) of rain fell in the region during several large storms. As a result, many of the lakes rose noticeably, making boating dangerous. Various other reasons resulted in volunteer monitoring gaps for all four lakes each year. 4.2.1 Crooked Lake Volunteer reports from a majority of the monitoring period indicated relatively stable conditions throughout the summer of 2007. Volunteers observed no gaps in the exclosure and reported that plants were healthy during all weeks. Monitoring did not occur during much of September 2007 due to the lake closure from storms as Crooked Lake was closed to motorized boat traffic this time frame. The structure was reported to be in poor shape in June 2008, and it was noted that it may have moved at that time. In July 2008, it was noted that the plants did not appear as healthy as in 2007, and it was thought that rebuilding the structure in the spring may have impacted them. Plant growth outside the exclosure was noted in late July 2008. Throughout the 2009 monitoring season the structure was reported in good shape and plant growth as minimal or absent. 4.2.2 Chapman Lake The first weekly report (July 10, 2007) on Chapman Lake indicated poor growth in the wooden pallets. Subsequent volunteer reports indicated generally healthy plants, though the August 27, 2007 report indicated poor growth in the coconut mat plot. The volunteer observed no gaps in the exclosure during all 2007 monitoring visits. The 2008 volunteer monitoring visits indicated that some of the plants appeared healthy, but that many had died. In 2009 the structure was reported to be in good shape and that only a few plants were present. 4.2.3 Lake Tippecanoe Volunteer reports indicated steady conditions throughout the summer of 2007; no gaps in the exclosure were noted and plants were noted as healthy during all volunteer visits. Abundant vegetation was noted on June 25 and July 21, 2008. During 2009 plants within the structure were reported as not healthy and boat traffic on the lake was suggested as heavy on numerous occasions. No structural problems were reported in 2009. 4.2.4 Lake Wawasee Volunteer observations noted generally poor growth during much of the summer of 2007, with few plants observed above the water. No gaps were noted in the exclosure during any of the volunteer visits. Secchi depth measurements generally increased over the monitoring period. Plants appeared healthy throughout 2008. The structure was


Page 18 File #061055.00

reported in good shape throughout 2009 and plant abundance was suggested as minimal. 4.3 Maintenance Activities During the July 10 and 12, 2007 monthly monitoring visits, signs were posted outside the exclosure at each lake. Each sign identified the plot as part of an experimental planting project and provided a contact name and preferred contact information for each lake volunteer. Figure 7 shows an example of the sign posted. During the spring setup of the structures on April 30 and May 1, 2009 all of the wire mesh panels on the exclosure were replaced with a continuous plastic mesh. As documented below, this effort was undertaken in response to maintenance issues from the 2008 season.

Figure 7. Typical sign posted at each planting site. 4.3.1 Crooked Lake During the week of July 1, 2007, the Crooked Lake volunteer noticed that some of the wooden pallets shifted. The pallets were reset and concrete blocks were placed on top of the pallets to prevent them from shifting again. The volunteer also added two buoys and placed warning tape around the exclosure to increase visibility. JFNew visited the site on July 12, 2007 and found that the plots required no other maintenance. During JFNew maintenance visits on June 26, and July 21, 2008, several repairs were made to the structure which included replacing sections of wire mesh, closing holes in the wire mesh with zip-ties and the replacement of a couple of PVC connectors. No maintenance issues occurred during the 2009 season using the new plastic mesh.


Page 19 File #061055.00

4.3.2 Chapman Lake Volunteer reports from July 10, 2007 indicated that the wooden pallets moved and that some were lying on top of each other. JFNew visited the site on July 10 during the monthly monitoring visit. Two of the wooden pallets were observed floating at the water surface. A third pallet moved more than a meter away from its initial position. All three pallets were devoid of soil. The pallets were reset in their initial positions, partially filled with soil from the lake bottom, and the plants replanted (plants were floating within the exclosure). JFNew returned to the site on July 12, 2007. At this time, the pallets were floating again. The pallets were dug into the lake bottom and filled with substrate from the lake bottom. Plants were again replanted. In subsequent 2007 visits to the plot, no signs of movement were observed. In 2008, JFNew repaired one of the PVC legs of the structure and closed some gaps in the mesh with zip ties on June 28, and closed additional gaps on July 21. No maintenance issues occurred during the 2009 season. 4.3.3 Lake Tippecanoe No maintenance activities were required at the Lake Tippecanoe plot throughout 2007. On June 28, 2008, the volunteer added some PVC pipe to the middle of the structure to fix its collapse due to abundant Filamentous algae growing over the top of it; no other maintenance was required throughout 2008. No maintenance issues occurred during the 2009 season. 4.3.4 Lake Wawasee On July 25, 2007, two of the four wooden pallets were observed floating within the exclosure. JFNew visited the site on July 27, 2008, and replaced the floating pallets in their initial positions, filled them with substrate from the lake bottom, and replanted them. All pallets were then tied down to the lake bottom using 35.6 cm (14-inch) metal staples and twine. The exclosure was reported to be in good shape until July 21, 2008, when JFNew replaced most of the mesh and one corner of the PVC structure; no other maintenance was required throughout 2008. No maintenance issues occurred during the 2009 season. 5.0 MONITORING 5.1 Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring 5.1.1 Methodology Volunteers monitored each site weekly during the 2007 and 2008 growing seasons. In 2007, monitoring began two weeks after the initial planting and continued through the end of September or when the volunteer took their boat off of the lake. In 2008, monitoring began in June and continued through the end of September or when the volunteer took their boat off of the lake. In 2009, monitoring began in May and occurred on average a couple of times a month. During the monitoring visits, the volunteers measured the Secchi depth at the deepest point of the lake. Data was recorded and submitted with weekly structure and plant monitoring information. A copy of the datasheet is contained within Appendix H.


Page 20 File #061055.00

5.1.2 Water Quality Monitoring Results In Crooked Lake, 2007 Secchi depth measurements varied between 2.4 to 3.0 m (8 and 10 ft) throughout the summer; 2008 Secchi depth measurements varied between 2.3 to 3.7 m (7.5 and 12 ft) throughout the summer. In Chapman Lake, 2007 Secchi depth measurements varied between 2.5 and 3.2 m (8.5 and 10.5 ft) throughout the summer; one Secchi depth measurement was taken in 2008, which was 2.1 m (7 ft). In Lake Tippecanoe, 2007 Secchi depth measurements were generally low compared to the other lakes, varying between 0.9 to 1.4 m (3 and 4.6 ft) during the summer and increasing to 2.4 m (7.9 ft)at the end of August; one Secchi depth measurement was taken in 2008, which was 2.4 m (8 ft). In Lake Wawasee, transparencies in early to mid-July 2007 measured near 1.2 m (4 ft) in Conklin Bay. In late July 2007, transparencies increased in Lake Wawasee to between 1.8 to 2.1 m (6 and 7 ft) in Conklin Bay with transparencies in late September measured at 5.5 m (18 ft) in the main body of Lake Wawasee. 2008 Secchi depth measurements in Lake Wawasee varied between 1.5 to 2.7 m (5 and 9 ft) throughout the summer. During the 2009 monitoring season transparency measurements were not taken. Some adjective ratings were given by volunteers which rated water clarity as poor to fair. Table 1 details monitoring dates and measured transparencies for each lake. Table 1. Secchi disk transparencies measured in the treatment lakes by volunteers, summer 2007 and 2008

Crooked Lake Chapman Lake Lake Tippecanoe Lake Wawasee 6/20/2007 9.5 6/18/2007 8.5 6/19/2007 4.5 6/21/2007 5.5 7/15/2007 8.6 7/16/2007 9.8 7/6/2007 4.6 7/6/2007 4 7/20/2007 10.1 7/31/2007 10.4 7/9/2007 3 7/15/2007 4 8/2/2007 8.1 8/6/2007 8.6 7/18/2007 4.3 7/31/2007 7

6/26/2008 7.5 6/25/2008 7 8/31/2007 7.9 8/5/2007 6.5 7/8/2008 12

6/25/2008 8 8/19/2007 6 7/14/2008 12

9/9/2007 7 7/21/2008 8 9/23/2007 18

6/26/2008 9 7/21/2008 5 8/10/2008 6.5

Note: Volunteers did not recorded Secchi disk readings in 2009 5.2 Aquatic Plant Growth Monitoring 5.2.1 Methodology JFNew monitored the survival and growth of the plants once during each growing season. Monitoring was conducted on August 28 (Wawasee, Tippecanoe, and Chapman Lakes) and August 29 (Crooked Lake) in 2007, August 27 (Wawasee, Tippecanoe, and Chapman Lakes) and August 28 (Crooked Lake) in 2008, and August 6 (Wawasee, Tippecanoe, and Chapman Lakes) and August 7 (Crooked Lake) in 2009. During these monitoring visits, a botanist and field technician visited the treatment areas within each lake. Monitoring was performed using an underwater plant viewer, which was constructed from a plastic tub with clear Plexiglas installed on the bottom. The


Page 21 File #061055.00

underwater plant viewer was nearly submerged in the water to provide the monitor a way to view submerged vegetation. Leaks did develop around the Plexiglas seal during the 2008 and 2009 monitoring periods which required plants to be viewed from above water surface. For each treatment, expansion zone, and control plot within the treatment area, the number of observed live-rooted vascular plants was tallied by species and each individual plant length was measured using a meter stick. Representative photos from each of the 4 lakes taken during the August 2009 monitoring are show in Figures 8-11.

Figures 8-11. Representative photos taken during August 2009 sampling. Clockwise from top left: Lake Tippecanoe planting area 2009, wooden pallet treatment at Chapman Lake 2009, wooden pallet treatment at Lake Wawasee 2009, and planting area at Crooked Lake 2009. A sample data sheet can be found in Appendix H. Measurements were collected from the longest stem or branch on a plant, from the substrate surface to the stretched tip of the plant. Notes were also made regarding whether planted individuals were flowering, fruiting, or vegetative. Any vascular plant species not planted but rooted within the plots, expansion zones, and control were also identified, counted, and noted on the datasheet. Fragments of plants were observed floating (not attached to rooted material) in several plots. These species were noted, but not counted toward the total number of plants in a given plot. Note that algae (including Chara spp.) were not counted in this study. Instead, due to growth pattern and difficulty with measurement of individual stems,


Page 22 File #061055.00

percent coverage of Chara was estimated within each treatment or expansion zone. A control plot was established outside of the exclosure using a square meter grid. The control was permanently marked with a buoy, and the location was surveyed with a GPS unit. The control plot was monitored using the same protocol used within the exclosure. Water depth was noted at each sampled plot. Photographs were taken of treatment and control areas using an underwater camera. The success of the underwater camera was dependent on the clarity of the water at the time of monitoring. In general, water clarity was reduced during the August monitoring and as a result, the photographs had little value in demonstrating plant growth. Pictures taken during maintenance visits which occurred earlier in the year yielded a greater number of quality pictures displaying plant growth within the different treatment types. Some of the plants installed in the treatment areas have growth forms and reproductive strategies that make counting individuals difficult. For example, eel grass is “vigorously stoloniferous… with long, ribbon-like basal submersed leaves from a very short, erect crown” (Gleason and Cronquist, 1991). Eel grass also “spreads vegetatively through turions, rhizomes, and seeds” (NRCS, no date). Because of the stoloniferous or rhizomatous roots, short crowns, and vegetative reproduction, many shoots can arise from a single plant. Such a growth pattern suggests that this single plant actually appears to be several individual plants, or colonies, which can spread rapidly from a single plant. In addition, the shoots can grow very close together, forming almost a carpet of leaves. These characteristics, coupled with the fact that sampling occurred in water waist deep, made it difficult to count planted individuals. During the monitoring inspections, a single plant was counted when it appeared to be rooted in the substrate. Thus, the number of individuals of some species, such as eel grass, grassy pondweed, Illinois pondweed, and chairmaker’s rush, may be inflated in the results. Regardless, these multi-stemmed individuals are providing cover and habitat, which is one of the goals of plant restoration in general. 5.2.2 Plant Presence by Treatment Type Figure 12 displays the presence of all species of aquatic plants found in each treatment at the four lakes. Because there is no way to distinguish a volunteer from a planted individual of the species that were planted, the results in this and all subsequent figures displaying plant presence by treatment show the total number of individuals, including volunteer individuals of planted species and all other volunteer individuals, found at each lake.


Page 23 File #061055.00

Plant Presence by Treatment

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009

Direct Planting Erosion Control Mat Concrete Donut Wooden Pallet Control (Inside) Control (Outside)

Treatment, Year

Num

ber o

f Ind

ivid

uals

Pre

sent

WawaseeTippecanoeChapmanCrooked

Figure 12. Total number of individuals at Crooked Lake, Chapman Lake, Lake Tippecanoe, and Lake Wawasee, sorted by treatment type and year. The numbers include all volunteer species as well as planted species. The wooden pallet and concrete donut planting techniques were the most productive in terms of total number of individuals present during all three years of the study, with 2008 yielding the greatest abundance of individuals in those treatments. In terms of individual lakes, the wooden pallet showed increases in species presence at Crooked and Chapman Lakes from 2007-2008, but decreases at Lakes Tippecanoe and Wawasee. From 2008-2009 plant abundance decreased in the wooden pallet treatment in all lakes except Lake Tippecanoe where abundance increased. The concrete donut treatment had the same results as the wooden pallet treatment except in Crooked Lake from 2008-2009 where abundance increased in the concrete donuts. The direct planting treatment showed decreases in the number of individuals present at all four lakes, with no individuals present at Crooked Lake and Lake Tippecanoe from 2007-2008. From 2008-2009 plant abundance increased in the direct planting treatment area at all lakes except for Chapman Lake where no individuals were present. The erosion control mat treatment showed very little change from 2007-2009, except at Chapman Lake from 2008-2009 where abundance increased from 3-16 individuals. The inside control plot produced variable results from year to year. In 2007, plants were only present at Chapman Lake. In 2008, individuals were present at all lakes except for Chapman Lake and in 2009, plants were present at all lakes within the inside control plot. The outside control plot had more consistent results from 2007-2009 than did the inside control plot.


Page 24 File #061055.00

From 2007-2009 no individuals were observed within the outside control plot at Chapman Lake. At Lake Tippecanoe plants were only observed within the outside control plot in 2007 but not in 2008 or 2009. In 2007, no individuals were observed in the outside control plot at Crooked Lake however, five individuals were observed in both 2008 and 2009. Lake Wawasee consistently recorded a couple of individuals each year of the study within the outside control plot. In 2009, the total number of plant individuals within the four treatment types and inside control plot was greatest at Crooked Lake, followed by Chapman Lake, Lake Wawasee, and Lake Tippecanoe (Figure 13). Individually, Crooked Lake had the greatest number of individuals in 2008 and 2009; however, Chapman Lake had a steady increase each year ending up with nearly as many individual plants as Crooked Lake in 2009. Lake Wawasee had the greatest number of individuals in both 2007 at 41 individuals but the number did not increase in 2008 and actually decreased in 2009 to 30 individuals. These trends are examined in more detail in the following paragraphs. Lake Tippecanoe suffered from an abundance of filamentous algae which may explain the low survival rates after planting and even fewer individuals observed in subsequent years.

Total number of individuals within all treatment types

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2007 2008 2009

Year

Num

ber

of in

divi

dual

s

CrookedChapmanTippecanoeWawasee

Figure 13. Total number of individuals within the four treatment types and inside control plot for each lake from 2007-2009.


Page 25 File #061055.00

5.2.2.1 Crooked Lake Figure 14 shows the presence of all species of aquatic plants found in each treatment at Crooked Lake from 2007-2009. Several trends regarding plant response by treatment type were observed when comparing the 2007-2009 data in Crooked Lake. Overall, the wooden pallet treatment had the greatest abundance of plant individuals while the concrete donut treatment contained the second highest number of plant individuals throughout the study. The direct planting and erosion control mat treatments each showed some signs of success, but in general had plants in low abundances. Within the wooden pallet treatment the abundance of plant individuals was greatest in 2008, followed by 2009 and 2007. In 2007/2008 the wooden pallet treatment contained three species; all of which were planted species in 2007 and two of which were planted species in 2008. In 2009, the wooden pallet contained only one species (eel grass). The concrete donut treatment showed an increase in plant abundance each year from 2007-2009. In 2007, all five species observed within the concrete donut treatment were planted species. In 2008 and 2009 eel grass was the only planted species present.

Plant Presence by Treatment at Crooked Lake

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009

Direct Planting Erosion ControlMat

Concrete Donut Wooden Pallet Control (Inside) Control (Outside)

Treatment, Year

Num

ber o

f Ind

ivid

uals

Pre

sent

Small pondweed*

Slender naiad*

Clasping-leaf pondweed*

White water lily

Water shield

Pickerel weed

Illinois pondweed

Hard-stem bulrush

Grassy pondweed

Eel grass

Figure 14. Plant presence in sampled plots within Crooked Lake, sorted by treatment type and year. An asterisk (*) marks species that were not planted. The direct planting treatment contained three planted species in 2007, zero planted species in 2008 and one planted species in 2009. The number of individuals in the direct planting treatment was greatest in 2007 (7 individuals) and lowest in 2008. The erosion control mat treatment had two planted species in 2007 and one planted species


Page 26 File #061055.00

in both 2008 and 2009. The inside control plot had the second highest abundance of plant individuals for treatment types in 2008 despite zero individuals being observed in 2007. In 2009, this number was reduced by more than half. Eel grass accounted for 20 of the 21 individuals observed in 2008 and all of the individuals observed in 2009 within the inside control plot. The outside control plot had no individuals in 2007 and five individuals in both 2008 and 2009. Two species were observed in 2008 and only one remained in 2009. Both of these species in the outside control plots had been planted within the exclosure in 2007. Trends regarding plant species presence within the treatment plots from 2007-2009 were also observed in Crooked Lake. While there were a total of ten species observed during the study, only three of those species (eel grass, hard-stem bulrush, clasping-leaf pondweed) were present in abundances of more than just a couple individuals. Of the planted species and volunteer species, eel grass was the most abundant during all three years of the study and did the best in the concrete donut and wooden pallet treatments (Figure 14). This species also appeared and did well in the control plot inside the exclosure. Hard-stem bulrush was the second most abundant species observed in 2007; however, after 2007 the number of this species was reduced from 11 individuals to 1 individual in 2008 and zero individuals in 2009. Hard-stem bulrush did the best in the direct planting and wooden pallet treatments, but was also present in the EC-mat and concrete donut treatments. Clasping-leaf pondweed, a volunteer species found only in 2008, was the second most abundant species observed that year and was found in the wooden pallet treatment and adjacent expansion area. Only two of nine planted species, chairmakers rush and common waterweed, were never observed within the treatment plots. One individual of both water shield and white water lily were found in 2007. The open water positioning of the planting area within Crooked Lake may not have been a favorable location for the establishment of white water lily and water shield, as these floating-emergent species prefer calm water environments. In 2007, pickerel weed was present in three of the four treatment plots (wooden pallet, concrete donut, EC-mat), but failed to survive into 2008. Grassy pondweed was only present within the wooden pallet treatment and outside control plot in 2008. Illinois pondweed was present in the direct planting and concrete donut treatments in 2007, and within the outside control plot in 2008 and 2009. While no plant individuals were found in the expansion areas between the treatments in 2007, there were a number of individuals observed in these areas in 2008 and 2009. Figure 15 displays the number of individuals observed in the different expansion areas while Table 2 shows those species found and their abundance in the different expansion areas.


Page 27 File #061055.00

Number of individuals in expansion areas at Crooked Lake

020406080

100120140160180

2008 2009

Year

Num

ber

of in

divi

dual

s

Before DirectPallet-ControlEC mat-concreteDirect-EC matAfter controlConcrete-Pallet

Figure 15. Number of individuals observed in expansion areas between treatment types at Crooked Lake 2008-2009. 2007 is not shown because no individuals were observed in any of the expansion areas. Table 2. Species presence and abundance in expansion areas at Crooked Lake 2008-2009. Species with an asterisk (*) are volunteer species.

Species

Crooked Lake 2008

After control Pallet- Control Concrete-Pallet EC mat-Concrete

Eel grass 5 160 50 9 Grassy pondweed 1 Illinois pondweed 1


11 1

Brittle naiad* 1 2009

Control-Pallet Pallet- Control EC mat-Concrete

Direct-EC mat

Eel grass 25 54 27 Grassy pondweed 2


2

Brittle naiad* 1 Slender naiad* 1 2

Small pondweed* 6 Similar to that of the different treatment types the greatest abundances of plant individuals in the expansion plots were associated with the wooden pallet and concrete donut treatments. Expansion areas that were in contact with either the wooden pallet or


Page 28 File #061055.00

concrete donuts treatments had the greatest number of plant individuals. The expansion area between the control treatment and wooden pallet treatment contained the greatest number of individuals in both 2008 and 2009. The expansion area between the concrete donut and wooden pallet treatment had the second greatest number of plant individuals in 2008 and 2009. Most of the other expansion areas contained few individuals except for the area between the EC-mat and concrete donut treatments which contained 13 and 31 individuals in 2008 and 2009, respectively. As displayed in Table 2 eel grass was the dominate species found in the expansion areas at Crooked Lake. The ability of eel grass to spread using rhizomes likely explains why this species did so well. Illinois pondweed and grassy pondweed were also found in the expansion areas, but at low abundances. The volunteer species found in the expansion areas (brittle naiad, slender naiad, clasping-leaf pondweed, small pondweed) were all found in low abundances except for clasping-leaf pondweed in the pallet-control area in 2008 were 11 individuals were observed. Figure 16 displays the total number of individuals observed during August monitoring within the Crooked Lake exclosure structure from 2007-2009. The greatest number of plant individuals was observed in 2008 within the Crooked Lake exclosure, followed by 2009 and 2007. During 2008 and 2009 the expansion areas contained a greater number of individual plants than the treatment plots. Success within the expansion areas can mainly be attributed the substantial increase in eel grass. It should be noted that requirements to collapse the exclosure structures during winter could have caused some movement of the structure from its original position. This movement of the structure could have caused the beginning and ending points of the treatment areas to vary slightly from year to year.

Total number of individuals within Crooked Lake exclosure

050

100150

200250

300350

400

2007 2008 2009

Year

Num

ber

of in

divi

dual

s

Expansion areasTreatments

Figure 16. Total number of individuals within the Crooked Lake exclosure structure 2007-2009.


Page 29 File #061055.00

5.2.2.2 Chapman Lake Figure 17 shows the presence of all species of aquatic plants found in each treatment at Chapman Lake. Several trends regarding plant response by treatment type were observed when comparing the 2007-2009 data in Chapman Lake. Overall, the concrete donut and wooden pallet treatments had the greatest success throughout the study. The concrete donut treatment had the second highest number of plant individuals of all treatment types in 2007 and the greatest number of individuals in 2008 and 2009.

Plant Presence by Treament at Chapman Lake

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009



Treatment, Year

Num

ber o

f Ind

ivid

uals

Pre

sent

Variable watermilfoil*

Spiny naiad*

Slender naiad*

Eurasian watermilfoil*

Coontail*

Common bladderwort*

White water lily

Pickerel weed

Illinois pondweed

Hard-stem bulrush

Grassy pondweed

Eel grass

Chairmaker's rush

Figure 17. Plant presence in sampled plots within Chapman Lake, sorted by treatment type and year. An asterisk (*) marks species that were not planted. Abundance of individuals was greatest within the concrete donut treatment in 2008 and lowest in 2007. The number of planted species in the concrete donuts was highest in 2007 (6) and decreased in both 2008 and 2009, to three and two respectively. The wooden pallet treatment had the highest number of plant individuals in 2007 and second highest in 2008. All species observed in the wooden pallet treatment from 2007-2009 were planted species. There were five species observed in 2007 and three species in both 2008 and 2009. The direct planting treatment did well in 2007, however the number of individuals decreased from seven to two to zero individuals from 2007-2009. Three planted species were present in the direct planting treatment in 2007 and one planted species in 2008. Success was variable within the EC mat treatment. 2007 and 2008 both yielded three individuals, while 2009 had 16 individuals. This increase was


Page 30 File #061055.00

due to an increase in eel grass abundance. The inside control plot produced variable results from 2007-2009, with 3, 0 and 4 individuals respectively. Also, species composition was different each year within the inside control plot. Trends regarding plant species from 2007 to 2009 were also observed in Chapman Lake. Overall, eel grass was the most abundant planted species in 2008 and 2009, while hard-stem bulrush was the most abundant species in 2007. Hard-stem bulrush was most abundant in the wooden pallet in 2007 and was present in all of the planting treatments. From 2007-2008, the number of hard-stem bulrush reduced from 18-11 individuals, respectively and no individuals were observed in 2009. Eel grass, while present in 2007, but not abundant, increased substantially in 2008 and became the most abundant species. Eel grass was most abundant in the concrete donut treatment in 2008/2009 and in the EC mat treatment in 2009. Illinois pondweed did well and was the most abundant in the wooden pallet treatment. Illinois pondweed was present in the concrete donut and wooden pallet treatments in all three years of the study. Pickerel weed, which by August 2007 was documented in only three of the planting treatments (direct, concrete donut, and wooden pallet) was only present in the wooden pallet treatment in 2008 and not observed in 2009. Chairmakers rush abundance was about the same in 2007 and 2008, however was found in different treatment each year. No individuals of this species were observed in 2009. White water lily was only observed in 2007 and only within the direct planting and concrete donut treatments. Grassy pondweed was not observed in 2007 or 2008, but was observed in moderate abundance within the wooden pallet treatment in 2009. Common waterweed and water shield were never observed during August monitoring within the Chapman Lake planting area. During the three years of the study six volunteer species were observed within the exclosure. The most volunteer species were present in 2009. Overall, volunteer species abundance was low. While no plant individuals were found in the expansion areas between the treatments in 2007, there were a number of individuals observed in these areas in 2008 and 2009. Figure 18 displays the number of individuals observed in the different expansion areas while Table 3 shows those species found and their abundance in the different expansion areas. Similar to that of the different treatment types the greatest abundances of plant individuals in the expansion plots were associated with the wooden pallet and concrete donut treatments. The expansion area between the wooden pallet and concrete donut treatments had the greatest number of plant individuals in both 2008 and 2009. The expansion area between the EC mat and concrete donut plot had the second most individuals, while the area between the pallet and control had the third most individuals in 2008 and 2009. In all the other expansion areas, plant individuals were observed in very low abundances. The most abundant plant species in the treatment plots, eel grass was also the most abundant species in the expansion areas. Eel grass was the most abundant species during both 2008 and 2009 and was found in the greatest number in the expansion area between the pallet and concrete donut treatments. As noted earlier, the ability of eel grass to spread through its roots and such could explain this. Not only did the concrete-


Page 31 File #061055.00

pallet expansion area contain the most individuals each year, but it also contained the most species. In 2008, all four species observed in concrete-pallet area were planted species and in 2009 three of the five species observed were planted species. Grassy pondweed was abundant in the concrete-pallet area in 2008. In general, planted species were more abundant than volunteer species within the expansion areas. Volunteer species were generally present in low abundances in both 2008 and 2009; however, slender naiad was the second most abundant species in 2009.

Number of individuals in expansion areas at Chapman Lake

05

1015202530354045

2008 2009Year

Num

ber

of in

divi

dual

s

Before direct

Pallet-ControlEC mat-concrete

Direct-EC mat

After controlConcrete-pallet

Figure 18. Number of individuals observed in expansion areas between treatment types at Chapman Lake 2008-2009. 2007 is not shown because no individuals were observed in any of the expansion areas. Figure 19 displays the total number of individuals observed during August monitoring within the Chapman Lake exclosure structure from 2007-2009. The greatest number of plant individuals was observed in 2008 within the Chapman Lake exclosure, followed by 2009 and 2007. During 2008 the expansion areas contained a greater number of plant individuals than the treatment plots. Success within the expansion areas can mainly be attributed the substantial increase in eel grass, grassy pondweed and Illinois pondweed. As noted earlier, requirements to collapse the exclosure structure during the winter could have caused some movement of the structure from its original position. This movement of the structure could have caused the beginning and ending points of treatment areas to vary slightly from year to year. From 2007-2009 the number of individuals in treatment areas increased each year.


Page 32 File #061055.00

Table 3. Species presence and abundance in expansion areas at Chapman Lake 2008-2009. Species with an asterisk (*) are volunteer species.

Species

Chapman Lake 2008

Before direct Pallet-Control

Concrete Pallet

EC mat-Concrete

Eel grass - - 7 18 Grassy pondweed - - 21 - Illinois pondweed - - 12 -

Pickerel weed - - 1 - Bog bladderwort* - 2 - - Sago pondweed* 1 - - - Slender naiad* - 1 - - Spiny naiad* 1 2 - -

2009 Before direct Pallet-

Control Concrete

Pallet EC mat-Concrete

Direct-EC mat

After control

Eel grass - - 10 7 - - Grassy pondweed - - 5 - - - Illinois pondweed - - 1 - - -

Common bladderwort*

1 - 1 1 1 -

Sago pondweed* - - - - - 1 Slender naiad* - 6 - - - - Spiny naiad* - 2 2 - - -

Total number of individuals within Chapman Lake exclosure

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2007 2008 2009

Year

Num

ber

of in

divi

dual

s

Expansion area`Treatments

Figure 19. Total number of individuals within the Chapman Lake exclosure structure 2007-2009.


Page 33 File #061055.00

5.2.2.3 Lake Tippecanoe Figure 20 shows the presence of all species of aquatic plants found in each treatment at Lake Tippecanoe. Due to very low abundances of plant individuals each year within the treatment plot no apparent trends are present in the Tippecanoe planting area from 2007-2009. In 2007, the direct planting treatment showed success with 11 individuals observed representing two planted species (Illinois pondweed and eel grass). The concrete donut treatment had the second greatest number of plant individuals with 4 in 2007 followed by the wooden pallet treatment with one individual. No individuals were observed within the EC-mat or within inside control treatments. All species observed within treatments in 2007 were planted species. In 2008, no individuals were observed within the direct planting, concrete donut and wooden pallet treatments. Of the five individuals observed in the treatments in 2008, four of those were present in the inside control plot. Two of the three species observed in 2008 were planted species. Plant individuals were observed within all treatment types in 2009 except for the concrete donut treatment. The greatest number of individuals was documented in the direct planting and inside control areas during 2009. One of the four species observed in 2009 was a planted species (white water lily). The outside control plot had only one documented plant species in 2007 and none in 2008 or 2009.

Plant Presence by Treatment at Lake Tippecanoe

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009



Treatment, Year

Num

ber o

f Ind

ivid

uals

Pre

sent

Slender naiad*

Curlyleaf pondweed*

Coontail*

White water lily

Pickerel weed

Illinois pondweed

Grassy pondweed

Eel grass

Chairmaker's rush

Figure 20. Plant presence in sampled plots within Lake Tippecanoe, sorted by treatment type and year. An asterisk (*) marks species that were not planted.


Page 34 File #061055.00

Six of the nine planted species were observed in the Lake Tippecanoe planting area during at least one year of the study. The three planted species not observed include water shield, hard-stem bulrush and common waterweed. Species were found in such low abundances and in variable treatment types that no preference of species to treatment types was observed. An abundance of filamentous algae was observed at the planting site during all three years of the study and this is suggested as a reason for the minimal plant growth observed. The dense filamentous algae layer likely limited light availability within the planting area.

Number of individuals in expansion areas at Lake Tippecanoe

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2008 2009

Year

Num

ber

of in

divi

dual

s

Before directPallet-ControlEC mat-ConcreteDirect-EC matAfter ControlConcrete-Pallet

Figure 21. Number of individuals observed in expansion areas between treatment types at Lake Tippecanoe 2008-2009. 2007 is not shown because no individuals were observed in any of the expansion areas. Table 4. Species presence and abundance in expansion areas at Lake Tippecanoe 2008-2009. Species with an asterisk (*) are volunteer species.

Species

Lake Tippecanoe 2008

Pallet-Control Concrete-Pallet Before Direct Illinois pondweed 1 - - Pickerel weed - 1 - Coontail* - - 1

2009 After control Pallet-Control Concrete-Pallet Direct-EC mat Before Direct

Eel grass - - 1 - - Clasping-leaf pondweed*

1 - - - -

Coontail* - 1 1 1 2 Fries' pondweed* - - 1 - - Slender naiad* 4 - 1 - -


Page 35 File #061055.00

While no plant individuals were found in the expansion areas between the treatments in 2007, there were a few individuals observed in these areas in 2008 and 2009. Figure 21 displays the number of individuals observed in the different expansion areas while Table 4 shows those species found and their abundance in the different expansion areas. In 2008, three individuals were found within the expansion areas, one in the pallet-control plot, one in the concrete-pallet plot and one in the before-direct plot. Two of the three species observed were planted species (Illinois pondweed, pickerel weed). In 2009, thirteen individuals were observed in the expansion areas, representing five species, one of which was a planted species (eel grass). The greatest number of individuals was present in the after-control and concrete-pallet expansion areas. The most abundant species observed was slender naiad. Overall, the spread of plants into the expansion areas was minimal. Figure 22 displays the total number of individuals within the Lake Tippecanoe exclosure structure from 2007-2009 during August monitoring. The greatest number of individuals observed (24) was in 2009 followed by 2007. Out of 144 healthy plants installed within the structure in June only 16 remained by August. In 2008, only six individuals were present within the structure and three of those were volunteer species. By 2009, there were more individuals present in the expansion areas than in the treatment plots.

Total number of individuals within Lake Tippecanoe exclosure

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2007 2008 2009

Year

Num

ber

of in

divi

dual

s

Expansion areasTreatment

Figure 22. Total number of individuals within the Lake Tippecanoe exclosure structure 2007-2009.


Page 36 File #061055.00

5.2.2.4 Lake Wawasee Figure 23 shows the presence of all species of aquatic plants found in each treatment at Lake Wawasee from 2007-2009. Several trends regarding plant response by treatment type were observed when comparing the 2007-2009 data in Lake Wawasee. Overall, the concrete donut treatment and the wooden pallet treatment had the greatest success of all the treatment types. The concrete donut had the greatest abundance of plant individuals during all three years of the study, while the wooden pallet treatment had the second greatest number of individuals in both 2007 and 2008 and had the third most individuals in 2009. The direct planting and EC-mat treatment had plants present during all three years of the study, but usually only had three to five individuals. Within the concrete donut treatment the greatest number of individuals was observed in 2008 followed by 2007 and highest number of planted species was in 2007. The number of planted species decreased from five to one from 2007-2009, respectively. This decrease in the number of planted species was observed at all the treatment types. In 2007, all the plant species present in the various treatment plots were planted species and represented seven of the nine planted species. The two planted species not observed were common waterweed and water shield. Plant abundance was greatest within the wooden pallet treatment in 2007 and decreased in both 2008 and 2009. Four planted species were present in 2007 and by 2009 only one planted species was present (white water lily). Within the direct planting treatment plant abundance was greatest in 2007, followed by 2009. Only planted species were observed within the direct planting plot from 2007-2009. The number of species was greatest in 2007 (5) and lowest in 2009 (1). The erosion control (EC) mat treatment had five individuals in both 2007 and 2008. Three species were present during all three years of the study, but 2007 was the only year planted species were present. The inside control plot had variable results from 2007-2009. No individuals were present within the plot in 2007 and in 2009 the inside control plot had the second highest abundance of individuals of all the treatments. 2009 was the only year a planted species was observed within the inside control plot. The outside control plot had plant individuals present each year of the study. It is likely the planting area chosen already contained these species prior to this planting experiment.


Page 37 File #061055.00

Plant Presence by Treatment at Lake Wawasee

0

5

10

15

20

25

2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009



Treatment, Year

Num

ber o

f Ind

ivid

uals

Pre

sent

Variable milfoil *

Southern naiad*

Spiny naiad*

Spatterdock*

Slender naiad*

Flat-stem pondweed*

Brittle naiad*

White water lily

Pickerel weed

Illinois pondweed

Hard-stem bulrush

Grassy pondweed

Eel grass

Chairmaker's rush

Figure 23. Plant presence in sampled plots within Lake Wawasee, sorted by treatment type and year. An asterisk (*) marks species that were not planted. Several trends regarding plant species from 2007 to 2009 were also observed in Lake Wawasee. Overall, eel grass had the most success of all species establishing itself in the planting area. Eel grass was most abundant in the concrete donut and wooden pallet treatments; however, it was present at all treatments during at least one year of the study. Eel grass was most abundant in 2008 at 21 individuals increasing from 14 individuals in 2007 and decreasing back to 14 individuals in 2009. Eel grass and white water lily were the only planted species that were present during all three years of the study. White water lily was observed in the wooden pallet treatment from 2007-2009 and at a frequency of either one or two individuals. White water lily was also present in the direct planting treatment plot in 2007 and the concrete donut treatment plot in 2008. Hard-stem bulrush was present within all the treatment plots in 2007 and was the second most abundant species observed in 2007. From 2007-2008 the abundance of hard-stem bulrush was reduced from 10 to 2 individuals respectively and was only present in the direct planting treatment. Hard-stem bulrush was not observed in the 2009 August monitoring. Planted species pickerel weed, chairmakers rush, and grassy pondweed were present at low abundances, showed no preference to planting treatments and were only present in 2007. None of the volunteer species observed from 2007-2009 were present in high frequency during any given year of the study. Slender naiad was the most abundant volunteer species.


Page 38 File #061055.00

While no individuals were observed in the expansion areas between the treatment types in 2007, there were a number of individuals observed in the expansion areas in both 2008 and 2009. Figure 24 displays the number of individuals observed in the different expansion areas while Table 5 shows those species found and their abundance in the different expansion areas. Similar to results in the other lakes, the greatest abundance of individuals within the expansion areas was associated with the wooden pallet and concrete donut treatments. Those expansion areas that were in contact with either the wooden pallet or concrete donut treatment had the greatest abundance of individuals. The expansion area between the wooden pallet and control treatment contained the greatest number of plant individuals in 2008, followed by the expansion area between the wooden pallet and concrete donut treatments. In 2009, the number of individuals observed in the wooden pallet-control expansion area was reduced from 27 individuals in 2008 to 6 individuals. The concrete-pallet expansion area had the most individuals in 2009, despite a decrease in plant abundance from 2008 to 2009. Most of the other expansion areas contained plants, but at low abundances. In both 2008 and 2009 eel grass was the most abundant species in the expansion areas followed by slender naiad. The abundance of eel grass in the expansion areas is similar to that observed in the other lakes and as mentioned earlier, is likely due to the ability of eel grass to spread through its root system. The planted species of common waterweed and hard-stem bulrush were observed in the expansion areas in 2008, but not observed in 2009. The other volunteer species observed in the various expansion areas were present in low abundances.

Number of individuals in expansion areas at Lake Wawasee

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2008 2009

Year

Num

ber

of in

divi

dual

s

Before directPallet-ControlEC mat-concreteDirect-EC matAfter controlConcrete-Pallet

Figure 24. Number of individuals observed in expansion areas between treatment types at Lake Wawasee 2008-2009. 2007 is not shown because no individuals were observed in any of the expansion areas.


Page 39 File #061055.00

Table 5. Species presence and abundance in expansion areas at Lake Wawasee 2008-2009. Species with an asterisk (*) are volunteer species.

Species

Lake Wawasee 2008

After control Pallet-Control Concrete-Pallet

EC mat-concrete

Direct-EC mat

Before direct

Common waterweed

- - - 1 - -

Eel grass - 27 8 - - - Hard-stem bulrush - - - - 1 - Common bladderwort*

- - 2 - - -

Flat-stem pondweed*

- - - 2 - -

Slender naiad* - - 6 5 - - Spiny naiad* 4 - - - - - Variable milfoil* - - - - - 1

2009 After control Pallet-Control Concrete-

Pallet EC mat-concrete

Direct-EC mat

Before direct

Eel grass - 4 8 - 5 - Slender naiad* 4 2 - 1 1 - Variable milfoil* - - - - - 1

The total number of individual plants within the Lake Wawasee exclosure structure was greatest in 2008 (Figure 25). Eel grass abundance within the concrete donut and wooden pallet treatments and the pallet-control expansion area accounted for this. The number of individuals within treatments areas was similar throughout the study, while the number of individuals in expansion areas was more variable. In 2008, the total number of individuals in the expansion areas was greater than the treatment areas.

Total number of individuals within Lake Wawasee exclosure

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2007 2008 2009

Year

Num

ber

of in

divi

dual

s

Expansion areasTreatments

Figure 25. Total number of individual plants in Lake Wawasee exclosure structure 2007-2009.


Page 40 File #061055.00

5.2.3 Plant Presence by Species in Treatment Types. Figures 26 and 27 displays the number of individuals of planted species documented within the treatments at the four lakes. Because there is no way to distinguish a volunteer from a planted individual, the results show the total number of individuals, including volunteer individuals of planted species, found at each lake during each year. Figure 26 excludes eel grass, the most common species. Figure 27 includes eel grass.

Plant Presence by Species, Planted Species

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

Chairmaker'srush

Commonwaterweed

Grassypondweed

Hard-stembulrush

Illinoispondweed

Pickerel weed Water shield White waterlily

Species, Year

Num

ber o

f Ind

ivid

uals

Pre

sent


Figure 26. Total number of individuals of planted species excluding eel grass at Crooked Lake, Chapman Lake, Lake Tippecanoe, and Lake Wawasee, sorted by species and year.


Page 41 File #061055.00

Plant Presence by Species, Planted Species

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

14020

07

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

Chairmaker'srush

Commonwaterweed

Eel grass Grassypondweed

Hard-stembulrush

Illinoispondweed

Pickerelweed

Water shield White waterlily

Species, Year

Num

ber o

f Ind

ivid

uals

Pre

sent


Figure 27. Total number of individuals of planted species including eel grass at Crooked Lake, Chapman Lake, Lake Tippecanoe, and Lake Wawasee, sorted by species and year. Of the planted species, eel grass had the most growth; it was the most frequently observed species within treatment area in 2008 and 2009. From the originally planted 16 individuals in 2007, 92 individuals were observed in Crooked Lake in 2008, followed by 20 in Chapman Lake, and 21 in Lake Wawasee; however, numbers decreased slightly in 2009. The higher numbers found represent either the presence of volunteer individuals or the spread of planted individuals. It is likely that many of these individuals are connected underneath the substrate by rhizomes. Eel grass was not observed at the Lake Tippecanoe site in 2008 or 2009, after having been observed in small numbers in 2007. Grassy pondweed was the only other species to show an overall increase but it was not consistent at each lake. The increase happened despite its disappearance from all of the lakes except Chapman Lake in 2009. The initial survival of Hard-stem bulrush was good in 2007 but declined in all lakes substantially in 2008 and no individuals survived into 2009. Overall decreases were also observed for chairmaker’s rush, Illinois pondweed, pickerel weed, water shield, and white water lily, despite increases for Illinois pondweed at Chapman Lake and white water lily at Lake Wawasee. Chairmaker’s rush increased substantially at Chapman Lake in 2008 but was absent in the 2009 survey. Chairmakers rush did not establish itself at all after planting in Crooked Lake and disappeared from Lake Tippecanoe and Lake Wawasee by 2008.


Page 42 File #061055.00

Table 6. Total number of individuals of volunteer species at Crooked Lake, Chapman Lake, Lake Tippecanoe, and Lake Wawasee 2007-2009.

Crooked Lake 2007 2008 2009

Clasping-leaf pondweed 0 21 0 Slender naiad 0 2 2

Small pondweed 0 0 5 Chapman Lake

2007 2008 2009 Common bladderwort 0 1 0

Coontail 0 0 2 Eurasian watermilfoil 0 0 1

Slender naiad 0 0 1 Variable milfoil 0 0 1

Spiny naiad 2 1 4 Lake Tippecanoe

2007 2008 2009 Coontail 2 1 5

Curlyleaf pondweed 0 0 1 Slender naiad 0 0 4

Lake Wawasee 2007 2008 2009

Brittle naiad 0 1 0 Flat-stem pondweed 0 2 0

Slender naiad 0 15 9 Southern naiad 0 0 6

Spatterdock 2 1 2 Variable milfoil 0 0 1

Spiny naiad 0 2 0 Table 6 demonstrates the importance of the exclosure structure for the establishment of volunteers. Six volunteer individual plants were documented within the four lake treatment areas in August of 2007. That expanded to 44 individual plants within the same areas by 2009. Of the volunteer species, clasping-leaf pondweed had the best exclosure response; this species was not present in any of the survey areas in 2007, and 21 individuals were observed at Crooked Lake in 2008. Unfortunately the same species was not present in the 2009 sample of Crooked Lake. Slender naiad had a consistent growth response in all four lakes, with 1 individual in Chapman, 2 appearing in Crooked Lake, 4 in Lake Tippecanoe, and 9 individuals in Lake Wawasee by 2009. Other interesting volunteer species observed included brittle naiad and flat-stem pondweed in Lake Wawasee, and common bladderwort in Chapman Lake. 5.2.4 Plant Height and Length During the 2007-2009 site inspections, the monitoring biologist observed that plant height/length was most limited by water depth. The 2007 data showed some increases in plant height/length from planting in June to the monitoring in August for some of the planted species. However, because several species showed either the presence of


Page 43 File #061055.00

volunteer individuals or the spread of planted individuals, and there was no way to distinguish a volunteer from a planted individual, it was determined that it was not possible to analyze the data in a manner that could compare the growth of the planted individuals from year to year. Additionally, with only four individuals of each species planted, the sample size was too small for statistically valid comparisons of mean height/length. Therefore, plant growth, measured by length and height of stems, was eliminated as a measurable variable for the remainder of the study. 5.2.5 Flowering and Fruiting of Plant Species For several reasons outlined below, we believe that the spread of each species is a better indicator of reproductive success than the presence of flowering or fruiting structures. First, most aquatic plants use vegetative reproduction as their primary reproductive strategy. Second, sampling only occurred once during the growing season, while the period in which the species produce flowers or fruit are staggered throughout the growing season. Finally, a period of up to several years after establishment passes for many aquatic plants before any flowering structures are produced. For these reasons, the presence of flowering and fruiting structures was noted, but considered anecdotal, and was not used as a means of measuring reproductive success. 5.2.6 Aquatic Plant Restoration Discussion Although total survival of planted individuals was less than 50 percent in all lakes, results at Crooked Lake, Chapman Lake, and Lake Wawasee were encouraging. The poorer performance of planted species at Lake Tippecanoe was expected after witnessing the first summer’s growth of filamentous algae in the vicinity of the structure. It should be noted that the filamentous algae at Lake Tippecanoe seemed to attract and hold suspended sediments, leading to high turbidity levels when crews were in the water to monitor or maintain the exclosure structure. This high turbidity made it difficult to monitor the submergent species. In addition, the density of filamentous algae within the Lake Tippecanoe planting site may have out-competed aquatic plants within this treatment. However, some species flourished due to vegetative reproduction or plant habit and rooting structure. Chairmaker’s rush was observed as surviving only in Chapman Lake in 2008, and was gone from all sites by 2009. This species is often found in water less than 15 cm (6 inches) deep, though it can also survive in water that fluctuates to up to 46 cm (18 inches) deep (NRCS, 1997). It is likely that chairmaker’s rush did not survive at a higher rate due to the depth of water in the study areas; the study area in Chapman Lake was the shallowest of the four lakes. In hindsight this species should not have been included. Common waterweed was not observed during monitoring in any of the study areas until a few plants were documented in Lake Wawasee in 2009. This was somewhat surprising because common waterweed is a ubiquitous plant that exists in all of the lakes in this study. However, it has been shown that common waterweed prefers slow moving or calcium-rich waters (NRCS, no date). It is possible that common waterweed did not survive due to the abundant wave action in the areas in which the plantings


Page 44 File #061055.00

occurred. It also may be possible that common waterweed simply does not transplant well or was affected by the required structure removal and replacement in fall and spring. More experimentation with this species is recommended. Eel grass had the highest survival rates. It was found in all four lakes in 2007, and flourished in all but Lake Tippecanoe. Eel grass appeared to do the best in the structure provided by the concrete donut and wooden pallet treatments. It was not uncommon for the exclosure structures to have a mat of floating eel grass on the water surface during site visits. Eel grass is known to have an unstable root system, which allows wave action to uproot seemingly stable individuals. This has likely led to mortality or removal of some of the individuals. In addition, the growth pattern of eel grass likely allows for the counting of more individual plants than are likely represented in the treatments, as many apparent individuals may actually be one plant connected underground by a rhizome. Regardless, eel grass was successfully established in 3 of 4 exclosures. Grassy pondweed, which was only observed in Lake Wawasee in 2007, was observed in Crooked Lake and Lake Tippecanoe in 2008, and Chapman Lake in 2009. Grassy pondweed was actually the second most abundant species present within the Chapman Lake structure in 2009 despite not being present in either 2007 or 2008. It is possible that the fragile root system of this species did not hold up well to the abundant wave action in the study areas or that many of the plants were uprooted during structure removal or setup as required by the IDNR permit. Hard-stem bulrush had the greatest survival rates overall within the four treatments at the four lakes in 2007, but substantially fewer individuals were observed within each treatment at each lake in 2008. Like 2007, it was found within all of the lakes except Lake Tippecanoe, but its numbers decreased in the treatments in which it was found, and it was found in fewer treatments in 2008. Survival of individuals within Crooked Lake, Chapman Lake, and Lake Wawasee was generally 50 percent or greater in 2007, but decreased below 50 percent in all three lakes in 2008. It is likely that this species did not survive in Lake Tippecanoe due to the substrate and high turbidity. Wave action is the most likely cause for the decline in hard-stem bulrush in 2008. Illinois pondweed, which was present in all four lakes in 2007, was present in all but Lake Wawasee in 2008. It appeared to do particularly well at Chapman Lake, where there were more then the original number of planted individuals in the wooden pallet treatment. Like grassy pondweed, it is possible that some of the plants were uprooted due to the fragile root system of this species. Pickerel weed was observed in all four lakes in 2007, with the best survival in Crooked and Chapman lakes; this species was only present in Chapman Lake in 2008. One possible reason for mortality of planted individuals is that the water levels in the planting areas are deeper than that in which pickerel weed commonly grows naturally. Pickerel weed normally grows close to the shore and in shallow water (IMLS, 2001), often in water no more than 30.5 cm (12 inches) deep (UFCEA, 1999); the study area in Chapman Lake was the shallowest of the four lakes.


Page 45 File #061055.00

Water shield was present only in the concrete donut treatment in Crooked Lake in 2007, and was not present in any of the lakes in 2008. Of the lakes in this study, water shield occurs naturally only in Crooked Lake. It has been shown to be difficult to establish by planting (Chittendon, 1956), and it grows best in clear and quiet lakes (Swink and Wilhelm, 1994). Because it is found naturally only in Crooked Lake, it is possible that there are other specific nutrient or habitat requirements that are not currently known, that are present in Crooked Lake and not in the other four lakes. The wave action in all four study areas has possibly led to the 100 percent mortality in planted individuals of this species. White water lily was observed in three of the four lakes in 2007, but generally in low abundance; this species was present only in Lake Wawasee in 2008. This is likely due in part to the fact that planted individuals of white water lily consisted primarily of tubers (5 cm or 2 inch buds) with only limited stems or leaf present, and in some cases of structure loss (wooden pallets) were replanted as tubers without any growth. It is likely that some of these tubers never sprouted stems, or did not develop root structure fast enough and were washed away. Others may have been planted too shallow or too deep, especially in Lake Tippecanoe, where the substrate is soft and almost gelatinous. Also, it is possible that this species just does not transplant well, as JFNew has found planting white water lily in mitigation wetlands often does not result in many live individuals. This species may do better if larger sections of root stock (several feet) having several buds present are used. Substrate composition may have had some affect on plant growth and survival but an overview of the data does not suggest any trends. Substrate at the Crooked Lake site had the highest sand (93.7 percent) and lowest silt and clay content (3.2 percent) followed closely by Lake Wawasee at 89.9 percent sand and 6.1 percent silt and clay. The Chapman Lake substrate had the most silt and clay content (57.5 percent combined), due to the “marl” texture under the fine sand surface. Lake Tippecanoe seemed mucky due to the dominant filamentous algae but had 61 percent sand and approximately 30 percent silt and clay. The organic matter content was highest at Lake Wawasee (7.7 percent) followed by Chapman (6.7 percent), Tippecanoe (5.2 percent), and Crooked Lake (0.8 percent). Plant establishment and reproduction or volunteers was highest at Crooked Lake, followed by Chapman Lake, lake Wawasee and then Lake Tippecanoe. No trend is readily apparent between plants established and substrate type or organic matter content. Substrate nutrient content also has no apparent trend as measured in this study with plant establishment and growth. The highest Total Phosphorus content (110 mg/kg wet weight) of the four lake substrates was found in Crooked Lake and Lake Wawasee followed by Lake Tippecanoe (82 mg/kg) and Chapman Lake (13 mg/kg). While the highest total nitrogen content (4580 mg/kg wet weight) was found in Lake Wawasee, followed by Lake Tippecanoe (2040 mg/kg), Chapman Lake (1850 mg/kg) and Crooked Lake (1080 mg/kg).


Page 46 File #061055.00

Decreases in the presence of planted species may have been aggravated, or even caused, by efforts to take down the exclosures in the winter. During removal or set up of the exclosure structure, it was nearly impossible not to stir up the sediment all around the structures and occasionally drop parts of the structures on the living plants. While an attempt was made to avoid disturbing the structures and planted zones, poor water clarity (caused by standing on and walking in the substrate) and the depth of water combined with the size of the structure components made avoidance of the planted area impossible. The requirement to take down the exclosure structure in fall (and subsequently set it up in the spring) likely decreased the success of plants migrating outside of the structures because of the severe disturbance around the outside edges. 6.0 PROJECT SUMMARY During Year 1 of the Littoral Zone Restoration Research Project, a number of tasks were completed to provide a knowledge base for in-lake installation efforts. These included a literature search of previously-completed in-lake planting projects, techniques, and evaluations of success; review of treatment lakes to determine appropriate treatment locations; investigation of historic plant community structures within the treatment lakes; and public interaction in the form of public meetings at each of the four lakes and information handouts created for each lake association. A public meeting was held for Chapman Lake on May 19, 2007, for Crooked Lake on May 28, 2007, for Lake Wawasee on June 16, 2007, and for Lake Tippecanoe on July 14, 2007. Copies of the informational handouts provided at the public meetings can be found in Appendix I. The planting installation occurred during the week of June 18, 2007 and official monitoring was conducted the week of August 20th. Regular volunteer monitoring occurred until October. The structures were taken down in November of 2007 as per IDNR requirements. During Year 2 of the Littoral Zone Restoration Research Project all requirements of the contract and permits continued. The work included year 1 report submittal, structure set up in April, volunteer monitoring of the structures and occasional lake transparency measurements. Quarterly structure monitoring and maintenance by JFNew continued and annual plant monitoring was conducted during the same week of August as the previous year. Structures were dismantled in November as per IDNR requirements. During Year 3 a Year 2 report was drafted and submitted, the structures were reconstructed in April with improvements to outside netting and quarterly monitoring and maintenance by JFNew resumed. Volunteers checked the structures regularly; however, Secchi disk readings were not recorded. Final monitoring for plant success was conducted in early August and the structures were permanently removed during the first week of October. Presentations on the success of the project were given to the Crooked lake Association at their Memorial Day meeting and to the Tippecanoe Property owners association during their October meeting. The draft final report was submitted in late October.


Page 47 File #061055.00

Overall, survival of each plant species varied by treatment type within each of the four lakes. In 2007, the concrete donut treatment type was the most productive in terms of survival of planted individuals, followed closely by the wooden pallet treatment. These treatments were also the most productive in 2008, but more individuals were observed in the wooden pallet treatment in 2008 than were observed in the concrete donut treatment. By 2009 both structural components and their adjacent unplanted areas had the dominant number of individual plants, but the majority of the plants were volunteer species with the exception of eel grass. The direct planting treatment contained the third highest survival rates in 2007, but survival of planted species decreased dramatically in 2008 and only rebounded slightly in 2009. The survival rates observed in plants installed using the erosion control mat was similar to the direct planting effort. Only 1/3 of the individuals planted survived the first three months and while there was a steady increase to Year 3 in number of individuals, the community was dominated by eel grass. Data suggest that a structurally sound medium for planting results in better survival of planted individuals in two-three feet of water. This was consistent regardless of wave exposure. This project utilized small concrete donuts and wooden pallets to contain young plants. When the structures remained anchored to the bottom, they promoted the establishment of planted and volunteer individuals an order of magnitude more than the direct planting and coconut mat alone. The data also suggests that just providing an exclosure encourages volunteer species survival. Outside control areas remained constant from year to year while survival of volunteer and a few planted species within the structure continued to increase or remain constant. Establishing aquatic submergent, floating-leaved, and emergent vegetation in two to three feet of water continues to be a difficult matter. This project investigated five methods (including an unplanted exclosure) and utilized nine species of native plants in four different lakes within northern Indiana to determine if one or more methods would be feasible for larger scale planting projects. Species selection was based on plants that already existed or were know to have existed in each of the four lakes. In general, only one of the planted species we utilized (eel grass) might be considered successfully established at 3 of 4 sites. However, some success with a number of planted and volunteer native pondweeds was realized in 2 of the 4 lakes. Future work will focus on smaller portable exclosures that can be removed from the lake after the growing season without damaging the planting area and reducing the number of planted species to one or two at a time. 7.0 LITERATURE CITED Aquatic Control, Inc. 2005. Lake Tippecanoe Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan.

Prepared for Lake Tippecanoe Property Owners Association. Seymour, Indiana. Aquatic Control, Inc. 2006. Crooked Lake Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan-Draft.

Prepared for Crooked Lake Association. Seymour, Indiana.


Page 48 File #061055.00

Aquatic Control, Inc. 2006. Lake Tippecanoe Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan Update. Prepared for Lake Tippecanoe Property Owners Association. Seymour, Indiana.

Aquatic Control, Inc. 2007. Lake Tippecanoe Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan

Update-Draft. Prepared for Lake Tippecanoe Property Owners Association. Seymour, Indiana.

Barko, J.W. and R.M. Smart. 1986. Sediment-related mechanisms of growth limitation

in submersed macrophytes. Ecology 67(5): 1328-1340. Burdick, D., A. Mathieson, R. Grizzle, J. Adams, J. Greene, E. Hehre, H. Abeels, M.

Brodeur. 2004. South Mill Pond: Assessment and Mapping of Ecological Communities to Support Restoration in Portsmouth, NH. Center for Marine Biology, Jackson Estuarine Laboratory.

Chambers, P.A. and J. Kaliff. 1985. Depth distribution and biomass of submersed

aquatic macrophyte communities in relation to Secchi depth. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 42: 701-709.

Chittendon, F. 1956. RHS Dictionary of Plants plus Supplement. Update of 1951

comprehensive listing of species and how to grow them. Oxford University Press. Dick, G.O., R.M. Smart, and E.R. Gilliland. 2004a. Aquatic Vegetation Restoration in

Acadia Lake, Oklahoma: A Case Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center. ERDC/EL TR-04-7.

Dick, G.O., R.M. Smart, and J.K. Smith. 2004b. Aquatic Vegetation Restoration in

Cooper Lake, Texas: A Case Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center. ERDC/EL TR-04-5.

Dick, G.O. and R.M. Smart. 2004c. Aquatic Vegetation Restoration in El Dorado Lake,

Kansas: A Case Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center. ERDC/EL TR-04-6.

Fink, B. 2005. Fish Population Survey and Shoreline Fish Community at Lake

Wawasee. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Gleason, Henry A. and Arthur Cronquist. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern

United States and Adjacent Canada, Second Edition. 1991. New York Botanical Garden. New York.

Hawes, I., T. Riis, D. Sutherland, M. Flanagan. 2003. Physical constraints to aquatic

plant growth in New Zealand lakes. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 41: 44-52.


Page 49 File #061055.00

Hellsten, S., J. Riihimaki, E. Alasaarela, R. Keranen. 1996. Experimental revegetation

of the regulated lake Ontojarvi in northern Finland. Hydrobiologia 340: 339-343. Hudson, G. 1967. Lake Survey Report Crooked Lake, Steuben County. Department of

Natural Resources, Indianapolis, Indiana. Institute of Museum and Library Sciences. 2001. V-Plants: A virtual Herbarium of the

Chicago Region. http://www.vplants.org/plants/species/species.jsp?gid=32287 JFNew. 2000. Chapman Lakes Diagnostic Study. IDNR, Division of Soil Conservation,

Lake and River Enhancement Program, Indianapolis, Indiana. JFNew. 2007. Chapman Lakes Aquatic Plant Management Plan Update, 2006. IDNR,

Division of Fish and Wildlife, Lake and River Enhancement Program, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Kitchen, A. Monitoring Report for Wisconsin (1987-1999). U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Wisconsin Partners for Fish and Wildlife. Koch, E.W. 2001. Beyond light: Physical, geological, and geochemical parameters as

possible submersed aquatic vegetation habitat requirements. Estuaries 24(1): 1-17.

Koza, L.A. 2002. Crooked Lake, Steuben County Fish Management Report. Department

of Natural Resources, Indianapolis, Indiana. McGinty, D.J. 1964. Lake Survey Report Big Chapman Lake, Kosciusko County,

Indiana. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Indianapolis, Indiana. Middelboe, A.and S. Markager. 1997. Depth limits and minimum light requirements of

freshwater macrophytes. Freshwater Biology 37: 553-568. NRCS. No date. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation of the Chesapeake Bay. [web page]

Accessed: December 3, 2007. http://www.plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/mdpmcfs7167.pdf

NRCS. 1997. Interagency Riparian/Wetland Project. Wetland plant fact sheet: Common

threesquare (Scirpus pungens). [web page] Accessed: December 3, 2007. http://www.plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/idpmcrnscpup5fort.pdf

Pearson, J. 1986. Fish Survey Report, Lake Wawasee, Kosciusko County. Indiana

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Indianapolis, Indiana.


Page 50 File #061055.00

Pearson, J. 1991. Big Chapman Lake, Kosciusko County, Fish Population Survey. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Indianapolis, IN.

Pearson, J. 1995. Lake Tippecanoe, Kosciusko County, Fish Management Report.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Indianapolis, Indiana. Pearson, J. 1999. Big Chapman Lake, Kosciusko County, Fish Management Report.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Indianapolis, Indiana. Pearson, J. 2007. Lake Tippecanoe, Kosciusko County, Fish Management Report.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Indianapolis, Indiana. Peterson, R. 1973. Lake Survey Report, Crooked Lake, Steuben County. Department of

Natural Resources, Indianapolis, Indiana. Peterson, R. 1979. Lake Survey Report, Crooked Lake, Steuben County. Department of

Natural Resources, Indianapolis, Indiana. Shipman, S.T. 1975. Fish Management Report, Lake Wawasee, Kosciusko County.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Shipman, S.T. 1976. Big Chapman Lake, Kosciusko County, Fish Management

Report. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Indianapolis, Indiana. Shipman, S.T. 1977. Tippecanoe Lake, Kosciusko County, Fish Management Report.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Indianapolis, Indiana. Smart, R.M., G.O. Dick, and R.D. Doyle. 1998. Techniques for establishing native

aquatic plants. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management. 36: 44-49. Swink, F. and G. Wilhelm. 1994. Plants of the Chicago region. 4th Edition.

Indianapolis: Indiana Academy of Science. University of Florida Cooperative Extension Agency. 1999. Pontedaria cordata Fact

Sheet FPS-490. [web page] Accessed: December 3, 2007. http://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/shrubs/PONCORA.PDF

V3 Companies, Ltd. 2007. Draft Lake Wawasee Aquatic Plant Management Plan

Update. St. John, Indiana. Weisner, S.E.B. 1987. The relation between wave exposure and distribution of

emergent vegetation in a eutrophic lake. Freshwater Biology 18: 537-544. Weisner, S.E.B. 1991. Within-lake patterns in depth penetration of emergent

vegetation. Freshwater Biology 26: 133-142.

APPENDIX A:

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AQUATIC PLANT RESTORATION

LITTORAL ZONE RESTORATION RESEARCH

PROJECT 2007-2009

CROOKED, CHAPMAN, TIPPECANOE, AND WAWASEE LAKES

STEUBEN AND KOSCIUSKO COUNTIES, INDIANA

ANNOTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Growth Limitations/Factors to Consider Barko, J.W., M.S. Adams, and N.L. Clesceri. 1986. Environmental factors and their consideration in the management of submersed aquatic vegetation: A review. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management. 24: 1-10.

The paper summarizes the findings of a workshop in New York on submersed macrophytes. The authors list a variety of parameters affecting aquatic vegetation (light, temperature, nutrients, sediment, and inorganic carbon) and discuss how and to what extent each can affect aquatic vegetation growth. Generally, light and sediment were agreed to have the largest effects on growth, with carbon limiting growth in some lakes. Both light and sediment have direct effects but the actual reaction on plants depends on the species and other factors. Nutrients were discussed as being limiting only very rarely.

Barko, J.W. and R.M. Smart. 1986. Sediment-related mechanisms of growth limitation in submersed macrophytes. Ecology 67(5): 1328-1340.

A research paper studying the effects of sediment size and nutrient availability to growth of submergent plants. The study found that sandy sediments and sediments with high organic matter contents (mucks) had the lowest growth rates and aquatic plants grew best on medium-grain sized sediment.

Blindow, I. 1992. Long- and short-term dynamics of submerged macrophytes in two shallow eutrophic lakes. Freshwater Biology 28: 15-27.

This study presents the results of a study of areal coverage of vegetation in two lakes over a eight-year period. Light availability and water levels played the largest roles in determining general patterns of vegetation coverage. Specifically, large drawdowns and flooding events greatly reduced overall coverage. Smaller fluctuations had different effects on different species or types of vegetation depending on how much of a fluctuation occurred and at what time of the year it occurred. Community composition within the coverage fluctuated and seemed to depend on inter-species competition.

Budelsky, R.A., and S.M. Galatowitsch. 2000. Effects of water regime and competition on the establishment of a native sedge in restored wetlands. Journal of Applied Ecology. 37(6): 971-985.

The authors studied restoration of sedges in prairie pothole basins following restoration of hydrology. The researchers found that establishment during the first year after planting was the most critical component of the revegetation but that competition from invasives needed to be taken into account as well. It should be noted that many of their recommendations require the ability to adjust

water levels manually. The same principles can be applied, however, to site selection.

Chambers, P.A. and J. Kaliff. 1985. Depth distribution and biomass of submersed aquatic macrophyte communities in relation to Secchi depth. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 42: 701-709.

The authors attempted to develop a model to predict maximum growth depth for separate types of macrophytes. The authors were able to use light data to explain the depth distribution of various plant communities but found discrepancies in the amount of biomass production. The authors concluded that while light may determine where macrophytes can grow, other factors determine how productive they will be. Additionally, the many of the plants studied grew to the 10-20% light level, not as deep as the 1% light level, as is normally cited as the lower depth limit for macrophytes.

Cunningham, P. Personal Communication. February 15, 2007.

JFNew biologists talked to Paul Cunningham, Fisheries Policy Ecologist for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources about his experience with littoral zone enhancements/rehabilitations. He is a skeptic of trying to revegetate submergent plants since, in his experience, they will re-establish themselves on their own when the lake conditions are conducive to their growth. He said emergent vegetation may need some replanting since it does not expand as readily as submergents.

Koch, E.W. 2001. Beyond light: Physical, geological, and geochemical parameters as possible submersed aquatic vegetation habitat requirements. Estuaries 24(1): 1-17.

Koch summarizes the factors that can influence where submergent vegetation can establish itself. He cites wave action, sediment size and organic matter content, and nutrient availability as the key factors besides light that determine the distribution of submergents. Several technical equations are provided but are unnecessary if the general concepts are kept in mind.

Middelboe, A.and S. Markager. 1997. Depth limits and maximum light requirements of freshwater macrophytes. Freshwater Biology 37: 553-568.

The authors examined data from 153 lakes to study the maximum colonization depth for several types of submergent vegetation. They found that transparency did not always explain how deep submergent vegetation would grow. In lower transparency lakes, submergents could compensate for turbidity by growing longer shoots, inhibiting the role of transparency. In medium and high transparency lakes, the minimum colonization depth was related to transparency.

The type of vegetation also played a role in determining the colonization depth, with shallower minimum depths for plants with high biomass/surface area ratios.

Nienhuis, P.H., J.P. Bakker, A.P. Grootjans, R.D. Gulati, V.N. de Jonge. 2002. The state of the art of aquatic and semi-aquatic ecological restoration projects in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 478: 219-233.

A general article on ecological restoration. The authors present the basic guideline that impairing factors must be removed before restoration efforts can be successful. In lake ecosystems, the authors state that water quality must be improved to reduce the algal presence before vegetation can be established.

Riis, T. and B.J.F. Biggs. 2003. Hydrologic and hydraulic control of macrophyte establishment and performance in streams. Limnology and Oceanography 48(4): 1488-1497.

This study examined the effect of flooding and high-velocity currents on macrophytes in streams. The authors found that stable conditions (relatively few flood events) were necessary for plants to become established. Additionally, they found that sediment shifting, not stem breakage, were responsible for most of the mortality associated with flooding. While this study was performed in streams, these guidelines should be applied to lakes with wave action.

Weisner, S.E.B. 1987. The relation between wave exposure and distribution of emergent vegetation in a eutrophic lake. Freshwater Biology 18: 537-544.

The study examined how emergent plants expand in areas open to wave action and areas sheltered from waves. Vegetation in sheltered areas expanded into deeper zones slower than vegetation in exposed areas. The author examined biomass of Phragmites australis in both areas and found lower productivities in sheltered areas. He suggested that in sheltered areas, softer substrates may inhibit expansion.

Weisner, S.E.B. 1991. Within-lake patterns in depth penetration of emergent vegetation. Freshwater Biology 26: 133-142.

The author studied seven lakes in Sweden to determine the effect of wave exposure and substrate softness on the maximum depth of emergent vegetation. They expected to find an increase in maximum depth with increased wave exposure. The data supported their expectations but substrate softness was a better predictor of depth penetration. The authors concluded that anchoring to the substrate had a larger influence on vegetation than physical wave action.

Modeling/Design Studies Ballard, Jr., J.R. 1999. Determining and Mapping the Probability of Aquatic Plant Colonization. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Aquatic Plant Control Research Program. Vol. A-99-2.

A report summarizing a study characterizing where aquatic plants would be likely to colonize a pool in the Upper Mississippi River based on light availability, substrate condition, and proximity to source material. For each criteria, the pool was mapped with areas of favorable and unfavorable conditions delineated. A multiple regression analysis was used to develop a final map providing areas where aquatic plants would be likely to colonize.

Cho, H.J. and M.A. Poirrier. A model to estimate potential submersed aquatic vegetation habitat based on studies in Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Restoration Ecology. 13(4): 623-629.

The authors developed a model to determine potential restoration sites in the southeast coastal region. They collected data from nearby lakes on the shore slope, the maximum planting depth (based on light availability) and the minimum planting depth (based on water regime).

Chymko, N. (editor) Guideline for Wetland Establishment on Reclaimed Oil Sands Leases. Oil Sands Wetlands Working Group. Environment Alberta. ESD/LM/00-1 Pub No. T/517.

This paper gives recommendations for the revegetation of wetlands, primarily focusing on choosing the appropriate depth distributions for each species. It also addresses whether revegetation should be attempted since many created wetlands either revegetate without any planting or replace the planted vegetation with other species after a couple of years. The authors provide a list of guidelines on when planting is appropriate, such as: proximity to seed sources, hydrology, and vegetation type.

Hawes, I., T. Riis, D. Sutherland, M. Flanagan. 2003. Physical constraints to aquatic plant growth in New Zealand lakes. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 41: 44-52.

The authors attempted to develop a model to explain vegetation growth in lakes using data from lakes throughout New Zealand. They separated factors into those that determined variation in vegetation growth between lakes (water level fluctuation, water clarity) and those that determined variation in growth within a lake (wave action, slope). The authors were able to develop models for both types of variation but only the model for between-lake variation had any predictive power.

Schluter, C.A., and W.F. Godwin. Lake Griffin Fish Habitat Suitability Study. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual ESRI User Conference, San Diego, CA., 2003.

A GIS was used to determine where aquatic vegetation would be most likely to establish itself in Lake Griffin for fish habitat. The model considered light availability, disturbance, and sediment depth. Suitability was determined based on simple criteria: Whether sufficient light was available, whether there was no disturbance in the area more than 50% of the time, and there was no organic sediment in the area. Areas that met all three criteria were “ideal.” Areas that met the light and disturbance requirements but had a foot or less of organic sediment were “potential.” Areas that did not meet the light or disturbance criteria or had more than a foot of sediment were “not feasible.”

Techniques for Restoration Allen, H. 2001. Shoreline Erosion Control Plan. AllEnVironment Consulting, for Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Water Quality Programs Division.

This plan gives recommendations for the control of erosion along the shoreline of a reservoir in Oklahoma. The author recommends a variety of planting techniques, including vegetation alone, vegetation with a biolog breaker, and planting through erosion control mats. He does not provide data on any of the techniques but says that they have had success with each technique and provides recommendations for areas for each technique to be used.

Allen, H.A. and C.V. Klimas. 1986. Reservoir Shoreline Revegetation Guidelines. Technical Report E-86-13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

This report provides a general overview of how to plan, implement, and maintain a shoreline revegetation project in a reservoir. When planning, the authors recommend considering the substrate quality and water level fluctuations when choosing plant species and timing. Compared to most other reports, they place a great deal more emphasis on water level fluctuations. They recommend using it to base decisions on what to plant, when to plant it, and what type of plantings to use (how long of a stem). They also provide some information on using erosion control mats and alternative erosion control measures to vegetate eroded sections of the shore.

Eubanks, C.E. and D. Meadows. 2002. A Soil Bioengineering Guide for Streambank and Lakeshore Stabilization. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Technology and Development Program.

This guide gives basic information on a variety of techniques for erosion control measures. It focuses on structural techniques but includes sections on using

biologs as a breakwater for lakeshore plantings and using pre-vegetated erosion control mats.

Fischenich, C. 2001. Plant material selection and acquisition. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center Vicksburg, MS Environmental Lab. Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program. ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-33.

Fischenich gives general guidelines on choosing plants for riparian restoration projects. He recommends consulting a botanist familiar with the local vegetation and local areas that have been unaltered. Once a list of potential species is developed, the final selection should be made based on project goals and site-specific conditions.

Hellsten, S., J. Riihimaki, E. Alasaarela, R. Keranen. 1996. Experimental revegetation of the regulated lake Ontojarvi in northern Finland. Hydrobiologia 340: 339-343.

The researchers studied vegetation efforts on a lake where water levels had been raised, causing erosion along the shoreline. Six vegetation designs were tested: soil fertilization using peat, soil protection using an oat cover crop, fertilization and oat cover crop together, willow bundles, erosion control matting, and a control. Survival rate of planted vegetation was relative low, averaging 20% in the second year and the technique used made little difference.

Madsen, J. 1999. Point Intercept and Line Intercept Methods for Aquatic Plant Management. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Aquatic Plant Control Technical Note MI-02.

Madsen presents two methods to quantify the extent of plant expansion within an area. In the point-intercept method, observers establish a grid of points within the area, travel to each point, and list the species present. In the line-intercept method, transects are established with presence/absence of each species documented at specific intervals.

Smart, R.M., G.O. Dick, and R.D. Doyle. 1998. Techniques for establishing native aquatic plants. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management. 36: 44-49.

This paper presents a general approach to vegetating lake and reservoir shorelines and provides a case study where the approach was used. The authors propose planting founder colonies of vegetation rather than large areas of plantings with protection against herbivory to ensure survival. Within a few years, the authors expect expansion of the colonies to fill in the rest of the lake. This approach was tested in Lake Conroe in Texas. Survival rates were high (greater than 90%) and by October of the second growing season, the colonies had expanded to a mean colony diameter of 2.5 m.

Smart, R.M. and G.O. Dick. 1999. Propagation and Establishment of Aquatic Plants: A Handbook for Ecosystem Restoration Projects. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Technical Report A-99-4.

A general overview of restoration guidelines. The authors advise that site selection should be made based on light availability, protection from disturbance, and sediment texture. Species should be chosen based on what is native to the area and what will withstand the conditions in the lake. They recommend planting founder colonies prior to the growing season and implementing protective measures to prevent herbivory.

Case Studies Brouwer, E. and J.G.M. Roelofs. 2001. Degraded softwater lakes: Possibilities for restoration. Restoration Ecology. 9(2): 155-166.

The researchers studied 15 lakes in the Netherlands after restoration measures were implemented to improve water quality. Restoration measures typically involved removing sources of nutrients, adjustment of pH, and dredging of sediment. In all lakes, aquatic vegetation that had been historically present within the lake re-established within a few years after restoration.

Burdick, D., A. Mathieson, R. Grizzle, J. Adams, J. Greene, E. Hehre, H. Abeels, M. Brodeur. 2004. South Mill Pond: Assessment and Mapping of Ecological Communities to Support Restoration in Portsmouth, NH. Center for Marine Biology, Jackson Estuarine Laboratory.

South Mill Pond was the target of several restoration efforts, including elimination of combined sewer overflows, re-introduction of mussel species, and re-planting of salt marsh vegetation along the shores. Most planting sites did not establish themselves well, with coverages less than 10%. This likely occurred due to the continued presence of large amounts of algae in the pond.

Dick, G.O., R.M. Smart, and E.R. Gilliland. 2004. Aquatic Vegetation Restoration in Acadia Lake, Oklahoma: A Case Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center. ERDC/EL TR-04-7. Dick, G.O., R.M. Smart, and J.K. Smith. 2004. Aquatic Vegetation Restoration in Cooper Lake, Texas: A Case Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center. ERDC/EL TR-04-5. Dick, G.O. and R.M. Smart. 2004. Aquatic Vegetation Restoration in El Dorado Lake, Kansas: A Case Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center. ERDC/EL TR-04-6.

The US Army Corps of Engineers conducted three revegetation projects and documented the results. In all three cases, revegetation sites were chosen based on susceptibility to wave action, substrate quality, and light availability/shading. Species were chosen based on whether they were native to the area, whether they were invasive, and whether they could withstand the water level fluctuations of the lake. All planting areas were protected from herbivory by large-scale enclosures and small-scale fences, though the large-scale enclosures did not make a difference in survival rates. In general, the authors found sufficient growth and expansion after three years to call the projects a success, though only about half of the species planted successfully colonized each lake. One study included monitoring results five years after planting, two years after maintenance of exclusion fences ended. In that lake, many of the enclosures had been breached and vegetation had been eliminated from the area.

Eichler, L.W., R.T. Bombard, J.W. Sutherland, C.W. Boylen. 1995. Recolonization of the littoral zone by macrophytes following the removal of benthic barrier material. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management. 33: 51-54.

The authors studied the recolonization of lakes following the removal of bottom covers installed to remove Eurasian water milfoil. Recolonization occurred quickly within the lakes, with greater than 10 species growing at six of the seven sites. Percent cover was initially low but increased to between 20 and 40% the first year and approximately 60% the second year.

Jin, X., Q. Xu, and C. Yan. 2006. Restoration scheme for macrophytes in a hypertrophic water body, Wuli Lake, China. Lakes and Reservoirs: Research and Management 11: 21-27.

The authors propose a restoration program for Wuli Lake in China, which became impaired due to wastewater inputs from a nearby city. The authors examine the lake’s water quality, sediment, and water regime. They propose improving the water quality while planting several submergent, emergent, estuarine, and wetland zones.

Kitchen, A. Monitoring Report for Wisconsin (1987-1999). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wisconsin Partners for Fish and Wildlife.

Summary of results of monitoring from Partners for Fish and Wildlife program in Wisconsin. Overall, wetland restorations (which included littoral zone restorations, though a breakdown by percentages or number was not provided) were split relatively evenly between high, medium, and low vegetation quality, based on diversity and presence of invasive species. Sites in areas dominated by agriculture were more likely to fall in the low quality category while sites surrounded by other land uses were more likely to fall in the high quality category.

Kirschner, R. 2005. The Chicago Botanic Garden’s lake enhancement program. Lakeline Summer 2005: 14-19.

In 2000, the Chicago Botanic Garden began a program to restore six miles of shoreline along lakes within its boundaries. The program included both erosion control and revegetation efforts. In many of their plantings, the Garden used Geoweb, plastic webbing, and erosion control matting to protect the plants against erosion. The paper does not present any monitoring results but claims the program has been a success. Some practical considerations are also provided.

Larned, S.T., A.M. Suren, M. Flanagan, B.J.F. Biggs, T. Riis. 2006. Macrophytes in urban stream rehabilitation: Establishment, ecological effects, and public perception. 14(3): 429-440.

The authors undertook a planting of three submerged species in a stream in New Zealand. 3,000 plants were installed and 90% survival was observed. Cover was estimated at greater than 50% in the second growing season.

Lauridsen, T.L., H. Sandsten, and P.H. Moller. 2003. The restoration of a shallow lake by introducing Potamogeton spp.: The impact of waterfowl grazing. Lakes and Reservoirs: Research and Management 8: 177-187.

Water quality improvements had been made in a lake in Denmark but submerged vegetation did not re-establish itself. The authors undertook a series of enclosure studies to determine what factors were preventing growth. Plants within enclosures generally grew and expanded while unprotected plants were inhibited. Based on the size of holes in the enclosure material, the authors concluded that waterfowl had been the primary deterrent to vegetation establishment.

Nishihiro, J., M.A. Nishihiro, I. Washitani. 2006. Assessing the potential for recovery of lakeshore vegetation: Species richness of sediment propagule banks. Ecological Research. 21: 436-445.

A vegetation restoration project was undertaken at a lake in Japan at constructed littoral areas. Sediment dredged from other areas of the lake was spread over the new littoral zones to supply a seed and propagule bank. Vegetation established itself at the sites within one month with 180 different species observed in the first year. Only one year of monitoring was performed, however, so it was not shown that these results were sustainable.

Sharitz, R.R., G.R. Wein, K.W. McLeod, A.D. Lowrance, J.H. Singer. L-Lake Shoreline Wetlands. University of Georgia Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. http://www.uga.edu/srel/ESSite/LLWetland_restoration.htm.

L-Lake, a cooling reservoir was vegetated in 1987 to fulfill habitat requirements in the NPDES permit. Planted areas had greater percent cover and species richness than unplanted areas but areas were fairly similar after 10 years. Species survival was high for emergents (25 species survived out of 29 planted) but only two submergent species survived out of nine planted.

Undocumented Littoral Zone Restorations Many communities have used littoral zone revegetation to improve habitat or aesthetics at local lakes and ponds. Most of these projects included simple design plans utilizing plantings along the lake shore with some wave protection (usually biologs) and did not include any post-planting monitoring. It is difficult to gauge how successful these projects have been, therefore, though most of the publicized projects have cited the project as a success. Below is a listing of websites describing various aquatic revegetation projects. Newburgh Lake Restoration Plan –Michigan http://www.rougeriver.com/techtop/newburgh/plan.html Big Sandy Lake – Duluth, Minnesota http://horticulture.coafes.umn.edu/vd/h5015/96papers/mcfadden.htm Lake Conroe - Texas http://www.texs.com/lcra/ Lake Phalen – St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.stpaul.gov/depts/parks/environment/phalenrestoration.html Little Fresh Lake - Massachusetts http://www.cambridgema.gov/CWD/lfp_restoration.cfm Smithville Lake, Missouri http://www.mdc.mo.gov/conmag/2006/07/20.htm University of Minnesota – Galatowitsch research study – Get in contact to discuss some options? http://wrc.umn.edu/research/competitivegrants/2007galatowitsch.html Silver Lake – Rochester, Minnesota http://www.rochestermn.gov/departments/administration/pdf/geesesilverlakebufferfaqs.pdf Lindenhurst Lakes – Illinois http://www.lindenhurstil.org/lakescom/lake_management.htm

APPENDIX B:

HISTORIC AQUATIC PLANT SPECIES BY LAKE


CROOKED, CHAPMAN, TIPPECANOE,

AND WAWASEE LAKES


Crooked Lake Aquatic Plant List Abbreviation Scientific Name Common Name Stratum 1967* 1973 1979* 2002* 2006*

BRASCH Brasenia schreberi Water shield Emergent X X CERDEM Ceratophyllum demersum Coontail Submergent X X X CEPOCC Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Emergent X X CHARA Chara species Chara species Submergent X X X DECVER Decodon verticillatus Whirled loosestrife Emergent X X ELOCAN Elodea canadensis Common water weed Submergent X X X ELONUT Elodea nuttallii Nuttall's water weed Submergent X FILALG Filamentous algae Filamentous algae Algae X IRIPSE Iris pseudacorus Yellowflag iris Emergent X IRIVIR Iris virginica Blue-flag iris Emergent X JUNEFF Juncus effusus Soft rush Emergent X X X LEMMIN Lemna minor Common duckweed Floating X LYTSAL Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife Emergent X MYREXA Myriophyllum exalbescens Northern water milfoil Submergent X MYRHET Myriophyllum heterophyllum Various leaved watermilfoil Submergent X MYRSPI Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil Submergent X X MYRIOPHYLLUM Myriophyllum species Milfoil species Submergent X X X NAJFLE Najas flexilis Slender naiad Submergent X X X NAJGRA Najas gracillima Brittle naiad Submergent X NUPADV Nuphar advena Spatterdock Floating X X X X NUPVAR Nuphar variegatum Bullhead lily Floating X NYMTUB Nymphaea tuberosa White water lily Floating X X X X X PONCOR Pontederia cordata Pickerel weed Emergent X X X X POTAMP Potamogeton amplifolius Large-leaf pondweed Submergent X POTCRI Potamogeton crispus Curly leaf pondweed Submergent X X X X POTFOL Potamogeton foliosis Leafy pondweed Submergent X X POTGRA Potamogeton gramineus Grassy pondweed Submergent X X POTILL Potamogeton illinoensis Illinois pondweed Submergent X X POTNOD Potamogeton nodosus Long-leaf pondweed Submergent X POTPUS Potamogeton pusillus Small pondweed Submergent X X X POTRIC Potamogeton richardsonii Clasping-leaf pondweed Submergent X X POTROB Potamogeton robbinsii Robbin's pondweed Submergent X POTZOS Potamogeton zosteriformis Flat-stem pondweed Submergent X X X RANLON Ranunculus longirostris White water crowfoot Submergent X X SCIVAL Scirpus validus Softstem bulrush Emergent X STUPEC Stuckenia pectinata** Sago pondweed Submergent X X X X X TYPLAT Typha latifolia Broad leafed cattail Emergent X X X X X UTRVUL Utricularia vulgaris Common bladderwort Submergent X X X X X VALAME Valisneria americana Eel grass Submergent X X X WOLCOL Wolffia columbiana watermeal Floating X ZANPAL Zannichellia palustris Horned pondweed Submergent X ZOSDUB Zosterella dubia Water stargrass Submergent X *Plants were collected from all 3 basins. **Also known as Potamogeton pectinatus

Sources: Hudson, G. 1967. Lake Survey Report Crooked Lake, Steuben County. Department of Natural

Resources, Indianapolis, Indiana. Peterson, R. 1973. Lake Survey Report, Crooked Lake, Steuben County. Department of Natural

Resources, Indianapolis, Indiana. Peterson, R. 1979. Lake Survey Report, Crooked Lake, Steuben County. Department of Natural

Resources, Indianapolis, Indiana. (Survey performed in 1978) Koza, L.A. 2002. Crooked Lake, Steuben County Fish Management Report. Department of Natural

Resources, Indianapolis, Indiana. Aquatic Control, Inc. 2006. Crooked Lake Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan-Draft. Prepared

for Crooked Lake Association. Seymour, Indiana.

Chapman Lake Aquatic Plant List Abbreviation Scientific Name Common Name Stratum 1964 1976 1991 1999 2000 2007

ASCINC Asclepias incarnata Swamp milkweed Emergent X CERDEM Ceratophyllum demersum Coontail Submergent X X X X X CEPOCC Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Emergent X X CHARA Chara species Chara species Submergent X X X X CICBUL Cicuta bulbifera Bulbet-bearing water hemlock Emergent X CLAMAR Cladium mariscoides Twig rush Emergent X COROBL Cornus obliqua Blue-fruited dogwood Emergent X X CAREX Carex species Sedge species Emergent X DECVER Decodon verticillatus Whirled loosestrife Emergent X X X ELOCAN Elodea canadensis Common water weed Submergent X X FILALG Filamentous algae Filamentous algae Algae X X X X HETDUB Heteranthera dubia Water star grass Emergent X HIBPAL Hibiscus palustris Swamp rosemallow Emergent X HIBISCUS Hibiscus species Hibiscus species Emergent X IMPCAP Impatiens capensis Jewelweed Emergent X JUNEFF Juncus effusus Soft rush Emergent X JUSAME Justicia americana water willow Emergent X LEEORY Leersia oryzoides Rice cut grass Emergent X LEMMIO Lemna minor Common duckweed Floating X LEMNA Lemna species Duckweed species Floating X X LIPLAN Lippia lanceolata Fog fruit Emergent X LYTSAL Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife Emergent X MYREXA Myriophyllum exalbescens Northern watermilfoil Submergent X MYRHET Myriophyllum heterophyllum Two-leaf watermilfoil Submergent X MYRSPI Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil Submergent X X MYRIOPHYLLUM Myriophyllum species Milfoil species Submergent X X X X NAJFLE Najas flexilis Slender naiad, bushy pondweed Submergent X X X NAJGRA Najas gracillima Thread-like naiad Submergent X NAJGUA Najas guadalupensis Southern naiad Submergent X NAJMAR Najas marina Spiny naiad Submergent X NAJMIN Najas minor Brittle naiad Submergent X NAJAS Najas species Naiad species Submergent X NITELLA Nitella species Muskgrass species Submergent X NUPADV Nuphar advena Spatterdock Floating X X X X X X NUPVAR Nuphar variegatum Yellow pond lily Floating X NYMTUB Nymphaea tuberosa White water lily Floating X X X X X PHAARU Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Emergent X PONCOR Pontederia cordata Pickerel weed Emergent X X X X POTAMP Potamogeton amplifolius Large-leaf pondweed Submergent X X X POTCRI Potamogeton crispus Curly leaf pondweed Submergent X X X X X POTFOL Potamogeton foliosus Leafy pondweed Submergent X X X POTGRA Potamogeton gramineus Grassy pondweed Submergent X X POTILL Potamogeton illinoensis Illinois pondweed Submergent X X POTNAT Potamogeton natans Floating-leaf pondweed Submergent X

Abbreviation Scientific Name Common Name Stratum 1964 1976 1991 1999 2000 2007

POTNOD Potamogeton nodosus Long-leaf pondweed Submergent X POTPRA Potamogeton praelongus White-stem pondweed Submergent X POTPUS Potamogeton pusillus Small pondweed Submergent X POTZOS Potamogeton zosteriformus Flat-stem pondweed Submergent X SAGLAT Sagittaria latifolia Common arrowhead Emergent X X SCIACU Scirpus acutus Hardstem bulrush Emergent X SCIPUN Scirpus pungens Chairmaker’s rush Emergent X SCIVAL Scirpus validus Softstem bulrush Emergent X SCIRPUS Scirpus species Bulrush species Emergent X X X SOLDUL Solanum dulcamara Climbing nightshade Emergent X SPIPOL Spirodela polyrhiza Large duckweed Floating X STUPEC Stuckenia pectinatus** Sago pondweed Submergent X X X X X TYPANG Typha angustifolia Narrow-leaf cattail Emergent X TYPLAT Typha latifolia Braod-leaf cattail Emergent X X TYPHA Typha species Cattail species Emergent X X X X UTRGEM Utricularia geminiscapa Bog bladderwort Submergent X UTRVUL Utricularia vulgaris Common bladderwort Submergent X X VALAME Valisneria americana Eel grass Submergent X X X

**Also known as Potamogeton pectinatus Sources:

McGinty, D.J. 1964. Lake Survey Report Big Chapman Lake, Kosciusko County, Indiana. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Indianapolis, Indiana.

Shipman, S.T. 1976. Big Chapman Lake, Kosciusko County, Fish Management Report. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Indianapolis, Indiana.

Pearson, J. 1991. Big Chapman Lake, Kosciusko County, Fish Population Survey. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Indianapolis, IN.

Pearson, J. 1999. Big Chapman Lake, Kosciusko County, Fish Management Report. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Indianapolis, Indiana.

JFNew. 2000. Chapman Lakes Diagnostic Study. IDNR, Division of Soil Conservation, Lake and River Enhancement Program, Indianapolis, Indiana.

JFNew. 2007. Chapman Lakes Aquatic Plant Management Plan Update, 2006. IDNR, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Lake and River Enhancement Program, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Lake Tippecanoe Aquatic Plant List

Abbreviation Scientific Name Common Name Stratum 1977* 1995* 2002-2004 2005 2006

CERDEM Ceratophyllum demersum Coontail Submergent X X X X X CHARA Chara species Chara species Submergent X X X X DECVER Decodon verticillatus Whirled loosestrife Emergent X X X X X ELOCAN Elodea canadensis Common water weed Submergent X X X X FILALG Filamentous algae Filamentous algae Algae X HETDUB Heteranthera dubia Water star grass Submergent X X X LEMMIN Lemna minor Common duckweed Floating X LYTSAL Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife Emergent X X X X X MYREXA Myriophyllum exalbescens Northern water milfoil Submergent X X MYRHET Myriophyllum heterophyllum Various leaved watermilfoil Submergent X MYRSPI Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil Submergent X X X MYRVER Myriophyllum verticillatum Whorled watermilfoil Submergent X MYRIOPHYLLUM Myriophyllum species Milfoil species Submergent X X NAJFLE Najas flexilis Slender naiad Submergent X X X NAJGUA Najas guadalupensis Southern naiad Submergent X NELLUT Nelumbo lutea American lotus Floating X X X X X NUPADV Nuphar advena Spatterdock Floating X X X X X NYMTUB Numphaea tuberosa White water lily Floating X X X X X PELVIR Peltandra virginica Arrow arum Emergent X X X X PONCOR Pontederia cordata Pickerel weed Emergent X X X X POTAMP Potamogeton amplifolius Large-leaf pondweed Submergent X X POTCRI Potamogeton crispus Curly leaf pondweed Submergent X X X X X POTGRA Potamogeton gramineus Grassy pondweed Submergent X X POTILL Potamogeton illinoensis Illinois pondweed Submergent X X X POTPUS Potamogeton pusillus Small pondweed Submergent X POTRIC Potamogeton richardsonii Richardson pondweed Submergent X X X POTZOS Potamogeton zosteriformis Flat-stem pondweed Submergent X X X SAGLAT Sagittaria latifolia Common arrowhead Emergent X SCIRPUS Scirpus species Bulrush species Emergent X X X X X STUPEC Stukenia pectinata** Sago pondweed Submergent X X X X X TYPHA Typha species Cattail species Emergent X X X X X UTRVUL Utricularia vulgaris Common bladderwort Submergent X VALAME Valisneria americana Eel grass Submergent X X X WOLCOL Wolffia columbiana Watermeal Floating X ZANPAL Zannichellia palustris Horned pondweed Submergent X *Plants were collected in lakes chain **Also known as Potamogeton pectinatus

Sources:

Shipman, S.T. 1977. Tippecanoe Lake, Kosciusko County, Fish Management Report. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Indianapolis, Indiana. (Survey performed in 1976)

Pearson, J. 1995. Lake Tippecanoe, Kosciusko County, Fish Management Report. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Indianapolis, Indiana.

Aquatic Control, Inc. 2005. Lake Tippecanoe Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan. Prepared for Lake Tippecanoe Property Owners Association. Seymour, Indiana. (Surveys performed in 2002, 2003, and 2004)

Aquatic Control, Inc. 2006. Lake Tippecanoe Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan Update. Prepared for Lake Tippecanoe Property Owners Association. Seymour, Indiana. (Survey performed in 2005)

Aquatic Control, Inc. 2007. Lake Tippecanoe Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan Update-Draft. Prepared for Lake Tippecanoe Property Owners Association. Seymour, Indiana. (Survey performed in 2006)

Lake Wawasee Aquatic Plant List Abbreviation Scientific Name Common Name Stratum 1975 1986 2005a

2005b 2007

CEPOCC Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush Emergent X CERDEM Ceratophyllum demersum Coontail Submergent X X X X X CHARA Chara species Chara species Submergent X X X X X DECVER Decodon verticillatus Whirled loosestrife Emergent X ELOCAN Elodea canadensis Common water weed Submergent X X X X X FILALG Filamentous algae Filamentous algae Algae X X X X FONSP Fontinalis species water moss Submergent X HIBSP Hibiscus palustris Swamp rose mallow Emergent X X HYPNACEAE Hypnaceae A soft moss Submergent X JUSAME Justicia americana Water willow Emergent X X LEMMIN Lemna minor Common duckweed Floating X X LEMTRI Lemna trisulca Star duckweed Floating X LYTSAL Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife Emergent X X X MYREXA Myriophyllum exalbescens Northern water milfoil Submergent X X X MYRHET Myriophyllum heterophyllum Various leaved watermilfoil Submergent X X X MYRSPI Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil Submergent X X X MYRSP Myriophyllum species Milfoil species Submergent X X NAJFLE Najas flexilis Slender naiad Submergent X X NAJGUA Najas guadalupensis Southern naiad Submergent X X NAJMIN Najas minor Brittle naiad Submergent X NAJAS Najas species Naiad species Submergent X NITELLA Nitella species Nitella species Submergent X X X NUPADV Nuphar advena Spatterdock Floating X X X NUPVAR Nuphar variegatum Yellow pond lily Floating X NYMTUB Numphaea tuberosa White water lily Floating X X X X PELVIR Peltandra virginica Arrow arum Emergent X X X X POLAMP Polygonum amphibium Water smartweed Emergent X X PONCOR Pontederia cordata Pickerel weed Emergent X POTAMP Potamogeton amplifolius Large-leaf pondweed Submergent X X X POTCRI Potamogeton crispus Curly leaf pondweed Submergent X X X X X POTFOL Potamogeton foliosis Leafy pondweed Submergent X X X POTGRA Potamogeton gramineus Grassy pondweed Submergent X X X POTILL Potamogeton illinoensis Illinois pondweed Submergent X X X POTNAT Potamogeton natans Floating-leaf pondweed Submergent X X POTNOD Potamogeton nodosus Long-leaf pondweed Submergent X X POTPUS Potamogeton pusillus Small pondweed Submergent X X POTRIC Potamogeton richardsonii Richardson pondweed Submergent X X X POTZOS Potamogeton zosteriformis Flat-stem pondweed Submergent X X X SAGLAT Sagittaria latifolia Common arrowhead Emergent X X X X SCIACU Scirpus acutus Hard-stem bulrush Emergent X SCIRPUS Scirpus species Bulrush species Emergent X X STUPEC Stukenia pectinata** Sago pondweed Submergent X X X TYPANG Typha angustifolia Narrow leafed cattail Emergent X TYPHA Typha species Cattail species Emergent X X X

Abbreviation Scientific Name Common Name Stratum 1975 1986 2005a 2005b

2007

UTRVUL Utricularia vulgaris Common bladderwort Submergent X X X VALAME Valisneria americana Eel grass Submergent X X X ZANPAL Zannichellia palustris Horned pondweed Submergent X

**Also known as Potamogeton pectinatus

Sources: Shipman, S.T. 1975. Fish Management Report, Lake Wawasee, Kosciusko County. Indiana

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Indianapolis, Indiana. Pearson, J. 1986. Fish Survey Report, Lake Wawasee, Kosciusko County. Indiana Department of

Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Indianapolis, Indiana. (Survey performed in 1985)

Fink, B. 2005a. Fish Population Survey and Shoreline Fish Community at Lake Wawasee. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Indianapolis, Indiana. (Survey performed in 2004)

Aquatic Weed Control. 2005b. Lake Wawasee Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan. Syracuse, Indiana.

V3 Companies, Ltd. 2007. Draft Lake Wawasee Aquatic Plant Management Plan Update. St. John, Indiana. (Survey performed in 2006)

APPENDIX C:

LABORATORY SEDIMENT SAMPLING RESULTS



AND WAWASEE LAKES


APPENDIX D:

PERMIT APPLICATIONS



AND WAWASEE LAKES


APPENDIX E:

PRE-PLANTING PHOTOGRAPHS OF PLANTED SPECIES



AND WAWASEE LAKES


708 Roosevelt Road, Walkerton, IN 46574 Phone 574-586-3400 / Fax 574-586-3446

www.jfnew.com

Aquatic Plant Species: Pre-planting

JFNew #061055.00

Illinois pondweed (Potamogeton illinoensis).

Grassy pondweed (Potamogeton gramineus).


www.jfnew.com


JFNew #061055.00

Eel grass (Vallisneria americana).

Common waterweed (Elodea canadensis).


www.jfnew.com


JFNew #061055.00

Watershield (Brasenia shreberi).

White water lily (Nymphaea tuberosa).


www.jfnew.com


JFNew #061055.00

Hard-stem bulrush (Scirpus pungens).

Chairmaker’s rush (Scirpus acutus).


www.jfnew.com


JFNew #061055.00

Pickerel weed (Pontedaria cordata).

APPENDIX F:

TREATMENT DESIGN DRAWINGS



AND WAWASEE LAKES


APPENDIX G:

TREATMENT INSTALLATION PHOTOS



AND WAWASEE LAKES



www.jfnew.com


JFNew #061055.00

Planted concrete treatment (1 of 36 per treatment) prior to incubation period.

Planted concrete treatment prior to installation in the treatment at Chapman Lake.


www.jfnew.com


JFNew #061055.00

Wooden structure planting prior to incubation period. One set of four “crates” equals one treatment

Planted wooden treatment prior to installation in the treatment at Lake Wawasee.


www.jfnew.com


JFNew #061055.00

Coconut fabric planting prior to installation in Lake Tippecanoe.

Coconut fabric staking during installation at Lake Tippecanoe.

APPENDIX H:

MONITORING DATA SHEETS



AND WAWASEE LAKES


po

Waw

asee

Dat

eB

uoys

m

issi

ng?

PV

C

brok

en?

Enc

losu

re

gaps

?H

ealth

y pl

ants

?Tr

ansp

are

ncy

(ft)

Wor

k co

mpl

eted

6/21

/200

7N

NN

Y9.

5In

stal

latio

n7/

1/20

07N

NN

Y7/

6/20

07N

NN

Y4

7/15

/200

7N

NN

N4

Did

n't s

ee m

uch

pick

erel

wee

d, ju

st b

ullru

shes

7/31

/200

7N

NN

N7

Firs

t and

sec

ond

area

s do

ing

OK

. 5'

Sec

chi d

epth

at p

lant

ing

site

8/5/

2007

NN

NY

6.5

Pla

nts

heal

thy

in s

econ

d ar

ea8/

19/2

007

NN

NY

6P

lant

s he

alth

y in

sec

ond

and

third

are

as9/

9/20

07N

NN

Y7

Ver

y fe

w p

lant

s9/

23/2

007

NN

NY

18D

O =

89%

6/17

/200

8N

NN

Unk

now

nno

t tak

en6/

26/2

008

NN

NU

nkno

wn

9D

O @

3' 1

10%

- DO

@ 6

' 133

%

6/25

/200

8Y

NN

Som

eno

t tak

enS

turc

ture

was

in g

ood

cond

ition

and

no

repa

irs w

ere

need

ed. P

lant

s se

emed

to b

e do

ing

ok. M

issi

ng o

ne m

arke

r bou

y.

7/21

/200

8N

NN

Y5

3 gr

oups

of l

illy

pads

wes

tern

hal

f

7/21

/200

8N

NY

Y

Stru

ctur

e w

as in

poo

r sha

pe. H

ad to

do

exte

nsiv

e w

ork

to p

ut th

e w

ire

mes

h ba

ck u

p. M

ost o

f the

wire

mes

h w

as c

olla

psed

or t

orn.

Hav

e to

re

plac

e m

ost o

f the

wire

mes

h an

d a

corn

er o

f PV

C. P

lant

s no

ted,

whi

te

wat

er li

lly, p

ondw

eed.

Pic

kera

l wee

d. A

dditi

onal

ly, n

oted

hea

vy w

ave

actio

n fro

m b

oats

.

8/10

/200

8N

NN

Y6.

5P

lant

s ap

pear

to b

e he

alth

y in

sec

tions

2&

3. N

oted

eel

gra

ss w

as

float

ing

in th

e en

tire

stru

ctur

e.5/

1/20

095/

25/2

009

YN

NS

ome

no m

aint

enan

ce is

sues

. 1 li

lly g

row

ing,

oth

erw

ise

few

pla

nts

pres

ent

7/10

/200

9N

NN

few

pear

ed p

no m

aint

enan

ce is

sues

. 2 li

llies

gro

win

g, o

ther

wis

e fe

w p

lant

s pr

esen

t

Tipp

ecan

oe

Dat

eB

uoys

m

issi

ng?

PV

C

brok

en?

Enc

losu

re

gaps

?H

ealth

y pl

ants

?Tr

ansp

are

ncy

(ft)

Wor

k co

mpl

eted

6/19

/200

7N

NN

Yin

stal

latio

n7/

6/20

07N

NN

Y4.

67/

9/20

07N

NN

Y3

7/18

/200

7N

NN

Y4.

38/

4/20

07N

NN

Y8/

11/2

007

NN

NY

8/18

/200

7N

NN

Y8/

25/2

007

NN

NY

8/31

/200

7N

NN

Y7.

9

6/25

/200

8N

YN

som

e8

Mai

nena

nce:

stru

ctur

e w

as c

olla

psed

in th

e m

iddl

e du

e to

wei

ght o

f w

eeds

on

rails

. Add

ed a

mid

dle

pvc

pipe

to fi

x th

e pr

oble

m. R

epai

red

som

e T

conn

ecto

rs, p

icke

ral w

eed

seem

ed to

be

doin

g th

e be

st.

Abu

ndan

ce o

f veg

etat

ion

note

d.

7/21

/200

8N

NN

YM

aint

enan

ce- t

he s

truct

ure

was

in g

ood

shap

e an

d di

d no

t nee

d an

y w

ork.

Pic

kera

l wee

d w

as a

bund

ant.

4/30

/200

9S

prin

g in

stal

l

5/25

/200

9N

NN

NA

Mai

nten

ance

- no

mai

nten

qanc

e is

sues

. Litt

le to

no

plan

ts g

row

ing

in

stru

ctur

e.

5/30

/200

9N

NN

did

not

see

plan

tsno

t tak

en

6/6/

2009

NN

Ndi

d no

t se

e pl

ants

not t

aken

6/14

/200

9N

NN

can

not

see

plan

tsap

pear

ed

good

6/29

/200

9N

NN

Yap

pear

ed

good

en

7/6/

2009

NN

NY

appe

ared

no

t ver

y go

odno

ted

a ve

ry b

usy

wee

kend

on

the

lake

7/10

/200

9N

NN

som

eno

t tak

en

mai

nten

ance

- no

mai

nten

ance

issu

es. N

otic

ed s

ome

plan

ts g

row

ing

in

stru

ctur

e,bu

t diff

icul

t to

see

exac

tly w

hat d

ue to

dec

ayin

g fil

amen

tous

al

gae.

Lar

ge c

lum

p of

pic

kera

l wee

d th

at w

as p

rese

nt la

st y

ear i

s no

t pr

esen

t thi

s ye

ar.

7/13

/200

9N

NN

very

littl

e pl

ant l

ife

show

ing

appe

ared

no

t ver

y go

od

7/20

/200

9N

NN

no p

lant

s sh

owin

gH

eavy

boa

t tra

ffic

NN

Nry

few

pla

limite

d

Cro

oked

Dat

eB

uoys

m

issi

ng?

PV

C

brok

en?

Enc

losu

re

gaps

?H

ealth

y pl

ants

?Tr

ansp

are

ncy

(ft)

Wor

k co

mpl

eted

6/20

/200

7N

NN

Yin

stal

latio

n7/

1/20

07N

NN

YN

/A7/

15/2

007

NN

NY

8.6

Add

ed b

uoys

and

war

ning

tape

aro

und

encl

osur

e

7/20

/200

7N

NN

Y10

.1W

oode

n pa

late

s se

em to

be

stay

ing

in p

lace

8/2/

2007

NN

NY

8.1

plan

ts a

ppea

r hea

lthy

and

grow

ing

8/15

/200

7N

NN

Yn/

a

6/26

/200

8Y

YY

som

e7.

5

Mai

nten

ance

: The

stru

ctur

e w

as in

poo

r sha

pe. E

vide

nce

that

the

stru

ctur

e m

ay h

ave

mov

ed b

ecau

se b

ullru

shes

wer

e ou

tsid

e th

e ex

clos

ure.

A n

umbe

r of T

con

nect

ors

need

ed to

be

repl

aced

and

pvc

co

rner

pip

es re

plac

ed a

nd w

ire n

ettin

g ne

ed to

be

zipt

ied

in a

num

ber o

fsp

ots.

Cur

ly le

af p

ondw

eed

was

pre

sent

with

in th

e st

urct

ure.

Pla

nts

in

the

woo

den

palla

tes

wer

e do

ing

wel

l and

som

e bu

llrus

hes

wer

e in

goo

d sh

ape

that

wer

e st

aple

d

7/8/

2008

NN

NY

12P

lant

s do

n't a

ppea

r to

be a

s he

alth

y as

last

yea

r, fe

nce

layi

ng o

n th

e pl

antin

g ar

ea in

beg

inni

ng o

f yea

r pro

blab

ly d

id n

ot h

elp

7/14

/200

8N

NN

Y12

Pla

nts

are

appe

arin

g at

the

surfa

ce, b

ut n

ot a

s m

any

as la

s ye

ar

7/26

/200

9N

NN

no p

lant

sdi

scov

ery

of a

diff

eren

t sor

t.

7/31

/200

7N

NN

Y10

.4

som

e

Mai

nten

ance

- had

to z

ip ti

e so

me

gaps

in th

e w

ire m

esh.

Mos

t gap

s w

ere

at th

e po

sts.

Pla

nts

notic

ed w

ere

bulru

sh a

nd c

urly

leaf

pon

dwee

d.E

vide

nce

of d

ead

eel g

rass

and

som

e ot

her p

ondw

eed.

7/

21/2

008

NN

Y

Y

Don

't kn

ow if

it is

due

to th

e fr

amew

ork

keep

ing

boat

s aw

ay fr

om th

is a

rea,

but

th

ere

are

plan

ts st

artin

g to

exp

and

(not

from

test

are

a, b

ut n

atur

ally

) in

area

s 7/

21/2

008

NN

N8

near

the

test

site

.

5/1/

2009

NA

Sprin

g in

stall

Mai

nten

ance

- no

mai

nten

ance

issu

es. F

ew to

no

plan

ts g

row

ing

in

stru

ctur

e.

5/26

/200

9N

NN

none

vi

sabl

e at

5/

31/2

009

NN

Ntim

e

none

vi

sabl

e at

not t

aken

Mai

nten

ance

- no

mai

nten

ance

issu

es. F

ew to

no

plan

ts g

row

ing

in

7/10

/200

9N

NN

time

not t

aken

stru

ctur

e.

As

a si

de n

ote,

ther

e ar

e lit

eral

ly th

ousa

nds

of m

inno

ws

with

in th

e en

clos

ure

and

hund

reds

goi

ng in

and

out

thro

ugh

the

netti

ng.

I thi

nk

they

hav

e fo

und

a 's

afe'

hab

itat.

May

be w

e in

adve

rtent

ly m

ade

a

Big

C

hapm

anB

uoys

P

VC

E

nclo

sure

H

ealth

y C

hapm

anW

ork

com

plet

ed/N

otes

Tran

spar

eD

ate

mis

sing

?br

oken

?ga

ps?

plan

ts?

ncy

(ft)

6/18

/200

7N

NN

Yin

stal

latio

n7/

10/2

007

NN

NN

N/A

7/16

/200

7N

NN

Y9.

8

6/27

/200

9N

NN

N

8/6/

2007

NN

NY

8.6

8/14

/200

7N

NN

YP

lant

s lo

ok v

ery

heal

thy.

It's

bee

n qu

iet o

n th

e la

keTh

e pl

ants

in th

e bu

rlap

are

not d

oing

wel

l. O

nly

one

bulru

sh re

mai

ns.

8/27

/200

7N

NN

YE

very

thin

g el

se lo

oks

good

. 9/

29/2

007

NN

NY

Mai

nten

ance

- had

to re

pair

one

pvc

leg,

and

use

zip

ties

to fi

x ho

les

in

the

wire

net

ting,

but

for t

he m

ost p

art t

he s

truct

ure

was

in p

retty

goo

d 6/

25/2

008

YY

YY

7sh

ape

and

the

plan

ts s

eem

ed to

be

doin

g w

ell.

Mis

sing

one

buo

y 7/

21/2

008

NN

NY

?

Mai

nten

ance

- stu

rctu

re w

as in

goo

d sh

ape

for t

he m

ost p

art.

Had

to z

ip

tie s

ome

of th

e se

ams

on th

e w

ire m

esh.

Pla

nts

wer

e in

goo

d sh

ape.

P

lant

s no

ticed

wer

e po

ndw

eed,

pic

kera

l wee

ds, b

ulru

sh, e

el g

rass

. C

onsi

dere

d th

is s

ite to

be

doin

g th

e be

st. N

otic

ed a

cou

ple

smal

l sun

fish

in th

e ex

clos

ure

and

a tu

rtle

(bel

ieve

the

fish

are

getti

ng in

thro

ugh

the

7/21

/200

8N

NY

Yse

ams

at th

e po

sts)

. Cou

ld p

atch

the

seam

s w

/ mor

e w

ire m

esh

7/29

/200

8N

NN

Ypi

cker

al w

eed

and

reed

s ar

e he

alth

y, h

owev

er th

e ot

her p

lant

s ar

e de

ad8/

5/20

08N

NN

Y8/

12/2

008

NN

NY

note

d th

ere

was

ple

nty

of w

ave

actio

n th

e pr

evio

us w

eeke

nd, b

ut th

e 9/

1/20

08N

NN

Som

ewha

tpl

ants

stil

l see

med

to b

e at

tatc

hed

9/10

/200

8N

NN

N9/

21/2

008

NN

NY

wai

ting

for t

rans

pare

ncy

repo

rts4/

30/2

009

sprin

g in

stal

l M

aint

enan

ce-n

o m

aint

enan

ce is

sues

, jus

t add

ed a

few

zip

-ties

. Litt

le to

no

pla

nts

wer

e gr

owin

g in

stru

ctur

e. N

otic

ed s

ome

v. a

mer

ican

a an

d 5/

25/2

009

NN

Nna

pota

mo

from

pic

s.M

aint

enan

ce- n

o m

aint

enan

ce is

sues

. Ver

y fe

w p

lant

s gr

owin

g, o

nly

plan

ts th

at a

ppea

red

to b

e al

ive

wer

e on

e ne

w b

ullru

sh a

nd C

hara

on

the

lake

bot

tom

. Not

iced

dea

d po

ndw

eeds

and

eel

gra

ss. M

ost

pond

wee

ds w

ere

in th

e w

ood

crat

es, s

ome

eel g

rass

gro

win

g ou

t of

7/10

/200

9N

NN

Few

blan

ket (

notic

e in

pic

ture

s). A

ll an

d al

l litt

le p

lant

gro

wth

. 5/

28/2

009

NN

NN

6/4/

2009

NN

NN

6/13

/200

9N

NN

N6/

21/2

009

NN

NN

Littoral Zone Monitoring Data Sheet Lake: County: Date: Initials: General Site Notes:

Please answer each question below by highlighting the correct response.

1. Are the buoys missing? Yes No There should be 1 small one at each corner and 1 large one marking the area from the lake side.

a. If so, where: ______________________________________ 2. Are any of the PVC pipes broken? Yes No

a. If so, where: _______________________________________

3. Are there any gaps in the exclosure? Yes No a. If so, where: _______________________________________

4. Do the plants appear to be healthy? Yes No 5. What is the transparency in the deepest point of the lake? ________________

Submit completed report to Tom Estrem at [email protected]. Contact Tom directly if there are structural problems at 574.586.3400 or 574.229.8764.

mailto:[email protected]

APPENDIX I:

INFORMATION HANDOUTS



AND WAWASEE LAKES


P

lan

tin

g Te

chn

iqu

es (

con

t.)

Woo

den

pale

ttes

P

ale

tte

s p

ac

ke

d w

ith

soil

will

b

e p

lan

te

d w

it

h ve

geta

tion

a

nd

secu

red

to

the

lake

b

otto

m,

prov

idin

g a

st

ab

le

sub

stra

te

for

plan

ts t

o gr

ow

Cellu

lar

conc

rete

—Pl

ant

plug

s w

ill

be

plac

ed i

n a

narr

ow (

~1

inch

) co

ncre

te

ring

that

w

ill

anch

or

the

plug

an

d pr

even

t w

aves

fr

om

dist

urbi

ng

the

subs

trat

e ar

ound

the

plu

g

This

pam

phle

t w

as p

rodu

ced

by:

JFN

ew

70

8 R

oose

velt

Roa

d W

alke

rton

, In

dian

a 4

65

74

(5

74

) 5

86

-34

00

w

ww

.jfn

ew.c

om

If

you

hav

e an

y qu

esti

ons

rega

rdin

g th

e st

udy

or p

amph

let,

pl

ease

con

tact

JFN

ew.

Lit

tora

l Zon

e R

esto

rati

on P

roje

ct

Cha

pman

Lak

e K

osci

usko

Cou

nty,

Indi

ana

Plan

ting

Loca

tion

P

lan

tin

g Te

chn

iqu

es (

con

t.)

Woo

den

pale

ttes

P

ale

tte

s p

ac

ke

d w

ith

soil

will

be

p

lan

ted

wi

th

vege

tatio

n a

nd

secu

red

to

the

lake

b

ott

om

, p

rovi

din

g a

stab

le

sub

stra

te

for

plan

ts t

o gr

ow

Cellu

lar

conc

rete

—Pl

ant

plug

s w

ill

be

plac

ed i

n a

narr

ow (

~1

inch

) co

ncre

te

ring

that

w

ill

anch

or

the

plug

an

d pr

even

t w

aves

fr

om

dist

urbi

ng

the

subs

trat

e ar

ound

the

plu

g

This

pam

phle

t w

as p

rodu

ced

by:

JFN

ew

70

8 R

oose

velt

Roa

d W

alke

rton

, In

dian

a 4

65

74

(5

74

) 5

86

-34

00

w

ww

.jfn

ew.c

om

If

you

hav

e an

y qu

esti

ons

rega

rdin

g th

e st

udy

or p

amph

let,

pl

ease

con

tact

JFN

ew.

Lit

tora

l Zon

e R

esto

rati

on P

roje

ct

Cro

oked

Lak

e St

eube

n C

ount

y, In

dian

a

Afte

r pl

antin

g oc

curs

in m

id-J

une,

you

will

be

abl

e to

rec

ogni

ze t

he p

lant

ing

area

by

the

row

of

buoy

s an

d th

e ex

clus

ion

fenc

-in

g su

rrou

ndin

g th

e pl

ots.

P

lan

tin

g Te

chn

iqu

es (

con

t.)

Woo

den

pale

ttes

P

ale

tte

s p

ac

ke

d w

ith

soil

will

be

p

lan

ted

wi

th

vege

tatio

n a

nd

secu

red

to

the

lake

b

ott

om

, p

rovi

din

g a

stab

le

sub

stra

te

for

plan

ts t

o gr

ow

Cellu

lar

conc

rete

—Pl

ant

plug

s w

ill

be

plac

ed i

n a

narr

ow (

~1

inch

) co

ncre

te

ring

that

w

ill

anch

or

the

plug

an

d pr

even

t w

aves

fr

om

dist

urbi

ng

the

subs

trat

e ar

ound

the

plu

g

This

pam

phle

t w

as p

rodu

ced

by:

JFN

ew

70

8 R

oose

velt

Roa

d W

alke

rton

, In

dian

a 4

65

74

(5

74

) 5

86

-34

00

w

ww

.jfn

ew.c

om

If

you

hav

e an

y qu

esti

ons

rega

rdin

g th

e st

udy

or p

amph

let,

pl

ease

con

tact

JFN

ew.

Lit

tora

l Zon

e R

esto

rati

on P

roje

ct

Tipp

ecan

oe L

ake

Kos

cius

ko C

ount

y, In

dian

a

Afte

r pl

antin

g oc

curs

in m

id-J

une,

you

will

be

abl

e to

rec

ogni

ze t

he p

lant

ing

area

by

the

row

of

buoy

s an

d th

e ex

clus

ion

fenc

-in

g su

rrou

ndin

g th

e pl

ots.

P

lan

tin

g Te

chn

iqu

es (

con

t.)

Woo

den

pale

ttes

P

ale

tte

s p

ac

ke

d w

ith

soil

will

be

p

lan

ted

wi

th

vege

tatio

n a

nd

secu

red

to

the

lake

b

ott

om

, p

rovi

din

g a

stab

le

sub

stra

te

for

plan

ts t

o gr

ow

Cellu

lar

conc

rete

—Pl

ant

plug

s w

ill

be

plac

ed i

n a

narr

ow (

~1

inch

) co

ncre

te

ring

that

w

ill

anch

or

the

plug

an

d pr

even

t w

aves

fr

om

dist

urbi

ng

the

subs

trat

e ar

ound

the

plu

g

This

pam

phle

t w

as p

rodu

ced

by:

JFN

ew

70

8 R

oose

velt

Roa

d W

alke

rton

, In

dian

a 4

65

74

(5

74

) 5

86

-34

00

w

ww

.jfn

ew.c

om

If

you

hav

e an

y qu

esti

ons

rega

rdin

g th

e st

udy

or p

amph

let,

pl

ease

con

tact

JFN

ew.

Lit

tora

l Zon

e R

esto

rati

on P

roje

ct

Waw

asee

Lak

e K

osci

usko

Cou

nty,

Indi

ana

Afte

r pl

antin

g oc

curs

in m

id-J

une,

you

will

be

abl

e to

rec

ogni

ze t

he p

lant

ing

area

by

the

row

of

buoy

s an

d th

e ex

clus

ion

fenc

-in

g su

rrou

ndin

g th

e pl

ots.

Pro

ject

Goa

ls

Know

ledg

e of

ho

w

to

rest

ore

litto

ral

vege

tatio

n is

cur

rent

ly li

mite

d.

This

pro

-je

ct a

ims

to i

mpr

ove

the

body

of

know

l-ed

ge

in

this

ar

ea,

with

th

e fo

llow

ing

long

-ter

m g

oals

:

Crea

te a

n ar

ea o

f es

tabl

ishe

d na

tive

vege

tatio

n in

a s

mal

l are

a w

ithin

Ch

apm

an, C

rook

ed, T

ippe

cano

e, a

nd

Waw

asee

lake

s

Gai

n in

sigh

t in

to w

hat

has

caus

ed d

e-cl

ines

in n

ativ

e pl

ant

beds

in n

orth

ern

Indi

ana

D

eter

min

e th

e fe

asib

ility

and

eff

ec-

tiven

ess

of t

he f

our

trea

tmen

t te

ch-

niqu

es f

or u

se in

oth

er lo

catio

ns

In

crea

se

publ

ic a

war

enes

s of

litt

oral

zo

ne v

eget

atio

n an

d pr

omot

e lit

tora

l re

stor

atio

ns in

oth

er a

reas

and

lake

s

Pla

nti

ng

Tech

niq

ues

In

eac

h la

ke,

four

1 m

eter

by

1 m

eter

pl

ots

will

be

esta

blis

hed

usin

g fo

ur p

lant

-in

g te

chni

ques

:

Dire

ct P

lant

ing—

Plan

ts w

ill b

e pl

ante

d di

rect

ly i

nto

the

lake

bot

tom

with

out

any

stab

iliza

tion

mea

sure

s

Eros

ion

cont

rol b

lank

ets—

Plan

ts w

ill b

e pl

ante

d in

to c

ocon

ut f

iber

bla

nket

s to

pr

ovid

e su

bstr

ate

for

plan

t gr

owth

and

gr

eate

r st

abili

ty o

f th

e la

ke b

otto

m

Aqu

atic

Veg

etat

ion

Aq

uatic

veg

etat

ion

can

prov

ide

num

erou

s be

nefit

s, in

clud

ing:

Aest

hetic

s

Fish

and

wild

life

habi

tat

Sh

orel

ine

eros

ion

cont

rol

Im

prov

emen

ts t

o w

ater

qua

lity

His

toric

ally

, aq

uatic

ve

geta

tion

coul

d be

fo

und

grow

ing

in t

he li

ttor

al z

one

(sha

llow

w

ater

are

a) o

f m

ost

lake

s in

nor

ther

n In

di-

ana.

U

nfor

tuna

tely

, m

any

lake

s ha

ve lo

st

thei

r na

tive

vege

tatio

n co

mm

uniti

es d

ue

to w

ater

qua

lity

issu

es,

wav

e ac

tion,

her

-bi

vory

, an

d ex

pans

ion

of i

nvas

ive

aqua

tic

plan

ts.

Crooked, Chapman, Tippecanoe, and Wawasee Lakes Steuben … · 2010-08-05 · Littoral Zone...

Documents

Transcript of Crooked, Chapman, Tippecanoe, and Wawasee Lakes Steuben … · 2010-08-05 · Littoral Zone...