The State of Windover Lake, Warren County, New York and a Management Plan to Address Stakeholder Concerns

Jenna Leskovec

(with edits by W. N. Harman)

Occasional Paper No. 57 State University of New York College at Oneonta OCCASIONAL PAPERS PUBLISHED BY THE BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION

No. 1. The diet and feeding habits of the terrestrial stage of the common newt, Notophthalmus viridescens (Raf.). M.C. MacNamara, April 1976 No. 2. The relationship of age, growth and food habits to the relative success of the whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and the cisco (C. artedi) in Otsego Lake, New York. A.J. Newell, April 1976. No. 3. A basic limnology of Otsego Lake (Summary of research 1968-75). W. N. Harman and L. P. Sohacki, June 1976. No. 4. An ecology of the Unionidae of Otsego Lake with special references to the immature stages. G. P. Weir, November 1977. No. 5. A history and description of the Biological Field Station (1966-1977). W. N. Harman, November 1977. No. 6. The distribution and ecology of the aquatic molluscan fauna of the Black River drainage basin in northern New York. D. E Buckley, April 1977. No. 7. The fishes of Otsego Lake. R. C. MacWatters, May 1980. No. 8. The ecology of the aquatic macrophytes of Rat Cove, Otsego Lake, N.Y. F. A Vertucci, W. N. Harman and J. H. Peverly, December 1981. No. 9. Pictorial keys to the aquatic mollusks of the upper Susquehanna. W. N. Harman, April 1982. No. 10. The dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata: Anisoptera and Zygoptera) of Otsego County, New York with illustrated keys to the genera and species. L.S. House III, September 1982. No. 11. Some aspects of predator recognition and anti-predator behavior in the Black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus). A. Kevin Gleason, November 1982. No. 12. Mating, aggression, and cement gland development in the crayfish, Cambarus bartoni. Richard E. Thomas, Jr., February 1983. No. 13. The systematics and ecology of Najadicola ingens (Koenike 1896) (Acarina: Hydrachnida) in Otsego Lake, New York. Thomas Simmons, April 1983. No. 14. Hibernating bat populations in eastern New York State. Donald B. Clark, June 1983. No. 15. The fishes of Otsego Lake (2nd edition). R. C MacWatters, July 1983. No. 16. The effect of the internal seiche on zooplankton distribution in Lake Otsego. J. K. Hill, October 1983. No. 17. The potential use of wood as a supplemental energy source for Otsego County, New York: A preliminary examination. Edward M. Mathieu, February 1984. No. 18. Ecological determinants of distribution for several small mammals: A central New York perspective. Daniel Osenni, November 1984. No. 19. A self-guided tour of Goodyear Swamp Sanctuary. W. N. Harman and B. Higgins, February 1986. No. 20. The Chironomidae of Otsego Lake with keys to the immature stages of the subfamilies Tanypodinae and Diamesinae (Diptera). J. P. Fagnani and W. N. Harman, August 1987. No. 21. The aquatic invertebrates of Goodyear Swamp Sanctuary, Otsego Lake, Otsego County, New York. Robert J. Montione, April 1989. No. 22. The lake book: a guide to reducing water pollution at home. Otsego Lake Watershed Planning Report #1. W. N. Harman, March 1990. No. 23. A model land use plan for the Otsego Lake Watershed. Phase II: The chemical limnology and water quality of Otsego Lake, New York. Otsego Lake Watershed Planning Report Nos. 2a, 2b. T. J. Iannuzzi, January 1991. No. 24. The biology, invasion and control of the Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in North America. Otsego Lake Watershed Planning Report No. 3. Leann Maxwell, February 1992. No. 25. Biological Field Station safety and health manual. W. N. Harman, May 1997. No. 26. Quantitative analysis of periphyton biomass and identification of periphyton in the tributaries of Otsego Lake, NY in relation to selected environmental parameters. S. H. Komorosky, July 1994. No. 27. A limnological and biological survey of Weaver Lake, Herkimer County, New York. C.A. McArthur, August 1995. No. 28. Nested subsets of songbirds in Upstate New York woodlots. D. Dempsey, March 1996. No. 29. Hydrological and nutrient budgets for Otsego lake, N. Y. and relationships between land form/use and export rates of its sub -basins. M. F. Albright, L. P. Sohacki, W. N. Harman, June 1996. No. 30. The State of Otsego Lake 1936-1996. W. N. Harman, L. P. Sohacki, M. F. Albright, January 1997. No. 31. A self-guided tour of Goodyear Swamp Sanctuary. W. N. Harman and B. Higgins (Revised by J. Lopez),1998. No. 32. Alewives in Otsego Lake N. Y.: A comparison of their direct and indirect mechanisms of impact on transparency and Chlorophyll a. D. M. Warner, December 1999. No.33. Moe Pond limnology and fish population biology: An ecosystem approach. C. Mead McCoy, C. P. Madenjian, V. J. Adams, W. N. Harman, D. M. Warner, M. F. Albright and L. P. Sohacki, January 2000. No. 34. Trout movements on Delaware River System tail-waters in New York State. Scott D. Stanton, September 2000. No. 35. Geochemistry of surface and subsurface water flow in the Otsego lake basin, Otsego County New York. Andrew R. Fetterman, June 2001. No. 36 A fisheries survey of Peck Lake, Fulton County, New York. Laurie A. Trotta. June 2002. No. 37 Plans for the programmatic use and management of the State University of New York College at Oneonta Biological Field Station upland natural resources, Willard N. Harman. May 2003.

Continued inside back cover Annual Reports and Technical Reports published by the Biological Field Station are available at: http://www.oneonta.edu/academics/biofld/publications.asp

The State of Windover Lake, Warren County, New York and a Management Plan to Address Stakeholder Concerns

Jenna Leskovec

(with edits by W. N. Harman)

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

Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction & Background ...... 1 1.1 Purpose of the Lake & Watershed Plan ...... 1 1.2 History of Windover ...... 2 1.3 Watershed Characteristics ...... 3 1.3.1 Land Use & Cover ...... 5 1.3.2 Bedrock Geology ...... 6 1.3.3 Surficial Geology ...... 7 1.3.4 Soils ...... 8 1.3.5 Climate ...... 8 1.4 Economic Profile ...... 17 1.4.1 Watershed Demographics ...... 17 1.4.2 Watershed Infrastructure ...... 20 1.4.3 Tourism & Recreation ...... 21 Chapter 2. Limnological Characteristics ...... 23 2.1 Physical Limnology ...... 28 2.1.1 Morphology & Morphometry ...... 28 2.1.2 Bathymetry & Water Level ...... 29 2.1.3 Ice Cover ...... 31 2.1.4 Temperature & Thermal Conditions ...... 32 2.1.5 Light & Transparency ...... 34 2.1.7 Sedimentation ...... 36 2.2 Chemical Limnology ...... 37 2.2.1 pH & Alkalinity ...... 37 2.2.2 Specific Conductivity ...... 38 2.2.3 Dissolved Oxygen ...... 41 2.2.4 Nutrients ...... 42 2.3 Chlorophyll-a ...... 45 2.3.1 Trophic State Index...... 46 Chapter 3. Descriptive Ecology ...... 48 3.1 Aquatic Macrophytes ...... 48 3.1.1 Water Level Drawdown ...... 49 3.1.2 Aquatic Plant Rake Toss Surveys ...... 52 3.2 Phytoplankton & Zooplankton ...... 61 3.3 Wetland Description & Plant ID...... 62 3.4 The Fish Community ...... 68 3.5 Benthos & Other Wildlife ...... 70 Chapter 4. Lake and Watershed Opinion Surveys, 2015 ...... 72 4.1 Background Information ...... 72 4.2 Windover Stakeholder Survey 2015 Results ...... 72 4.2.1 Lake Use ...... 72 4.2.2 Stakeholder Concerns Regarding the Lake and Watershed ...... 76 4.3 Watershed Taxpayer Survey 2015 Results ...... 77 4.3.1. Watershed Use ...... 77 4.3.2 Environmental Quality Concerns ...... 78 Chapter 5. Windover Lake & Watershed Management Plan ...... 81 5.1 Management Plan Summary ...... 81

5.1.1 Introduction...... 81 5.2 Stakeholder Perceived Planning Priorities...... 81 5.3 Management Strategies ...... 82 5.3.1 Concern: Preserve Present Water Quality ...... 82 5.3.2 Concern: Aquatic Macrophyte (weed) and Algae Growth ...... 89 5.3.3 Concern: Fecal Pollution ...... 97 5.3.4 Concern: Sanitary (Septic) Waste ...... 98 5.3.5 Concern: Reduce Trespass ...... 101 5.3.6 Shallow Water Depth & Sedimentation Rate Management ...... 102 5.3.7 Concern: Runoff from Route 8 ...... 106 5.3.8 Prevention of Invasive Species Introduction ...... 109 5.4 Windover Lake Stakeholder & User Policy, 2016 ...... 113 References...... 115 Appendix A. Nutrient Concentrations ...... 119 Appendix B. Physiochemical Water Quality Data ...... 123 Appendix C. Stakeholder Survey ...... 125 Appendix D. Watershed Survey ...... 127 Appendix E. Vascular Plant Observations - Historic ...... 129 Appendix F. Rake Toss Points Used in Statistical Regression Analysis ...... 130

Chapter 1. Introduction & Background

Windover Lake is in northwestern Warren County, in the Hamlet of Bakers Mills, New York. The man-made lake is owned by the Windover Corporation (TWC) which along with a shoreline comprised entirely of private landowners calling the overall family ownership “Windover”. Public access is precluded. The Corporation oversees lake ownership and use via the families Lake Management Committee (LMC). The earliest family corporation was the Bischoff-Clarkson-Hudnut Corporation, formed in the early 1970’s (Hudnut, 2014).

Over 190 stakeholders are affiliated with the family corporation, although a board of directors and the lake management subcommittee are the main parties responsible for lake management (Hudnut, 2014). Windover Lake has been the subject of a long-term annual aquatic plant survey beginning in 1993, as well as water level drawdown at three-to-five year intervals since 1996. From 1999-2003, water quality data from the lake were collected through the Citizens Statewide Lake Assessment Program (CSLAP), in addition to the annual plant survey. Present challenges faced by the lake include excessive plant growth, as well as a lack of a comprehensive state of the lake report and plan for future management and direction.

In the fall of 2014, members of the LMC contacted the SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station regarding the Lake Management graduate student program. A SUNY Oneonta graduate student would collect data on the lake and assemble a comprehensive management plan for Windover Lake. The following text represents the data collected between the fall of 2014 and spring of 2016 and its analysis, along with a management plan that identifies and addresses key management issues. These issues were determined from a TWC stakeholder survey, historical data collected by the LMC and CSLAP, as well as open meetings with members of the TWC and LMC. The intent of this document is to establish the current state of the lake in terms of water quality and use, and present management options that seek to support and maintain the quality of Windover Lake and its watershed.

1.1 Purpose of the Lake & Watershed Plan

The lake and watershed management plan, as stated in the introduction, describes the present conditions of the lake in terms of water quality parameters, and attainable use of the lake, as well as a characterization of the surrounding watershed. Its intended purpose is to establish a comprehensive baseline for various chemical and physical water quality parameters, which, along with historical data, can be used for comparison and determination in future management decisions. Key management issues have been determined and are described within this document, along with appropriate management options that have been agreed upon by the LMC. The intended use of this document is for a lake association to understand the present state of the lake, understand the goals, and implement some or all of the management plan.

1

Figure 1. Original bathymetric map of Windover Lake, modified from Kretzer, 2006.

1.2 History of Windover

Windover shares a familiar backstory with many locales in the Adirondacks, belonging to a rich history of private hunting and fishing clubs. Dating back to the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, wealthy vacationers who frequently traveled to the Adirondacks began to buy up tens of thousands of acres of forested land and lakes. While some had pure intentions, such as protecting wild areas from the saw mill, others saw it as an opportunity to attract rich vacationers with fishing and hunting away from the development of towns and cities. While it cannot be said for certain that these motives and endeavors apply to the Hamlet of Bakers Mills, it was during this time of boom and bustle that Windover Lake was formed.

The land over which Windover Lake lies today originally belonged to the Ross family.

2 The earliest instance of the name Ross in the town of Johnsburg is 1798, when a Samuel Ross Jr. settled there. Although there is no known date for the acquisition of the land and the formation of the Ross family farm, an 1870 census record reportedly listed the property as farmland. Located just northwest of the Ross Farm, and about two miles up the same road, was the Chatiemac Club. Formed in in 1897, and located on Chatiemac Lake. Club members enjoyed fishing and hunting, as well as a clubhouse and several cottages. Two brothers from the Ross family who were involved in not only starting the Chatiemac Club, but also involved in its management and finances, set out to create their own fish and game club, at what is now Windover. The dam was built in a single year, 1916, to provide trout fishing for the new Ross Lake resort. Although the history from this point on is rich with characters, building projects and dam collapse, from this point onward, Windover Lake has existed in some form. Stakeholders from Windover have published a detailed family history entitled “An Adirondack Lake: A Dam, A Farm, and Two Families,” complete with newspaper clippings of the times and interviews with those old enough to remember Windover’s early days (Hudnut, 2014).

Historic sites within the Windover Lake watershed include the location of the Oregon tannery, one of the largest tanneries built in the Adirondack Park, which was built in 1877 and burned down in 1892 (Smith, 2013). The ruins of the Fox Lair estate, which belonged to Richard Hudnut, are located northeast of the tannery ruins. The estate was given to the New York State Police Athletic League in 1938, and eventually the state. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) burned the buildings in the 1970’s, in accordance with the Adirondack Park Agency’s Master Land Use and Development Plan, and the land was reclaimed as forest preserve (Adirondack Museum, 2007). Today, remnants of walkways, stairs, and foundations are all that remains (NYSDEC - DLF, 2005). Both historic sites are located off of Route 8, southwest of present-day Windover Lake. Although Bakers Mills no longer boasts of resorts, estates, sawmills and tanneries for which it was once known, Windover is a reminder of a rich and storied history.

1.3 Watershed Characteristics

Watershed characteristics include land use and cover data, bedrock and surficial geology, soils, and climate. These characteristics offer insight into those parameters that exist and influence the watershed, but that we may not be able to change in any useful or meaningful way. Land Use and Cover comprises that data which describes the way a parcel of land is used by man and characterized. Geological information, soils, and climate, above all other things, represent those influences we cannot change but have shaped the lake and watershed more than any other natural factor.

Methods

Land use and cover, geologic bedrock and surficial geology maps were created using Geographic Information System (GIS) software and GIS-compatible layer files from the National Land Cover Database, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the New York State U.S. Geologic Survey. These layer files can be seen in Figures 2 – 8, trimmed to the shape of the Windover Lake watershed. Soil maps and hydrologic interpretations were obtained using the Web Soil Survey tool, provided online by the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a product of the U.S.

3 Department of Agriculture. Figure 7 depicts the locations of dominant soil types, for which each labeled soil unit is named. The mapped units may include additional, unlabeled minor soil components; these are usually considered non-contrasting, or similar, to the dominant soil type (NRCS, 2016). The mapped soil units, their descriptions, and characteristics such as depth to water table and hydric status, are derived from observation and interpretation of the local and regional geology, landforms, relief, climate, and vegetation of the area (Figure 8, NRCS 2016).

Figure 2. Location of Windover Lake watershed within the six million acre Adirondack Park of New York State (data source: NYSDEC, APA GIS).

4 1.3.1 Land Use & Cover

Land use and cover data for the Windover Lake watershed was derived from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2011 dataset, which was made publicly available in December 2013 and is the most recent at the time of this writing (Homer, 2012). The NLCD provides descriptive data for the land surface at a 30-m resolution, with categories based on human impacts (degree of development, cropland, or urban settings) and environmental factors like percent of tree cover or open water (Homer, 2012). These categories can be seen in Table 1, along with the number of acres belonging to that category, and the percentage within the Windover Lake watershed. The data is visible on a map as individual 30-m pixels, based on interpretation of Landsat (land + satellite) imagery (Figure 3).

The lake watershed is largely forested, with over 90% of the land use and cover categories belonging to forest and woodland systems. Wetlands compose roughly 4% of the watershed, and open water makes up nearly 2% (Table 1). These categories are particularly noticeable in Figure 3, with developed areas and other human land use categories appearing quite out-numbered and hugging closely to the few roads in the watershed. It is important to note that the NLCD is considered most accurate at a regional or national level, as it represents broad classifications for which each pixel at a local level may not hold up to scrutiny (Homer, 2012). The lack of development is largely attributed to the presence of the Siamese Ponds Wilderness Area within the watershed, as well as a relatively low population in the Johnsburg – Bakers Mills area. New York State Adirondack Park Agency (APA) provides land classification data for the town of Johnsburg, to which the Hamlet of Bakers Mills belongs. Per the APA, over 50,000 acres out of 132,000 are classified as wilderness (Table 2). Rural and wild forest classifications make up another 56,000 acres. Like the breakdown of the Windover Lake watershed, the town of Johnsburg has far more forested and rural land than areas classified as human land use (Table 2).

Table 1. Land Use and Cover classification, ranked by number of acres, for the Windover Lake Watershed. (Data source: NLCD, 2011) . Land Use & Cover Type Acres Percent Deciduous forest 3,946 78.5% Conifer (evergreen) forest 601 12.0% Herbaceous wetlands 146 2.9% Open Water 97 1.9% Developed 94 1.9% Mixed deciduous/coniferous forest 67 1.3% Floodplain or riparian (wetlands) 53 1.1% Agriculture 12 0.2% Harvested forest 10 0.2% Bog or fen (wetlands) 1 0.0% Total 5,027

5 Table 2. Adirondack park land classification ranked by acreage statistics for the town of Johnsburg, Warren County, NY. (Data source: NYS APA Geographic Information System, March 2009) Land Classification Acres Wilderness 52,081 Rural Use 36,110 Wild Forest 20,779 Low Intensity 8,658 Resource Management 5,598 Intensive Use 3,757 Hamlet 1,900 Open Water 1,719 Moderate Intensity 644 Industrial Use 591 Primitive 2 Pending Classification 0 Total 132,198

1.3.2 Bedrock Geology

The Adirondack Park is known for its igneous rock, sometimes called the Adirondack Dome, which was shaped and eroded into the mountainous region it is today by glaciers over 10,000 years ago. Adirondack bedrock formed over 1 billion years ago, during the mid- Proterozoic eon, deep within the earth’s crust. It belongs to the much larger Canadian, or Precambrian, Shield, which extends north into Canada. Repeated periods of uplift since then have helped to shape and expose the dome of rock, most recently around 5 million years ago. The location of the Windover Lake watershed is no exception, containing several steep, granitic peaks that belong to the Siamese Ponds Wilderness Area today.

The bedrock geology in the Windover Lake watershed is composed of three major rock units, per the U.S. Geological Survey for bedrock in New York State. All three of the major rock units are from the middle of the Proterozoic eon, or the mesoproterozoic era, which encompasses rocks formed 1,000 to 1,600 million years ago (Walker et al., 2012). This timescale is consistent with nearly all other rocks originating in the Adirondack mountain region. The three major bedrock groups are described below, based on the map unit that is shown in Figure 5.

Hbg: This is biotite and/or hornblende granite gneiss. Gneiss is a metamorphic rock formed from either igneous or sedimentary parent material (USGS, 1999). A metamorphic rock is formed under various pressure and temperature conditions. The gneiss bedrock found here originated as igneous granite, a rock type mainly composed of quartz and feldspar minerals, and was subjected to temperature and pressure at some point in its long history. Biotite and hornblende are both commonly found in igneous and metamorphic rock types. Biotite is recognizable to most as a dark, reflective, and sheet-like mineral. Hornblende is a black mineral, usually appearing as small flecks in a rock but otherwise indistinguishable with the naked eye.

6 Other minor lithologies found within this map unit include paragneiss, metasedimentary rock, amphibolite, and migmatite. Paragneiss refers to a gneissic rock formed from sedimentary parent material (USGS, 1999). Metasedimentary rock is similarly described as sedimentary rock that displays evidence of having undergone metamorphic conditions; likely, it does not appear to have fully become a metamorphic rock. Amphibolite is a metamorphic rock composed mainly of amphibole and plagioclase feldspar minerals, but no quartz. Migmatite, in general, is a rock appearing to contain elements of both igneous and metamorphic rock.

Phgs: This unit is composed of charnockite and granitic and quartz syenite gneiss. Charnockite is a term used to describe an assemblage of rocks, usually metamorphic, with a high quartz and feldspar composition. It is also described by the U.S. Geological Survey as granulite, which is an even-sized, fine-grained metamorphic rock composed of quartz and feldspar. Granitic gneiss refers to a metamorphic rock containing silicate minerals, which may or may not still resemble granite. Syenite gneiss typically refers to a metamorphosed igneous intrusive rock, usually containing very little quartz. Referring to this as quartz syenite suggests it has a greater quartz component than one might expect. Mu - This unit is composed of undivided metasedimentary rock and related migmatite. As described in the Hbg unit, these rock types are wholly or partially composed of metamorphosed rock.

These three major rock units are considered crystalline; they are far less susceptible to dissolution by weathering and erosion than sedimentary rocks, such as carbonates and shales. Elements that may be released from the bedrock into the rest of the catchment area can be determined from the major mineral and rock types. In general, mafic, or darker-colored, rocks and minerals are usually high in iron and magnesium. Felsic, or lighter colored, rocks and minerals like quartz and feldspar are usually composed of silica, aluminum, and various levels of calcium, sodium, and potassium. These naturally occurring minerals may be detectable in surface water and stream and lake sediment, but are unlikely to be present at dangerous levels. The bedrock in this watershed is therefore likely having minimal influences on water quality.

1.3.3 Surficial Geology

Surficial geology refers to unconsolidated, or loose, materials that overlay the bedrock. Unconsolidated materials may consist of clay, silt, sand, gravel or cobbles, or some combination thereof. In the Adirondack region, these unconsolidated materials were likely deposited during the last glacial period. Source material may include local bedrock, such as the middle Proterozoic rocks of the Adirondacks, or it may have been carried from much further away by a glacier.

Determining the texture, thickness, and extent of the surficial geology in an area is useful for knowing where groundwater may accessible, placing a groundwater well, and measuring the extent of materials like sand and gravel for development or mining purposes. The surficial geology in the Windover Lake watershed consists of three major groups, Silt to Boulders, Gravel and/or Sand, and Bedrock (Figure 6). The component covering the most area is Silt to Boulders, meaning that the unconsolidated deposits range in size from silt to boulders. Gravel and/or Sand is found mainly along a section of Baker Brook near the junction of Edwards Hill Road and

7 Route 8. In the location of Eleventh Mountain, in the Siamese Ponds Wilderness, bedrock is exposed and so the surficial geology is classified as such.

1.3.4 Soils

The soils of Warren County are likely to be the result of glaciation, whether scoured from local bedrock or deposited in place by a retreating glacier. Many of the soils found in Warren County are formed from glacial till derived from granite and gneiss, both of which are major bedrock components within the Windover Lake watershed and the Adirondack Park as a whole (USDA, NRCS, 1989). A list of the soil units found in the Windover Lake watershed can be found in Table 3. The watershed is dominated by Hermon-type soils, which includes every unit beginning with the letter ‘H’ in Figure 7, although these vary by texture and slope. Hermon soils can be found on mountaintops, mountainsides, hilltops, and hillsides, within the watershed, and can be found at the highest elevations in Warren County, NY (USDA, NRCS, 1989).

Additional characteristics of Hermon soils, as well as the other major soil units found in the watershed, are described in Table 4. Characteristics of the predominant soil types within the Windover Lake watershed (data source: USDA-NRCS, 2015). Depth-to-water table is a significant feature when considering the location of wells and septic systems. Depth-to-bedrock, or the first impermeable layer, is significant in regards to subsurface infiltration of water. Shallow bedrock can be a problem when runoff and septic system effluent are not adequately filtered, resulting in a greater risk of contaminants reaching groundwater, a stream, or lake. The septic suitability ranking for the predominant soils in Table 4 indicates that nearly all are very limited; this may be due to the depth of the water table, permeability, or flooding frequency.

Soil types immediately surrounding Windover Lake, including Bice, Lyman, and Marlow soils, are typically well-drained (USDA, NRCS, 1989). Several soils within the watershed have a hydric rating, which is typically indicative of a soil formed under saturated, anaerobic conditions (Figure 8. Map of hydric ratings for each soil unit in the Windover Lake watershed (modified from USDA-NRCS, 2015). Hydric soils are one of the main characteristics used to identify wetlands, along with vegetation and hydrology.

1.3.5 Climate

Located in the northeastern United States, the Hamlet of Bakers Mills experiences cold winters and warm summers with the occasional hot days. January is on average the coldest month, and July the warmest. The January mean temperature is 19 F, an average high of 29 F and average low of 8 F. The record low temperature of -35 F occurred in January 1994. The July mean temperature is 69o F, with an average high of 81o F and low of 57o F. The record high temperature of 100o F occurred in July 1988 (weather.com).

Precipitation occurs regularly throughout the year, with most months receiving around three inches of rain. Average July precipitation is 4.1 inches, and January receives 2.9 inches (weather.com).

8 Recently recorded freeze dates can be used to interpret the length of the growing season, which is the time between the first and the last freeze in a year. In 2013, the most recent year with a record, the latest freeze was 13 May 2013, and the earliest freeze was 29 September 2013. The growing season for 2013 was therefore about 139 days. The record latest freeze on 1 June 2009 and the earliest recorded freeze occurred on 29 August 1982.

For 2011-2015, the total annual precipitation is 36.8 inches on average. Approximately 50 percent of the total annual precipitation falls in the period between April and September (weather.com).

9

Figure 3. Land Use and Cover categories within the Windover Lake watershed (data source: NLCD, 2011).

10

Figure 4. Map of DEC Lands – Siamese Pond Wilderness Area, within the Windover Lake Watershed (data source: NYSDEC, rev. 2016).

11

Figure 5. Map of bedrock geology in the Windover Lake watershed (data source: NYSDEC, 2013).

12

Figure 6. Map of surficial geology in the Windover Lake watershed (data source: NYSDEC, 2013).

13

Figure 7. Map of soil units in the Windover Lake watershed (data source: NYSDEC, 2013; USDANRCS, 2015).

14

Figure 8. Map of hydric ratings for each soil unit in the Windover Lake watershed (modified from USDANRCS, 2015).

15

Table 3. Soil units present in the Windover Lake watershed. 0% represents areas less than 3 acres (data source: USDA-NRCS, 2015). Soil Unit Symbol Soil Name Percent of Watershed BcC, BdC, BdE Bice 1.2% BeC Bice - Woodstock 0.4% Cg Cathro and Greenwood Mucks 0.0% Fu Fluvaquents - Udifluvents 1.4% HeC, HmC Hermon 72.3% HmC, HmE Hermon-Lyman-Rock 10.9% HpA, HpC, HpE Hinckley-Plainfield 6.1% LmC, LmE Lymman-Rock 1.0% LyA Lyme 0.2% MrC, MrE Marlow 4.1% Sa Sapirist and Aquepts 0.0% ScB, SdB Schroon 0.6% W Water 1.8%

Table 4. Characteristics of the predominant soil types within the Windover Lake watershed (data source: USDA-NRCS, 2015). Percent of Depth to water Depth to bedrock Soil Name Septic Suitability watershed table (in) (in) Hermon 72.3 >80 >80 Very limited Hermon-Lyman 10.9 >80 >80 Very limited Hinckley- 6.1 >80 >80 Very limited Plainfield Somewhat – Very Marlow 4.1 24-36 18-36 limited

16 Table 5. Temperature and Precipitation data for record years 1964, 1983, and for recent years 2011-2015. Boxes with a single dash represent no recorded data (data source: Glens Falls, Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport (KGFL) weather station, weather.gov. Accessed 23 August 2016).

Temperature Precipitation

Average Average Average Annual Annual Daily Heavy Snow Light Snow Year Total (in.) Daily Max Daily Min Daily Max Min Avg. (in.) (days) (days) 1964 - - - - - 21.76 - - - 1983 - - - - - 54.4 - - - 2011 57.6 36.3 46.9 99 -30 46.9 0.13 - - 2012 59.6 37.7 48.7 96 -6 34.76 0.1 2 40 2013 56.7 34.9 45.8 94 -18 35.23 0.1 4 63 2014 55.8 34.2 45 91 -25 36.43 0.1 - - 2015 57.7 34.9 46.3 92 -27 31.02 0.08 - -

1.4 Economic Profile

The value in understanding the economic profile of a community that otherwise has no influence on a private lake, is in that it belongs to the same community and thereby helps us to understand the actions and views of our neighbors. Although the surrounding population will likely never use Windover Lake, there is still potential for landowners upstream of the lake to have influence on water quality and the surrounding environment (See 5.3.1, Option 5). Census data was used to better understand the number of individuals impacting the watershed. Income and occupation data was summarized here to better demonstrate how the surrounding community may differ from the rest of New York State, and from those who may reside in the area seasonally, due to summer and winter tourism.

1.4.1 Watershed Demographics

Population

Much of the watershed falls within the hamlet of Bakers Mills, which is located centrally in the town of Johnsburg, in Warren County. According to the 2010 National Census, Johnsburg had a population of 2,395 people, and a median age of 46.8 years. Estimates for 2014, from the U.S. Census Bureau, foresaw a decrease in the town’s population, down to 1,773 ± 249 individuals. It also estimated an increase in median age, up to 51.1 years. Population dynamics in both the town of Johnsburg and Warren County are shown in Table 6.

Johnsburg is the largest town in Warren County, and Bakers Mills is only one hamlet out of nearly ten other hamlets and settlements making up the town. The population density is low, about twelve people per square mile, for a total area just over 200 square miles. By comparison, Warren County as whole covers 932 square miles and had a population density of 75.8 people per square mile, per the 2010 census. One would expect there to be a difference in population density between the half of Warren County within the Adirondack Park, and the half outside of

17 the Blue Line. Typically, towns within the Adirondack Park have lower population densities due to large wilderness areas, and stricter zoning laws.

Employment & Labor Force by Occupation

Employment data for Warren County, relative to the rest of New York State, and the United States, suggests that this county’s unemployment rate is consistent with the state and federal levels. Per NYS Department of Labor estimates for the town of Johnsburg, there were 809 individuals in the civilian labor force, and 718 employed. The unemployment rate would be 11%. Individuals who are not counted as part of the work force are typically those who are retired, students, children and family members who stay home to care for them, and those who are not working nor seeking work. Unemployed individuals would therefore be those who are part of the work force and are seeking work.

Labor Force by Occupation is a category presented in U.S. Census data, and groups those who are employed by five large occupation categories. This category was included for both the town of Johnsburg and Warren County, for comparison.

Income

Out of 743 households in the town of Johnsburg, the estimated majority income bracket across all groups was $50,000 to $74,999 in 2014 (Table 1.4.4) (U.S. Census Bureau). The median income was $43,646, and the mean income was $47,505. For family households, the majority income bracket remained the same, and median and mean income increased to $51,953 and $57,016, respectively. For non-family households, the majority income bracket was $10,000 to $14,999, followed closely by the next highest bracket. The median income was $20,476 and the mean income was $28,980.

Table 6. Population comparison for the town of Johnsburg, NY, relative to Warren County, for the 2000 and 2010 census, and a 2015 population estimate. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010- 2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

Municipality 2000 2010 2015 est. 2000-2010 2010-2015 2000-2015 Pop. (#) Pop. (#) Pop. (#) Change (%) Change (%) Change (%) Warren County 63,303 65,707 64,688 3.8 -1.6 2.2 Town of 2,450 2,395 1,773* -2.2 -26.0 -27.6 *Johnsburg 2015 estimate only. Based off 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, error is ± 249

18 Table 7. Warren County, New York State, and National employment data. Numbers in thousands. Source: NYS Department of Labor, U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

Employed Unemployed Unemployment Rate (%)

May May May May May May County 2016 2015 Net∆ 2016 2015 Net∆ 2016 Net∆ 2015 Warren 30.9 30.9 -0.0 1.4 1.7 -0.2 4.4 5.2 -0.8

NYS 9,234.7 9,191.9 +42.8 406.6 517.6 -111.0 4.2 5.3 -1.1

USA 151,594 149,349 +2,245 7,207 8,370 -1,163 4.5 5.3 -0.8

Johnsburg 718* 91* 11** * 2014 American Community Survey estimate, numbers as they appear. ** 2014 American Community Survey estimate, for Civilian Labor Force total of 809 individuals

Table 8. Labor Force by Occupation in the town of Johnsburg, and Warren County, NY. The percent column shows how much each occupation category contributes to the town or county. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

Town of Johnsburg Warren County Occupation Number Percent Number Percent Civilian employed pop. 16 years and over (Total) 718 100% 31,794 100% Management, business, science, and arts occupations 185 25.8% 11,228 35.3% Service occupations 184 25.6% 6,149 19.3% Sales and office occupations 121 16.9% 7,974 25.1% Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occ. 121 16.9% 2,911 9.2% Production, transportation, and material moving occ. 107 14.9% 3,532 11.1%

19 Table 9. Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2014 inflation-adjusted dollars), for the town of Johnsburg, Warren County, NY. Margin of Error (MoE) accounts for error associated with these projected estimates. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5- Year Estimates. Town of Johnsburg, Warren County, New York Households Families Non-family households Income Estimate MoE Estimate MoE Estimate MoE Total 743 ±93 467 ±80 276 ±65 Less than $10,000 7.1% ±4.7 11.3% ±8.2 6.9% ±5.8 $10,000 - $14,999 12.8% ±6.2 4.3% ±4.3 27.2% ±13.6 $15,000 - $24,999 14.1% ±6.0 4.3% ±3.8 23.9% ±11.6 $25,000 - $34,999 9.2% ±5.5 7.5% ±5.6 12.0% ±10.5 $35,000 - $49,999 14.4% ±6.3 19.9% ±7.7 9.4% ±8.4 $50,000 - $74,999 24.1% ±8.8 24.8% ±11.8 18.5% ±9.7 $75,000 - $99,999 12.0% ±5.1 17.8% ±7.7 2.2% ±3.3 $100,000 - $149,999 4.2% ±2.8 6.6% ±4.4 0.0% ±10.3 $150,000 - $199,999 2.2% ±1.9 3.4% ±3.1 0.0% ±10.3 $200,000 or more 0.0% ±4.0 0.0% ±6.2 0.0% ±10.3 Median income ($) 43,646 ±14,231 51,953 ±5,957 20,476 ±5,091 Mean income ($) 47,505 ±5,632 57,016 ±7,959 28,980 ±5,576

1.4.2 Watershed Infrastructure

Per the 2010 U.S. Census, there were 1,842 total housing units in the town of Johnsburg. There were 996 total occupied households in 2010, of which 646 were family households, and 350 were non-family households. Of the occupied housing units, 762 were owner-occupied (76.5%), and 234 were renter-occupied (23.5%).

The remaining 846 housing units, out of the 1,842 total, were vacant. This category is subdivided into houses that are available for rent, rented but not occupied, for sale only, sold but not occupied, for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use, or for migratory workers. Of these sub-categories, 691 housing units were classified as being for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. This is likely due in large part to the location of Gore Mountain State Ski Center, in the hamlet of North Creek, which is a major winter tourism destination. Housing units were estimated to increase, up to 1,940 ± 56, by 2014.

Water infrastructure within the watershed is private, meaning most or all residential homes have wells. The nearby hamlet of North Creek has a public water district, sourced from three local wells, which provide treated water to over 1,100 residents (Town of Johnsburg, 2014). This is likely possible due to the density of development in this hamlet, compared to Bakers Mills. Sewer infrastructure within the watershed is private, meaning most or all residential homes have private septic tanks.

20

1.4.3 Tourism & Recreation

Fishing, hiking, skiing, and hunting are the main tourism and recreational draws for the town of Johnsburg. The lands and people within the Windover Lake watershed benefit indirectly from these activities, mainly in economic terms. Route 8, which passes through the watershed and along Windover Lake, is a major connection to parts of the southern Adirondacks, including the Great Sacandaga Lake area and Speculator, NY (See 5.3.8). Benefits to the town of Johnsburg and lesser communities include the use of restaurants, shops, and other businesses, as motorists pass through.

Fishing

Windover Lake does not qualify as navigable waters, as the bed of the lake is entirely privately owned, and therefore the fishing rights belong solely to the landowners. Many waterways in New York State allow public access even when the waterway passes through public lands, because of the potential for the waterway to support trade or travel. Public fishing rights (PFR) and fishing easements often exist on rivers and streams, and cannot be contested by the landowner (NYSDEC, 2011). Hypothetically, this may have applied to both Baker Brook, and later, the newly flooded Windover Lake, in the early 20th century during an era of logging and local grist mills. Today, however, much of the lake bed, 86.61 acres, is a single tax parcel, considered underwater land. The remainder of the lake bed is divided into tax parcels that otherwise extend upland of the shoreline. Windover Lake and the surrounding tax parcels belong to stakeholders and family members who are allowed lake access. The remaining population of the watershed have no lake rights.

The nearest PFR Locations are outside of the watershed, and include downstream of the lake along Baker Brook, and along North Creek. PFR’s on Baker Brook begin on the north side of Peaceful Valley Road (County Route 29) in the Hamlet of Sodom, and extend until the brook crosses Back-To-Sodom Road. PFR’s are also located on sections of North Creek, along the edge of the Gore Mountain State Ski Center property (NYSDEC, 2014). Gore Mountain State Ski Center is state land and fishing opportunities are open to the public.

Other public fishing locations include Second Pond, a 46-acre pond accessible by a two mile trail near the end of Chatiemac Road. Chatiemac Lake itself is privately owned, and is located at the end of the road. The Second Pond trailhead and roadside parking is located along the road just before the Chatiemac Club property. Chatiemac Lake and surrounding land is mentioned in the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan (APSLMP) in that should the state ever acquire this land, it would be added to the Siamese Pond Wilderness and the road abandoned (APA, 2014).

Hiking & Skiing

Within the watershed, there are three main access points to the Siamese Ponds Wilderness Area. The largest is the Eleventh Mountain trailhead, located along Route 8, approximately four miles west of Bakers Mills (NYSDEC - DLF, 2005). The Eleventh Mountain

21 trail provides “outstanding vistas,” and most users take this trail to either the Siamese Ponds or the East Branch of the Sacandaga River (NYSDEC - DLF, 2005). Edward Hill Road in Bakers Mills provides access to the Bog Meadow Trail. This trail is unmarked and undesignated, and appears to receive moderate use by hikers, horseback riders, and skiers. Finally, the Second Pond trailhead along Chatiemac Road, serves as hiker access to the Second Pond Trail and Second Pond.

In addition to cross-country and backcountry skiing opportunities on hiking trails, Gore Mountain State Ski Center provides downhill skiing and snowboarding opportunities. Gore Mountain is outside of the watershed, but many of its’ ski trails are visible from Windover Lake. The ski center itself is classified as an intensive use area; cross country and backcountry skiers may leave the designated trails at Gore Mountain and access the Siamese Ponds Wilderness area, which abuts the ski center (NYSDEC - DLF, 2005).Gore Mountain is an economic boon for the local area, providing seasonal jobs as well as bolstering the nearby hamlet of North Creek as a tourist destination, and leading to development throughout the town of Johnsburg.

Hunting

According to the Siamese Ponds Wilderness Unit Management Plan, the majority of the area is not used by hunters because of rough terrain and limited access (NYSDEC - DLF, 2005). The Second Pond trailhead along Chatiemac Road is noted as one access point taken by hunters.

22 Chapter 2. Limnological Characteristics

Limnological characteristics encompass all chemical, physical, and otherwise descriptive terms and measurements used to describe a lake. Limnological parameters can provide insight into lake processes, and over time, show the trajectory of lake “health.” Windover Lake belonged to the Citizen Statewide Lake Assessment Program (CSLAP) from 1999 – 2003, a program responsible for providing long-term water quality data in New York State. Although no longer enrolled in this program, CSLAP data has been used as a baseline comparison for all data collected by the SUNY Oneonta Biological field station, beginning in October 2014. From October 2014 to March 2016, a year-round monitoring program was commenced. Data were collected at monthly intervals, increasing to bi-monthly intervals for a period between May 2015 and September 2015. Water samples and profile data were collected consistently from the same location, indicated in Figure 9, which represented the deepest point in the lake, at about 3.0 m.

Figure 9. Original bathymetric map of Windover Lake, modified from Kretzer, 2006.

23 Methods

A Lowrance HDS-brand depth finder was used to map and create a bathymetric map. This device is mounted on the back of a boat, next to an electric motor. The depth finder simultaneously records depth and global positioning system (GPS) data, which is stored on a Secure Digital (SD) memory card. This device functions optimally when the boat does not exceed six miles per hour, and in depths greater than three feet, such that there is minimal interference from contact with the lake bottom. Transects of the lake were designed in Google Earth, uploaded to the depth finder, and used to navigate across the surface of the lake so that the maximum area was accounted for. Transects were plotted as nearly-closed loops at ten meter intervals around the lake, gradually growing smaller as the center of the lake was reached. Windover Lake was mapped in April 2016. The map shown in Figure 10 was produced using CI Biobase cloud-based software.

Thickness of ice cover was determined by hand while using an 8”-diameter manual ice auger and a tape measure. Depth of sediment to consolidated material was measured on one occasion, while there was significant ice cover to provide stability. Five GPS points were selected as monitoring spots, based on their overlap with transect points from the rake toss survey conducted in the summer. A full description of methods is available in Section 2.1.7, along with Figure 16.

A multi-parameter water quality sonde was used for in-situ monitoring of temperature and depth, as well as several chemical limnological parameters including of Specific Conductivity, pH, and Dissolved Oxygen (DO). The model used was YSI 6820 V2 Compact Sonde from YSI Inc. Operation of the sonde required calibration of individual sensors for the parameters pH, dissolved oxygen, and specific conductivity, and barometric pressure; the temperature portion of the probe required no additional maintenance between uses. The sonde was calibrated immediately before each sampling visit, per the YSI 6802 V2 User Manual (YSI, 2012). Sensors for oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), turbidity and chlorophyll-a were included on the sonde, but were considered less reliable as these sensors are susceptible to degradation with extensive use, and the data was not saved.

In the field, the sonde was lowered slowly into the water and a digital screen is used to monitor depth and the various parameters associated with each sensor. The sonde was submersed from the surface to the lake bottom, and data collected at half-meter intervals. A total of 5-6 measurements were taken for each parameter, depending on the water level at the time of sampling.

The YSI device is capable of logging data in the field at individual sites or depths, or logging continuously, although this capability was not utilized due to shallowness at each of Windover Lake’s sample sites. All data were manually recorded on data sheets. It was important to measure all chemical parameters in-situ at Windover Lake to eliminate variation due to change in temperature. Conductivity of a solution can vary up to 3% for each change of one degree Celcius (3%/°C), and can vary based on the ionic species present (YSI, 2012). When recording Specific Conductance (and not raw Conductivity values), the YSI sonde uses temperature and the raw conductivity values to generate a value compensated to 25°C. Compensating for temperature

24 dependence is useful for determining if there are gross, obvious changes in the lake water over time, separate from thermal effects (YSI, 2012).

Water samples for nutrient analysis were collected at 0.5m and 2.0m, representing surface and sub-surface waters. A Kemmerer bottle was used to collect the water, which was held in sterilized bottles and analyzed later at the SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station lab. Several water samples were also collected, at various times, from within Baker Brook just above the mouth of the inlet, and as it passes under Edwards Hill Road, and lastly from a point at the approximate center of the lake, in roughly 2.0 m depth. All nutrient analyses conducted in the SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station lab followed the methods shown in Table 10.

Secchi depth, or depth of water clarity, was determined using a standard Secchi disk. A Secchi disk is a 20-cm flat plastic disk, with black and white alternating quadrants on the upper surface. The disk is attached to rope on the upward facing surface, and lowered into the water. The disk should be lowered until it disappears from view, and the length of rope at this depth should be measured and recorded. The disk is then drawn up slowly until it just comes into view, and this second length of rope should be measured and recorded. The average of these two depths, or rope lengths, is the Secchi depth.

Ideal conditions for determining water clarity include taking Secchi measurements on the shady side of the boat, not wearing sunglasses, and avoiding taking the measurement early in the morning or late in the day such that the angle of the sun is not too low. Taking these precautions ensures that the use of the Secchi disk remains relatively consistent between users, and allows it to be a comparable measurement between seasons, and other lakes.

Finally, Table 11 summarizes water quality parameters and conditions for which a New York State water quality standard exists, or for which its relationship to a management objective is particularly important. The main body of comparison for New York water quality standards can be found in state regulation documents, specifically New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations Title 6 (6 NYCRR), Parts 700-706.

Table 10. Preservation, lab methods & accompanying references, and detection limits, for each water chemistry parameter (adapted from SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station standard protocols). Parameter Preservation Method Reference Detection Limit

Total Persulfate digestion followed by Liao and Marten H2SO4 to pH < 2 4 µg/l Phosphorus single reagent ascorbic acid 2001 Cadmium reduction method Total Pritzlaff 2003; H2SO4 to pH < 2 following peroxodisulfate 0.04 mg/l Nitrogen Ebina et al. 1983 digestion Nitrate & H2SO4 to pH < 2 Cadmium reduction method Pritzlaff 2003 0.02 mg/l nitrite-N Ammonia-N H2SO4 to pH < 2 Phenolate method Liao 2001 0.02 mg/l

If low, use Calcium Store at 4oC EDTA trimetric method EPA 1983 more sample

25 If low, use Chloride Store at 4oC Mercuric nitrate titration APHA 1989 more sample If low, use Alkalinity Store at 4oC Titration to pH= 4.6 APHA 1989 more sample

Table 11. Water quality and lake condition parameters, with comparison to Title 6 NYCRR Part 703. Parameter/Definition Part 703 NYS Standards Current Condition Management Objective Turbidity (water clarity) - A No increase that will cause Average summer Secchi Continue to monitor Secchi measure of the transparency a substantial visible Depth (SD) was 1.8 m in Depth. Historic data and SUNY of the water, as measured by contrast to natural 2015. Greatest clarity, 2.5m, Oneonta data show the depth of disappearance of conditions. NYS considers occurred on 4/26/15. consistancy in water clarity a Secchi disk. water clarity readings <2m Poorest clarity, 1.3 m, readings from 1999 - present; as eutrophic, lakes occurred on 9/11/15. Based variation from these values exceeding 5m as on shallow depth and high may indicate changing oligotrophic, and lake in the organic color, this is not conditions in the lake. intermediate range as considered a critical mesotrophic. condition for Windover Lake. A 1992 NYS APA permit reported SD = 1.37 m. Phosphorus & Nitrogen - None in amounts that will The 2015 summer average On average, P levels remained Limiting nutrients for plant result in growths of algae, was 14.3 μg/L. From 1999- below 20 μg/L, however the growth in lakes. Phosphorus is weeds and slimes that will 2003, CSLAP summer source of at least two spikes often the major limiting impair the waters for their average was 15 μg/L. For was unidentified. Future nutrient in NYS lakes, as algae best usages. NYSDEC has an 1992, NYS APA Permit No. management should include growth is often limited if existing water quality 91-349 reported a median monthly monitoring during phosphorus is limited. guidance value of 20 μg/L Phosphorus value of 11 ppb summer months, and (0.02 mg/L) for phosphorus. (~11 μg/L).Nitrogen (N) was increased erosion controls No NYS standard exists for below 0.4 mg/L almost year such as plantings and silt nitrogen. round, with only one 2.5 m fences. N levels are not a sample ever reaching 0.4 concern at this time. mg/L. pH - A measurement of the Not less than 6.5 nor more pH remained within the NYS At this time, pH is not acidity of water, based on a than 8.5 water quality standards for considered a significant scale of 0 (acidic) to 14 (basic), nearly every sampling problem, however continued where a pH of 7 is neutral. occasion; A pH of 6.4 monitoring is important for Most organisms do not occurred once. For 2015, pH the ability to recognize and properly function in water was generally ≥7, which is react to future changes. with a pH below 6.5 or above consistent with CSLAP 8.5. findings, and past NYS APA permits.

26 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) - For trout waters (T), the DO declined slightly over At this time, DO is not Gaseous oxygen made minimum daily average summer months but the considered a significant available in water by shall not be less than 6.0 water column remained problem, however several photosynthetic organisms and mg/L, and at no time shall sufficiently oxygenated natural factors including the atmosphere, such that fish the concentration be less year-round; wind-driven summer temperatures, and other aquatic organisms than 5.0 mg/L. An mixing during ice free shallow depth, shading plant exception is that lower may perform necessary months is likely responsible. cover, and depth of winter ice depths of non-flowing respiration. Oxygen dipped to its lowest cover, could all contribute to a waters may experience low DO as a result of natural values at or near the lake significant drop in DO during conditions. bottom. different times of the year.

Parameter/Definition Part 703 NYS Standards Current Condition Management Objective Chlorophyll-a - The primary None Chlorophyll-a was measured Spikes in chl-a were not photosynthetic pigment found from 0.5 m and 2.0 m suspected of being a harmful in freshwater algae. It depths. Values (μg/L) were algal bloom (HAB), and are constitutes a measure of within a mesotrophic range likely caused by seasonal primary productivity in a lake. (2-8μg/L) for most of the blooms of native species. No year. Highest values management is recommended (inexcess of 8μg/L) occurred at this time, however in August and September. monitoring chl-a is useful if internal loading is suspected, or to guard against HABs. Lake level None The lake level is maintained In years for which drawdown by a dam at the southeast has been permitted, lake level end, at 1505.5 feet* above will drop no more than 4.5 mean sea level (AMSL). This feet. Outside of this drawdown may be subject to seasonal period, lake level will remain variation & drawdown. at 1505.5 feet AMSL. *Some permits state 1506 ft Aquatic vegetation - Aquatic None Present in most areas of the Resume annual plant survey if plants that may be lake, at nuisance levels volunteers, LMC, plan to submerged, rooted but during the summer months, conduct future drawdown emergent, or floating, and May - August. events, or other management that provide habitat for fish activities (dredging, herbicide, and other aquatic organisms. harvesting, etc.)

The Fishery None In-lake fishery has not been Future endeavors may include accounted for at this time. a fishery study. Individuals Windover Lake is should avoid introducing new downstream from a fish to the lake without explicit historically-stocked brook permits and health trout stream. The lake is a documentation of the fish. Class A(T) lake, meaning it is capable of supporting trout.

27 2.1 Physical Limnology

Physical limnology refers to lake morphology and basin characteristics, formation, inputs and outputs, water level, temperature and light. These components are the result of physics and processes of the earth and atmosphere. This includes glacial and tectonic forces, landslides, and floods, as well as the results of precipitation and solar radiation. Limnological parameters including dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, and nutrients are described in the following section, 2.2.

2.1.1 Morphology & Morphometry

Morphology is a description of the form or structure of a physical feature, and is usually described in conjunction with the history and evolution of how that structure formed over time. Lake morphology is broken up into several categories based on shape and formation history; lakes are typically classified as being tectonic lakes, glacial lakes, volcanic lakes, riverine lakes, karst lakes, or man-made lakes or reservoirs. These terms all relate to the formation history of lakes across the globe. Lakes vary in shape, becoming oxbows, or dendritic basins, depending on what shaped them.

Windover Lake is a man-made lake, having been dammed in 1916. The resulting shape is a relatively round pond, flooded around a section of Baker Brook, which is still the main inlet and outlet. In relation to Windover Lakes’ classification as a man-made reservoir, it is important to acknowledge that all lakes have a lifespan, although these usually exceed human life spans by several centuries or more. A man-made lake is particularly prone to aging, however, in the sense that a dam may speed up the accumulation of sediment as it washes in via the various inlets and off of roads and eroded shorelines. Therefore, the size and shape of a man-made lake may be more dynamic, without human intervention, than a naturally formed tectonically or glacially formed lake.

Morphometry refers to the various quantitative measurements of a lake basin, and includes lake length, volume, surface area, mean depth, and water residence time. Morphometric characteristics for Windover Lake are summarized in Table 12.

28 Table 12. Physical characteristics of the Windover Lake basin.

Characteristic English Units Metric

Mapped Area 90.16 acres 36.49 ha

Percent of Water body Mapped 99.85%

Maximum Depth 10.9 ft 3.32 m

Mean Depth 6.21 ft 1.89 m

Volume (Whole lake) 1.47 x 108 gallons 556,834.60 m3

Maximum Length 0.53 miles 0.85 km

Maximum Width 0.33 miles 0.54 km

Shoreline Length 2.23 miles* 3.58 km*

Shoreline Development ~0.57 miles ~0.96 km

Watershed to lake ratio ~55:1 * = Data from 1993 APA Permit, Project No. 91-349

2.1.2 Bathymetry & Water Level

A bathymetric map is to a lake what a topographic contour map is to a mountain or hills (Figure 10). Lakes are mapped relative to the water level and shoreline, such that the water surface represents zero depth (Figure 11A). As depth increases, lateral divisions of depth can be measured using a depth finder, until the deepest point or area is found. Depth contours are drawn as closed lines, whether or not they are concentric circles or irregular shapes. An island in a lake would typically be surrounded by increasingly shallower water, until the shoreline, which would represent zero depth, and vertical gains above water level. This can be seen in Figure 11.

From Figure 11B, each depth interval divides the basin into lateral slices. These slices can be used to determine whole lake volume, and the volume of water found at a certain depth. For example, the volume of water between five and ten feet depth can be calculated using the surface area of each lateral layer. This is determined by measuring the area of each layer shown in Figure 11. If the area of the lake at a depth of five feet is 20 acres, and the area of the lake at a depth of 10 feet is 17 acres, then the calculation is as follows:

V V = Volume of water (to be solved for)

H = difference in depth between two successive contour lines

29 A1 = Area of lake within the outer (shallower) contour line

A2 = Area of lake within the inner (deeper) contour line

Five to ten feet (5-

If this is done for each depth interval, then the total volume of the lake can be calculated by adding each layer. This formula was derived from the volume of a cone, and would not be applicable in all lake morphologies (Taube, 2000). It is, however, the type of calculation that would be used in determining the volume of water removed during a drawdown event.

The most basic calculation for lake volume only requires the average lake depth and the area of the lake surface. The accuracy of this calculation relies on frequent depth soundings, being careful not to miss shallow, near-shore areas (Taube, 2000). If this method were used to calculate the volume of Windover Lake, we may find that the lake volume is overestimated. Using data from Table 12: If A = 90.16 acres and Average Depth = 6.21 ft 90.16 ac × 6.21ft = 559.9 ac ft and 1 ac.ft = 43,560 ft3,then 559.9 ac. ft = 24,388,965.2 ft3,or 690,618.6 m3

The value for total lake volume exceeds that calculated using CI Biobase software, 556,834.60 m3, by over 100,000 m3 (Table 12). In this case, the likely culprit is that fewer data points were collected in shallow water areas, which were unreachable by the boat-mounted Lowrance depth finder. By comparison, the CI Biobase software can extrapolate the likely depth in shallow areas without requiring additional data points.

A final parameter closely associated with bathymetry is water level. Water level at Windover Lake is determined by natural inputs, such as precipitation, snowmelt and runoff, and water flowing in via multiple inlets. It is largely controlled, however, by the presence of a dam. Therefore, a fluctuation in water volume can be noted by monitoring the height of water at the dam. If the lake is mapped at a time when water level is lower than the dam height, this should be factored into lake depth at that time.

30

Figure 10. Bathymetric map of Windover Lake showing 1-foot contour intervals, from a bathymetric survey conducted by SUNY Oneonta. Created using CI Biobase software, April 9 2016.

Figure 11. A.) A simple bathymetric map or aerial view of lake depth contours. B.) A cutaway view of lake depth, where the water surface is at a depth of zero feet, and maximum depth is below 20 feet.

2.1.3 Ice Cover

In 2014, ice formation began in November, with about 6 cm of ice cover extending across the whole lake by 21 November 2014. Warm temperatures contributed to the thawing of this ice by mid-December, but complete and sustained ice cover occurred by the end of January 2015. On 29 January 2015, there was 45.7 cm of ice at the sampling site nearest the dam. At the mouth

31 of the inlet, ice reached the lake bottom, suggesting shallow areas of the lake may have very limited open water beneath the ice. Ice breakup occurred between 28 March 2015 and 26 April 2015.

In 2016, ice thickness was 20-27 cm on 24 January 2016, but an ice-in date was indeterminable. Ice thickness increased to 45-55 cm by February 2016, and again reached the lake bottom in shallow areas. Ice was still present along the margins on 9 April 2016, with some areas still covered by 5 cm or more. Based on these two winter seasons, it is likely that Windover Lake freezes annually, and that it is not unusual to sustain 45 cm of ice or more throughout the winter.

2.1.4 Temperature & Thermal Conditions

Windover Lake, like many shallow lakes and reservoirs, is polymictic. This refers to the number of mixing events that occur in the lake during a year, with poly- meaning many. A mixing event can refer to a period of very windy conditions, which can mix surface and bottom water so that the temperature is uniform throughout (Figure 12). The opposite condition of a mixed lake is a stratified lake, where the water column stratifies based on temperature and temperature-linked density (Figure 12). In this climate polymictic lakes are stratified under the ice in the winter and mix most of the summer.

A lake typically becomes stratified during winter or summer months, or both, as is common in the northeast. These months represent seasonal extremes, which greatly effect water temperature. During the late-spring, early-summer months, surface water is warmed by sunlight. An important property of water is its temperature-density relationship; as water warms, it becomes less dense, or, lighter. The converse is true for cooling water temperatures, but only to a certain point. Colder water will be less dense than warmer water, up to 4°C (~39°F), which becomes an important number in winter stratification. In a stratified lake during summer, the lighter, warmer water will remain at the surface in a zone called the epilimnion (Figure 12). If there is no mixing event, the surface will continue to warm and form a thermocline, the horizontal plane at which the water drastically changes to cooler, denser water (Figure 12). Below the thermocline is a zone referred to as the metalimnion; it can vary in size but is typically represented by a rapid decline in water temperature. The deepest stratified zone is the hypolimnion, which will be more uniform in temperature (Holdren et al. 2001).

While Windover Lake is too shallow to experience summer stratification to the extent shown in the example below, there were multiple instances during the summer of 2015 where the lake was of either uniform temperature throughout, or had a temperature gradient (Figure 13). For example, on August 1, 2015, temperature ranged from 24.7°C to 24.4°C from surface to bottom; this is indicative of a mixed lake. On August 17, 2015, surface water was 26.3°C and decreased steadily to 20.6°C, indicative of a thermally stratified lake (Appendix B). Windover Lake may not be deep enough to form the typical thermal zones, but it cannot be said that the lake is wholly mixed throughout the summer.

Following summer stratification, a lake will undergo fall turnover brought on by cooling air temperatures. In lakes with a metalimnion, the surface water will cool off steadily and cause

32 this zone to move deeper, until the lake is a uniform temperature throughout. In Windover Lake, the entire water column had mixed and remained in this state from mid-September through November (Figure 13).

As air temperature continues to drop, a lake in the northeast will typically transition into winter stratification. Unlike summer stratification, when the warmest water is at the surface, winter stratification typically sees the warmest water at the bottom, nearly the inverse of the summer. This is because, as mentioned previously, water temperature is most dense at 4°C. When ice forms on the lake surface, its crystalline structure allows it to float on top, preventing disturbance of the water below by wind or waves. Water temperature will range from 0°C at the surface to around 4°C at the bottom. Windover Lake experienced complete winter stratification during both the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 seasons.

When the ice melts, sunlight warms the surface waters and reverses the temperature density gradient, resulting in spring turnover. In Windover Lake, this occurs around late April (Figure 13).

Figure 12. The diagram on the left represents a temperature graph for a lake that stratifies during the warmer months (A). In the example on the right, a mixing event has occurred in the lake, making the temperature a uniform 20°C throughout (B).

33

Figure 13. Temperature isopleths for Windover Lake, October 2014 – March 2016. Turnover periods, as well as ice cover, are marked with text. Isopleths in °C.

2.1.5 Light & Transparency

Transparency refers to the clarity of the lake water, as well as the transmission of sunlight through the water column. The transmission of natural light through the water column gradually tapers off until there is no light; this gradual decrease in light is referred to as light attenuation. Attenuation occurs as organic matter particles, and colored dissolved organic matter (DOM), absorb or scatter the various wavelengths of solar radiation entering the water at the surface. This occurs until a depth at which there is no more sunlight, or solar radiation. Water clarity, and the depth to which sunlight can penetrate, are therefore a factor of the amount of suspended organic or inorganic matter, phytoplankton, and natural color that exist in the lake. The depth of light transmission is also related to the maximum depth at which plants and other photosynthetic organisms can grow.

Due to this relationship between light and photosynthesis, Secchi depth can be correlated to a rough approximation of chlorophyll-a and phosphorus concentrations in a lake (Carlson, 1977). These parameters make up the widely used Trophic State Index (TSI) system for lakes, which describes water quality and condition based on clarity, chlorophyll and phosphorus levels (Carlson, 1977). This relationship is discussed in Section 2.3.

Obtaining an actual measurement of chlorophyll-a and phosphorus is the best way to confirm the trophic state of a lake. While decreased clarity may suggest that there are high concentrations of chlorophyll-a, another factor to consider includes the leaching of natural color out of humic substances in the watershed. Sometimes called tannins, the humic acid causes water to appear to be a brown tea color. Alternatively, the lake water may have reduced clarity due to bottom sediment re-suspension, or turbidity. If Windover Lake is mixed by wind throughout the summer, it is possible that silty bottom material is suspended in the water column and factors into the coloration of the lake water.

34 CSLAP volunteers collected Secchi depth measurements from 1999 to 2003. Figure 14 depicts the average summer Secchi depth for each year of CSLAP and SUNY Oneonta work, and is calculated as the average of measurements from May to the end of summer in September of each year. Figure 15 depicts water clarity as determined from Secchi depth for all ice-free months throughout the SUNY Oneonta study. Per the 2003 CSLAP report, transparency readings fell below the minimum recommended water clarity for swimming beaches, 1.2 m, on only one date in 1999. From this same report, CSLAP concluded that water clarity at Windover Lake is likely related to shallow water depth and natural color, and not due to planktonic algae. Based on SUNY Oneonta 2014-2016 monitoring, no data suggests that this conclusion is not still valid.

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2015 0

0.5

1

1.5

eutrophic 2 mesotrophic

2.5

Figure 14. Average summer Secchi transparency (May through September). 1999-2003 data collected through CSLAP, and 2015 data collected by SUNY Oneonta. The dotted line represents the trophic conditions that correspond to these Secchi depths (CSLAP, 2004 report).

Figure 15. Secchi disk transparency in Windover Lake between October 2014 and October 2015.

35 2.1.6 Water Residence Time

Water residence time (WRT) refers to the amount of time that water spends in the lake, from the time it enters via the inlet or precipitation, to the time it flows over the dam or outlet. Factors that influence residence time include the size of the lake, the size of the catchment area, or watershed, and the timing and intensity of thermal stratification (George and Hurley, 2003). WRT is usually a representation of an annual average, and does not consider seasonal variations in rainfall and ice cover (George and Hurley, 2003). It is determined by a series of calculations relating the volume of water passing through the lake to the volume of the lake basin. WRT was not determined for Windover Lake at this time, due to a lack of data regarding the volume of water entering the lake, which includes runoff, stream flow, and precipitation. However, determination of the WRT may be useful in the future. The WRT may influence the structure of the zooplankton community, in conjunction with temperature, with the potential to have cascading effects amongst organisms that feed on plankton (Obertegger et al., 2007).

2.1.7 Sedimentation

Sedimentation refers to the accumulation of particles on the lake bottom by natural or human influenced processes, such that the water body becomes shallower over time. Sedimentation is often referred to as a rate, because it is a measurement of change over time. Particles include soil, but also all other detritus in the form of dead plankton, plants and other decaying organisms, and feces. This material does serve an important role in the nutrient cycle, in decomposition and the transfer of inorganic nutrients back into the atmosphere, and providing nutrients as part of primary production. Sediment and detritus may provide habitat for benthic organisms, including larvae which will go on to become food for fish and other organisms. Sediment is also involved in internal loading, eutrophication, and other problems associated with low oxygen, or anoxic, conditions. These are discussed in Section 2.2.4 and 2.3.

If the rate of sedimentation is suspected to be greater than what would otherwise be natural, then there may be cause for concern. Loose sediment in the watershed can contribute to heightened lake shallowing, and thereby a faster path to lake succession. Sediment, and other particulates, may wash into the lake via streams and over-land flow, forming shallow deltas at the mouth of inlets, or build-up behind dams. Dammed lakes are at increased risk of shallowing if sediment is accumulated not adequately leaving the lake as may occur in a natural sustem.

At Windover Lake, several baseline measurements were taken at five sites on February 27, 2016, while the lake had 18-22 inches of ice cover. These measurements were conducted while the lake was frozen in order to utilize a steady lake surface and ensure a consistent water level at the dam. Depth to the lake bottom was measured using a flat disk suspended on a rope, which could fit through the 8” diameter auger borehole, and settle on top of the silty bottom sediment. A rebar rod was used to probe to the consolidated sediment, found beneath the silt and organic detritus (Figure 16). The difference between these two depth measurements represents the depth of unconsolidated, loose sediment, which is the type of material settling out of the water column. Table 13 shows the depth, and a description of the materials, for each sample location. Section 5.3.6 of the Management Plan describes ways to use this information, and work towards minimizing sedimentation in Windover Lake.

36

Figure 16. Illustrated method used for measuring depth of unconsolidated lake bottom sediment.

Table 13. Sedimentation baseline, recorded 27 February 2016. Depth to Site Depth to lake Difference Latitude Longitude consolidation Material description Number bottom (m) (m) (m) 1 43.63192 -74.008723 3.68808 3 0.68808 - 2 43.6296 -74.01308 1.8669 1.5 0.3669 - Soft, then “sticky,” hard 3 43.631184 -74.013941 2.71272 1 1.71272 to push through. 4 43.632002 -74.014715 1.3208 0.6 0.7208 Dark brown, silty. 5 43.633887 -74.014065 2.032 1.4 0.632 No muck on probe.

2.2 Chemical Limnology

Chemical limnology refers to a change in the chemistry of the lake water, as measured in situ in the water column and under controlled laboratory conditions, and usually involves some level of dissolution of a chemical, mineral, or organic substance.

2.2.1 pH & Alkalinity

The pH of water is a measurement of the hydrogen (H+) and hydroxide (OH-) ions found in water. A greater concentration of H+ makes a lake acidic, with a pH less than 7. Conversely, a greater concentration of OH- ions makes a lake more basic, with a pH greater than 7. A pH of 7 is significant because this represents an equal concentration of both ions, or a neutral concentration. It is neither acidic nor basic. Per NYS water quality standards, pH for a Class A surface water should not be less than 6.5 nor more than 8.5 (6 CRR-NY 703.3).

From the last CSLAP report, based on 1999-2003 data, pH readings were below the NYS water quality standard (pH=6.5) for 13% of the water samples. Overall though, CSLAP concluded pH was not likely a significant problem at Windover Lake. SUNY Oneonta data found lake-wide pH to be slightly higher overall, with a pH close to 6.5 found only at or near the

37 lake bottom, apart from February 2016 (Figure 17, Appendix B). On only one occasion did pH exceed NYS water quality standards, when a pH of 6.4 was detected at a depth of 2.5 m. Overall, these differences may be due to differences in equipment used, or the pH standards used to calibrate the equipment, which were generally 7 and 10 pH solutions.

In regards to acidic rain concerns, rainwater does typically have a lower pH, about 5.6, due to atmospheric CO2 (NYSFOLA, 2009). Acid precipitation may be as low as pH=4. Acid rain is less of a concern in the Adirondack Park these days, due to changes in industrial practices. However, lakes in the Adirondacks are at risk due to the granitic bedrock in the region. Granite is composed of quartz, feldspar, hornblende, and other “hard” minerals that do not dissolve and break down easily. This contrasts with watersheds high in limestone and other carbonate rocks. Just like an antacid tablet, carbonate rocks can buffer acid. When acid rain contributed to a rise in lake pH in the southern Adirondacks, there was no natural buffer. New York State had to distribute lime, a strongly-alkaline calcium carbonate derivative, into these lakes in an attempt to neutralize this acid.

This concept of neutralizing an acidic lake is actually a measurable parameter referred to as alkalinity. A lake with limestone bedrock in its watershed is going to have high alkalinity, or a high capacity to neutralize acidic atmospheric inputs. It is also more likely to have a neutral or even basic pH. Alkalinity is analyzed at the SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station following a field visit. These parameters experience less variation on an annual basis, and therefore were only tested once.

Figure 17. Isopleth for pH levels in Windover Lake, October 2014 – February 2016. pH values are unit less.

2.2.2 Specific Conductivity

Conductivity refers to the ability of water to facilitate the flow of electricity, based on the presence of ions. A measure of conductivity does not identify specific ions, but accounts for the

38 cumulative quantity of dissolved ions like calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium and chloride. These ions come from dissolved salts, or electrolytes, such as sodium chloride (NaCl) or potassium chloride (KCl). When NaCl is dissolved in water, it results in two charged ions: Na+ and Cl-. The result is that electricity, from lightning or a human source, is attracted to the charged ions in the water and is able to flow due to the attraction of opposite charges from the electrons reaching the water. Conversely, pure water that has been deionized does not attract electrical current as it has no ions to facilitate electrical flow.

Sources of dissolved salts in a lake and watershed include the bedrock and soils, as well as human inputs like road salt and septic leachate. At Windover Lake and within the watershed, the bedrock is composed of hard, igneous rock which is less susceptible to dissolution by weathering and groundwater than sedimentary bedrock. A watershed dominated by sedimentary carbonate rocks is much more susceptible to dissolution, resulting in high levels of Ca+ ions, which in turn affects not only specific conductivity but also pH. The level of specific conductivity in a lake can have various implications for both water quality and biological habitat. Fish and other aquatic organisms subjected to increasing conductance from inputs like road salt will struggle to survive. The simplest interpretation in this example is that the fish and other organisms are not adapted to live in saltier water.

The SI unit for specific conductivity is micro-Siemens per centimeter (μS/cm); micro (μ) refers to a fraction of the electrical conductivity unit Siemens (S) as it relates to the length and spacing between electrodes (cm) (Gray, D.M., 2006). Data for Windover Lake is presented in μmho/cm, where 1 μmho/cm = 1 μS/cm and Mho is an alternative name for the same unit represented by Siemens. This unit was used in order to be consistent with data collected through CSLAP (Figure 19).

According to CSLAP standards, lake with conductivity values less than 100 μmho/cm are considered soft water lakes, and those with conductivity values greater than 300 μmho/cm are typical of hard water lakes. Hard water contains more dissolved minerals, which accounts for the higher conductivity readings. In general, lakes in the Adirondacks trend towards softer water because of the low solubility of the surficial geology (from CSLAP, 2003 report). Mean summer specific conductance values for Windover Lake in 2015 are consistent with mean summer values reported by CSLAP between 1999 and 2003, and are generally below 100 μmho/cm (Figure 19, Appendix B). Figure 18 shows specific conductivity by depth for the time period October 2014 through March 2016. Specific conductivity values increase to at or above 100 μmho/cm between December 2014 and early April 2015. This may be attributable to winter weather and road salt use, and later, snow melt runoff. In September and October 2015, the conductance values are high throughout the water column, the source of which is unclear. It is important to note, however, that overall the specific conductivity of Windover Lake does not display concerning trends at this time. Several small spikes in conductance at 2.5m depths are most likely due to upwelling of silty sediments as the YSI sonde reached the lake bottom. This can be seen in late March 2015, where specific conductivity upwells to 248 μmho/cm, and later in September 2015, where conductivity reaches 185 μmho/cm at about 2.25 m depth (Figure 18, Appendix B).

39 Chloride was analyzed separately on one occasion in the SUNY Oneonta biological field station lab. Chloride occurs naturally in freshwater, but can also increase due to road salt and other anthropogenic additions.

Figure 18. Specific conductance isopleths for Windover Lake, 2014-2016. Isopleths in μmho/cm.

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2015

Figure 19. Mean summer specific conductance for Windover Lake, 1999 - 2015. Data collected from 1999-2003 derived from CSLAP reports; 2015 data derived from SUNY Oneonta.

40 2.2.3 Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen refers to oxygen molecules present in water that are separate from the oxygen molecule bonded to two hydrogen molecules that make up each water molecule (H2O). Dissolved oxygen is used by fish, zooplankton, and other aquatic organisms for respiration in a way that a water molecule cannot be used, and is necessary for their survival.

Dissolved oxygen enters a lake through the atmosphere, groundwater discharge, and as a byproduct of photosynthesis by aquatic plants and algae (Holdren et al., 2001 – p31). Oxygen molecules may diffuse out of the lake into the atmosphere, and conversely diffuse or mix back into the water, such that the lake remains in relative equilibrium with the atmospheric concentration of molecular oxygen (Holdren et al. 2001). However, bacterial consumption of oxygen on the lake bottom can exceed the rate of oxygen replacement in the water column. This occurs as part of the natural decomposition of organic materials, such as leaf matter and decaying organisms, but can result in the depletion of dissolved oxygen over time. Lake water that is depleted of oxygen is said to be anoxic.

Anoxic conditions can pose serious ramifications for a lake, including fish kills, but also increased nutrients and odors. If the hypolimnion becomes anoxic, phosphorus is no longer bound to iron and other minerals in the bottom sediments and may be released into the water column. This release of phosphorus is referred to as internal loading, which is described in more detail in Section 2.2.1. The increase in nutrients can result in an increase in algae blooms, as phytoplankton take up the excess phosphorus, and subsequently an increase in decomposing organic matter as these organisms die. Anoxia at the lake bottom can also result in the production of hydrogen sulfide, more familiar for its rotten egg odor. Anoxic conditions more commonly occur in deep lakes that experience stratification; a lack of mixing between the hypolimnion and the wind-mixed surface waters of the epilimnion contributes to the persistence of low oxygen conditions at the lake bottom. However, shallow lakes like Windover that do not experience prolonged seasonal stratification can still experience diurnal periods of low oxygen.

Dissolved oxygen is closely tied to temperature; warmer temperature water can hold less oxygen than cold water (Holdren et al. 2001). This is supported by the dissolved oxygen data collected between October 2014 and March 2016 in Windover Lake (Figure 20). DO concentration throughout the water column are higher during the fall and winter; DO is 10 mg/L or greater throughout the water column for October 2014 through April 2015. DO concentration decreases July through September of 2015, with the water column having an average concentration of 6.9 mg/L on September 11, 2015 (Appendix B). Monitoring dissolved oxygen in a lake is very important as it can be a prominent indicator of high nutrient levels and internal loading. Algae blooms associated with phosphorus loading can be toxic, and dangerous to humans and animals, depending on the phytoplankton species. Fish can also serve as an indicator of oxygen levels, in some ways. Coldwater fish such as trout tend to prefer water temperatures below 18°C, and dissolved oxygen levels of at least 5 mg/L, especially in the deeper, colder water habitat of a lake (Holdren et al. 2001 – p105). Given Windover Lake’s connection to at least one brook trout-supporting stream, Baker Brook, it is reasonable to infer that the lake may provide habitat to brook trout during cooler times of the year, such as the fall, winter, and spring. During the winter, there is always the possibility that oxygen can become depleted under the ice,

41 if the lake water is unable to be refreshed and the remaining dissolved oxygen is consumed. This can become evident in the spring, as the ice thaws, and dead fish emerge. Based on the 2014- 2016 monitoring, no concerning periods of oxygen depletion were detected.

Figure 20. Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) isopleth at the deepest point in Windover Lake, October 2014 – March 2016.

2.2.4 Nutrients

Phosphorus and nitrogen are the two major nutrients considered when discussing water quality, specifically as it relates to plant and algae growth. The inorganic forms of these nutrients are required by plants and algae to produce macromolecules like carbohydrate and protein. Nutrients are naturally present in lakes due to groundwater input, precipitation, and biological processes. Nitrogen is primarily introduced to a lake from the atmosphere. However, both nutrients can enter a lake through agricultural runoff, lawn fertilizers, urban runoff, erosion, leaking septic systems, and sewage effluent even after treatment. When this occurs, excessive algal growth may follow. This in turn can cause devastating effects on a system, not only by contributing to internal loading, but also based on the type of algae that develop from it. A harmful algal bloom (HAB) is one in which a species of phytoplankton (blue-green alga or cyanobacterium) that is known to produce a toxin, or otherwise has a harmful health effect on humans and other mammals, grows excessively in a lake. Although this may be only a seasonal or short-lived event, it can result in lasting health problems, beach closure, effects on the local economy and potentially property assessments, and an immediate need to find and address the source of the bloom.

Phosphorus

Phosphorus is considered the primary limiting nutrient in New York State, although either phosphorus or nitrogen can be a limiting nutrient. This simply refers the nutrient that has the most effect on restricting algal growth, such that a decrease in this nutrient is associated with a decline in growth, and vice versa. In-lake phosphorus for Windover Lake was measured as total phosphorus, which includes all dissolved or particulate forms of phosphorus. According to NYS water quality standards, surface water that exceeds 20 μg/L is associated with significant algal growth, and is classifiable as a eutrophic system.

42

At Windover Lake, water samples were largely below 20 μg/L. The summer average at 0.5 m was 14.3 μg/L for 2015. For comparison, the summer average for 1999-2003 was 15 μg/L based on CSLAP data (2004).

In October 2014, samples were found to exceed 20 μg/L but this is more likely due to collection error and contamination than from actual in-lake concentrations. Values in excess of 100 μg/L were found on only one other occasion, on 27 June 2015 at 1.5 m depth (Figure 21, Appendix A). The cause of this is unknown. It is important to note that samples were taken from surface to bottom at 0.5 m intervals. In such a shallow lake, it is unlikely that a pocket of high concentration truly existed. Samples containing particles of silt from the lake bottom may produce higher-than-normal concentrations, as can samples stored in inadequately disinfected bottles.

Figure 21. Total phosphorus isopleths for Windover Lake, from water samples collected at 0.5 m intervals at the deepest point, October 2014 – February 2016. Isopleths in μg/L.

Nitrogen

Similar to phosphorus, nitrogen is a primary nutrient contributing to algae and plant growth in lakes. It occurs naturally in the atmosphere, leaf litter, soils and bedrock, but input rates can be exacerbated by human-induced activities like industrial pollution, runoff from cropland, feedlots, and fertilized lawns, and urban development. One of the most common measurements of nitrogen in freshwater lakes is Total Nitrogen. Total Nitrogen (TN) is the sum of all forms of nitrogen, including organic and reduced nitrogen compounds, and inorganic forms + - — - like ammonia (NH4 ), and nitrate – nitrite (NO3 NO2 ) (U.S. EPA, 2013). The NYSDEC is currently working with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to design numeric criteria for nutrients like nitrogen that can result in impaired freshwater systems. Therefore, there is no current recommended level for nitrogen in New York but this should be looked for in the coming years. Per a 2000 U.S. EPA ambient water quality recommendations report, the range for TN (mg/L) as a reference condition for the Adirondack Park is 0.20 – 0.44 mg/L (U.S. EPA, 2000). Figure 22 illustrates the TN levels for Windover Lake, primarily used

43 to determine the limiting nutrient in the lake as part of the N:P ratio. Overall, nitrogen is relatively low in Windover Lake. One lake-wide rise occurs in October 2015, when levels exceeded 0.3 mg/L. Analyzed individually, ammonia and nitrate-nitrite did not often exceed the lower limit of detection for the analyses conducted on water samples in the SUNY Oneonta lab, and are therefore considered negligible. A complete list of detectable forms of nitrogen and their amounts can be found in Appendix A.

Figure 22. Total nitrogen isopleths for Windover Lake, from water samples collected at 0.5 m intervals at the deepest point, October 2014 – February 2016. Isopleths in mg/L.

Table 14. Average summer (June – September) Total Nitrogen (TN), Total Phosphorus (TP), and N:P Ratio, based on CSLAP and SUNY Oneonta BFS data.

Sample Total Nitrogen (mg/L) Total Phosphorus (mg/L) N:P Ratio CSLAP 2002-2003 0.436231 0.014997 37.33916 CSLAP 2002 0.550474 0.011956 50.80765 CSLAP 2003 0.305669 0.012782 21.62592 SUNY Oneonta 2015 0.203617 0.019170 13.21568

44 35

30

25

20 2003 15 2015

10

5

0 5/ 30 6 / 19 7 / 9 7 / 29 8 / 18 9 / 7 9/ 27 10 /17

Figure 23. TN:TP Ratio at 1.5 m for summer sampling dates in 2003 and 2015, from CSLAP and SUNY Oneonta, respectively. The dashed line at TN:TP = 25 represents lakes definitively phosphorus limited. The dashed line at TN:TP = 10 represents the cutoff for nitrogen limited. Based on CSLAP reports and methods (2004).

2.3 Chlorophyll-a

Chlorophyll-a is a measurement of the photosynthetic pigment found in algae and aquatic plants. Measured in μg/L, it provides an estimate of primary activity by phytoplankton (algae). This value is closely associated with in-lake phosphorus, as this nutrient is used by plants to build organic compounds and is associated with the promotion of algae growth. The concentration of chlorophyll is highly variable in Windover Lake, but increases in late summer, with a peak at 16.7 μg/L in mid-September 2015. This is consistent w ith expected seasonal changes of in-lake productivity. Samples were taken at 0.5 m and 2.0 m to be consistent with water samples collected for nutrient testing, as well as to capture potential algal blooms at varying depths.

From Carlson (1977), chlorophyll-a is the best parameter to use to determine the trophic state of the lake, because the measured value is less likely to be affected by natural color and particulate matter in the lake water. Such may be the case when using a Secchi disk for transparency, which is affected equally by both algal blooms and humic content. Trophic State is discussed in Section 2.3.1.

45

Figure 24. Chlorophyll-a at 0.5 m and 2.0 m for Windover Lake, 2015-2016. Dashed lines represent 8 μg/L, which is the cutoff between a mesotrophic and eutrophic state based on chlorophyll-a alone, and 2 μg/L, the cutoff for oligotrophic lakes (CLSAP, 2004 – lake report).

2.3.1 Trophic State Index

The Trophic State Index (TSI) is a construct designed to more accurately classify a lake as oligotrophic, mesotrophic, or eutrophic. Rather than consider a single parameter, a combination of Secchi depth, surface phosphorus, and surface chlorophyll can be used to assign a TSI to the lake. This value is associated with a trophic state, which varies on a numerical scale. The idea is that each of these parameters alone can be used to determine the other related parameters, such that by knowing the phosphorus level, one can also approximate the Secchi Disk transparency and chlorophyll-a value (Carlson, 1977). The numeric TSI chart is not shown here due to its complexity, and a possible problem posed by conditions at Windover Lake.

In the case of Windover Lake, Secchi Disk transparency is likely the most erroneous of the three trophic indicators, due to the shallow depth and high color of the lake. At the deepest point, not quite 3m, Secchi Disk transparency reached 2.0 – 2.5m before it was obscured (Figure 15). Table 15 shows the relationship between each of the three parameters and a particular trophic state, compared to conditions at Windover Lake. Windover Lake fits well into a mesotrophic classification for both phosphorus and chlorophyll levels, but is well within a eutrophic classification based on Secchi Disk transparency (Table 15).

46 Table 15. Trophic State Indicators, from CSLAP, 2004. Windover Lake values represent summer averages, May – September, from CSLAP (2003) and SUNY Oneonta data (2015).

Windover Windover Parameter Eutrophic Mesotrophic Oligotrophic (1999-2003) (2015) Phosphorus (mg/L) > 0.020 0.010 – 0.020 < 0.010 0.015 0.0143 Chlorophyll a (μg/L) > 8 2 – 8 < 2 4.2 4.84 Secchi Disk clarity (m) 2 2 – 5 > 5 1.8 1.8 Color

*CSLAP samples taken at 1.5m; SUNY Oneonta samples taken at 0.5m.

47 Chapter 3. Descriptive Ecology

Lake ecology generally describes the natural communities and their respective interactions within a lake and can be used in lake management as visible projections of lake and watershed environmental quality. Topics that fall under the umbrella of lake ecology include the aquatic plants, or macrophytes, phytoplankton and zooplankton, benthic organisms, fish, wetlands, and wildlife.

3.1 Aquatic Macrophytes

The word macrophyte refers most broadly to an aquatic plant that is macroscopic, or visible to the naked eye. Macrophytes may be emergent (cattails and bulrushes), submergent (bladderworts and waterweed), or floating-leaved (water lilies), all of which are found at Windover Lake (Table 16).

Table 16 includes all in-lake species that have been noted by either SUNY Oneonta students, Windover Lake rake toss data, CSLAP data, or other historic documents such as the original drawdown permit. Wetland species, many of which are emergent or terrestrial, are included in Section 3.3, although there are some overlapping rush and sedge observations. As part of the earliest permit agreement with the NYS Adirondack Park Agency (APA), The Windover Corporation (TWC) would be responsible for a monitoring plan to determine aquatic plant species distribution and density. This was to be conducted in the summer before the drawdown, and for at least two summers following the drawdown period. Although TWC was unable to follow through with the 1993 drawdown due to beaver activity, the aquatic plant monitoring program has been ongoing annually since then. More on the aquatic plant monitoring program is discussed further in this section. However, all the aquatic vascular plant species listed in Table 16 represent an accumulation of over twenty years of observation, note-taking, and historic records. Some species, like water shield ( Brasenia schreberi), water smartweed (Polygonum sp.), white water lily (Nymphaea odorata), and yellow water lily (Nuphar luteum), were noted as the most abundant species as early as 1992, and continue to be common today. Other species, including quillwort (Isoetes braunii) and small pondweed (Potamogeton pusilus) only show up in a single record (CSLAP, 2003). This could mean the species failed to be successful in the lake, is not prevalent in August during the aquatic plant survey, or has been misidentified either originally or since. Floating plant cover, from species like water shield (Brasenia schreberi) and white water lily (Nymphaea odorata), serves an important role as a protective habitat for fish, while also providing shade. The latter is important in Windover Lake due to its shallow depth and mean summer temperature about 21°C (71.8 °F) based on mid-May to mid-September temperatures at 1.0 m.

48 Table 16. Vascular plants observed in Windover Lake from 1992 – 2016.

Common Name (Genus)* Type Cattail (Typha sp., T. latifolia) Emergent Water smartweed (Polygonum sp., P. amphibium) Emergent Pickerel weed (Pontederia cordata) Emergent Rush (Juncus spp.) Emergent Sedge (Carex spp.) Emergent Yellow Water Lily (Nuphar luteum) Floating-Leaved Watershield (Brasenia schreberi) Floating-Leaved White water lily (Nymphaea odorata) Floating-Leaved Naiad (Najas sp.) Submergent Bladderwort (Utricularia sp., U. vulgaris) Submergent Waterweed (Elodea spp., E. nuttallii, E. canadensis) Submergent Quillwort (Isoetes braunii) Submergent Stonewort (Chara spp.) Submergent Pondweed (Potamogeton spp., P. pussilus, P. natans) Submersed/Floating-Leaved *Source material includes APA Permits, CSLAP, TWC, and SUNY Oneonta. See Appendix E for a complete table of source data and records for each genera and species observation.

3.1.1 Water Level Drawdown

Water level drawdown has been the main control technique for nuisance aquatic macrophytes at Windover Lake, largely in part because the lake is already dammed and thereby provides an inexpensive control technique. Water level drawdown refers to the controlled removal of water, usually through a sluiceway in the dam, such that the surface water drops to a desired elevation. The function of drawdown is to expose lake-bottom in the shallowest areas along the shoreline, as these areas are usually home to many rooted aquatic plants. Windover Lake is very shallow throughout, and so drawdown exposes a far greater area than one might expect in a deeper lake (Figure 10). According to the most recent drawdown permit, issued by the Adirondack Park Agency in 2012, Windover Lake is drawn down on average 4.5 feet. The first permit issued in 1993 allowed for only a 3 foot drawdown, as the APA and NYSDEC believed this depth would have less adverse impact (APA Permit No. 91-349). A timeline of past permits, their allowances, and years of past drawdowns is shown in Table 2. The most recent drawdowns have consisted of 4.5 foot drawdowns.

In the northeastern United States, water level drawdown is usually conducted during the fall and winter seasons, in order to expose sediments and roots to freezing temperatures. Ideally, the target species root bases will freeze and the plant will not return during the following growing season. Recent drawdowns on Windover Lake have begun on or after September 15 but before October 1, when an individual begins releasing water, and ends when the permitted

49 drawdown depth is achieved. Refill of the lake should begin by March 1 of the following year. It is important that the timeframe for the drawdown is long enough to dewater the target areas, and expose target vegetated areas to freezing temperatures. In some situations, thick snow cover can act as an insulator, and the effects of drawdown are subsequently lessened. Anecdotal evidence in the form of comments during stakeholder meetings suggest that this has occurred on at least one occasion, although supporting evidence is lacking. Table 18 shows the extent of impact for differing levels of water level, including area of exposed lake bottom, volume of water released, and remaining surface area of water.

Aside from aquatic plant control, drawdown allows for the opportunity to repair the dam and remove trash or debris from the exposed shoreline. Additionally, this control technique is not typically conducted during the summer, or peak recreational months. Lastly, compared to many other control techniques, water level drawdown has minimal associated costs so long as a dam is in existence.

Possible downsides of water level drawdown include the variable effect it has depending on the plant species. According to Holdren et al., emergent and seed-producing species are more tolerant of drawdown (2001). Several species including those of the genera Potamogeton, as well as Typha latifolia and Polygonum natans, have been found to increase in response to drawdown (Nichols, 1975). Other species, including Najas flexilis and other Potamogeton spp., may simply be well adapted to recovering following a drawdown (Nichols, 1975). Following a 50-year study of a waterbody in Wisconsin, Nichols concluded that drawdown can cause a shift in aquatic plant species present over time, from less tolerant species to those more tolerant of drawdown (1975). A list of anticipated responses to drawdown may be found in Table 19; the results of rake toss surveys conducted at Windover Lake are described in Section 3.1.2.

Disadvantages to using drawdown include the variable response by plant species, the heightened tolerance of seed-producing species, as well as several other habitat and structural concerns. Drawdown can impact and disturb benthic organisms, or organisms who overwinter in the bottom sediment. In the earliest APA permit, issued in 1993, a NYSDEC biologist recommended a 3-foot drawdown to account for adequate overwintering conditions for fish. Later versions of the permit increased the permitted drawdown depth to 4.5 feet. It can also lead to a large amount of dead and decomposing vegetation which, depending on the density, may contribute to increased nutrients over the years following. Finally, drawdown has the potential to lead to shoreline erosion and slumping, alteration of downstream flows, and alteration of water level in nearby wells (Holdren et al., 2001). From watershed and stakeholder surveys, the smell of decomposing vegetation was also noted as quite unpleasant following drawdowns at Windover Lake.

Table 17. A timeline of the events surrounding - and related to - each occurrence of water level drawdown at Windover Lake, after NYS Adirondack Park Agency Permits P91-349, 96-226, 99- 263, and 99-263A. 1916 Baker Brook is dammed, forming 80-acre Ross Lake (now Windover Lake) 1928 height raised, lake sized increased to about 100-acres

50

Lake is totally 11944 The dam drawn down for repairs, reconstruction, October 1982 – October 1983 fails following heavy rain. Only Baker Brook remains for the next five summers. The dam is rebuilt and the lake restored.

1 Lake is totally drawn down for nuisance aquatic plant control, May - August 9 8 4

1 First permit issued by the APA, for a one-time 3 foot drawdown First aquatic plant survey is 9 conducted 9 3

1 A 3-foot drawdown was attempted but was aborted 9 1999- 2003 9 2000- 2001 5 2005- 2006 2008- 2009 2012 Most recent permit issued, for 4.5 feet. To be conducted between 2012- 2014 2013- 2014 Most recent drawdown, 4.5 feet. 2014- 2016 SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station monitoring; October 2014- February 2016 due to beaver interference 1 Permit re-issued for 4.5-foot drawdown. First drawdown conducted, before October 1, 1996, until March 1, 9 1997. 9 6 - 1 9 9 7

Table 18. The extent of drawdown impacts on the water volume, surface area, and exposed area, of Windover Lake. Extent of Drawdown, from the Adirondack Park Agency project impact report

Impact 3 Feet 4 Feet 4.5 Feet

Water Volume Released (acre feet) 263 330* 350** Remaining Surface Water (acres) 80 56 51 Exposed Area (acres) 20 42 - 43 49

51 *From APA Project & Permit No. 91-349, a release of 330 acre feet would leave a remaining 119 acre feet of water. **From APA Project & Permit No. 96-226, a release of 350 acre feet would leave a remaining 100 acre feet of water.

Table 19. Anticipated responses of the species most commonly found in and around Windover Lake, including some wetland species. After Cooke et al., 2005. Change in Relative Abundance Increase No Change Decrease Watershield (Brasenia schreberi) E Spikerush (Eleocharis acicularis) S S S Waterweed (Elodea canadensis) S S S Yellow water lily (Nuphar spp.) E/S White water lily (Nymphaea odorata) S Smartweed (Polygonum spp.) E E/S Pondweed (Potamogeton epihydrus) S Three square rush (Schoenoplectus americanus) E Wool grass (Scirpus cypernius) E E = Emergent; S = Submergent; E/S = Emergent and submergent forms

Table 20. Anecdotal and observational information regarding past drawdowns, from annual reports to the Adirondack Park Agency by The Windover Corporation, 2006-2015 (Lake Management Committee of the Windover Corporation (TWC), 2015). Date of Past Drawdowns Abundant Species Pre-drawdown Effectiveness

1996-1997

2000-2001

2005-2006

2008-2009 Mass of emergent plants collected dropped significantly, however Mixed. Effective for total mass (g/m2) only dropped from 3,892 to 3,800. Submerged emergent (floatingleaf) species increased in 2009 but dropped in years following as plants. emergent species rebounded.

2013-2014

3.1.2 Aquatic Plant Rake Toss Surveys

Aquatic plant surveys have been conducted on Windover Lake annually beginning in 1993, as part of the permit agreement with the Adirondack Park agency, in order to conduct

52 drawdowns and quantify their effects. A variety of techniques, including field methods and data recording, have resulted in somewhat non-compatible datasets from 1993 to roughly 2007. Beginning in 2008, stakeholders participating in the rake toss survey began following the Point-Intercept Rake Toss Relative Abundance Method (PIRTRAM), developed by Lord and Johnson (2006). The rake toss survey has been conducted at roughly the same time each growing season, annually in mid-August. The survey is conducted entirely by volunteers, who have also undertaken their own plant-identification and relative-abundance determination training. Attempts have been made to keep volunteers consistent over the years. By following PIRTRAM and collecting a consistent, categorical data set, the effects of drawdown can be analyzed in a quantifiable way.

Methods

Although a rake toss survey was not conducted by the SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station, stakeholder collection methods are described here. As part of the APA Permit requirements, at least three transects were required to be monitored the summer before a drawdown, and for two summers following drawdown. In 2015, TWC surveyed six transects, for a total of 23 sample points (Figure 27).

Equipment for a rake toss survey includes two metal rake heads, wired together, such that the tines face out (Lord and Johnson, 2006). TWC attached the rake heads to 30-feet of rope, and the rope is tossed and reeled in from the point along each transect. The plants are removed from the rake tines, identified, and measured in terms of abundance category. To understand the format of the input data, the PIRTRAM categories have been described in Table 21.

Table 21. PIRTRAM Categories, from the Cornell Plant Abundance Scale (Lord and Johnson, 2006). Abundance Category Field Description Detection Value for Analysis “Z” = Zero plants No plants on the rake 0 “T” = Trace plants Fingerful of plants on the rake 1

“S” = Sparse plants Handful of plants on the rake 1 “M” = Medium plants Rakeful of plants on the rake 1

“D” = Dense plants An amount difficult to bring in boat 1

Results

Graphs were created using R software, and formatted using the graphics package ‘ggplot2.’ depicts relative abundance for all plant species accounted for in the rake toss survey, or, total plant abundance depicts the correlation coefficients for the Total Abundance data shown in Table 22. That table depicts ten graphs (A-J) of relative abundance data for individual species, including the three main nuisance genera Brasenia, Potamogeton, and Nymphaea. On the y-axis is the count, which is the relative proportion of observations for each plant in each year on a scale of 0-1, of that plant being found at either zero, sparse, trace, medium, or dense abundance. The x-axis shows the survey year. Therefore, one can easily view a change in total abundance

53 between pre- and post-drawdown years, e.g. 2008-2009, just by looking at a shift in the proportion of shaded bars.

Discussion

Several species included in the aquatic plant rake toss surveys are consistently in low abundance, with several, like Polygonum and Carex, appearing so rarely that no conclusion can be drawn from their detection in the lake. From Table 22, these species are not commonly considered aquatic plants and are more likely to be found in a shoreline or wetland setting. Therefore, it begs the question as to whether these species should have ever been included in the annual survey. Other species, like Nuphar, are not consistently observed each year, although the yellow flowered plant and its easily-recognized palm-tree-like rhizome were observed on multiple occasions in 2015. According to the USDA Plant Guide, Nuphar flowers bloom from May to October, with the plant only dying back in autumn (Wennerberg, 2004). However, Nuphar species can exhibit heterophylly, which is the presence of two or more leaf types of the same plant (Titus & Sullivan, 2001). In a heterophylly study conducted on Nuphar variegatum in New York, several parameters including soil acidity and CO2 were tested for their effect on the species. Independent of these parameters, a consistent growth pattern displayed by the test plants was a reversion from floating leaf growth to submergent leaf growth in late summer (Titus & Sullivan, 2001). Additionally, when N. variegatum was grown in both a “more fertile” and “less fertile” soil, the species reached maximum abundance of floating leaves on August 12, roughly mid-August for both soil types (Titus & Sullivan, 2001). The “less fertile” soil came from Big Moose Lake, a large lake northwest of Windover Lake in the Adirondack Park. The plants grown on Big Moose Lake soil also displayed far fewer floating leaves per plant relative to the number of submergent leaves, and relative to the “more fertile” soils which came from outside of the Adirondack Park (Titus & Sullivan, 2001). The takeaway from this study is that the most recognizable floating-leaf-form of Nuphar may be in decline by the time of the rake toss survey, and the species may also be more abundant in its submerged form. With that in mind, the submerged form may be more prevalent in deeper water, in regards to the general relationship between water depth and the effort and energy required to grow floating leaves. It may be selected against by nature of the rake toss survey, which has no transects at the deepest sites, or because the floating leaf form occurs in shallow water and is then mistaken for morphologically similar Nymphaea. Ultimately, there are many possible factors affecting plant growth and seasonal presence in the lake.

Aquatic plant genera of particular concern to Windover Lake stakeholders are Brasenia, Potamogeton, and Nymphaea. Stakeholder observations of these plants in relation to drawdown can be found in Table 20. All three are considered to occupy the lake at nuisance levels at different times of the year. This is largely due to all three plants having floating leaves, making their presence more apparent compared to submerged species. Compare graphs A, G, and H in Table 22 for the aforementioned species, to graph J, for Utricularia, a submerged species in moderate abundance. A description of the aquatic plant genera’s reaction to drawdown is present next to each graph in Table 22.

One can confirm that a change did, or did not, occur by looking at the statistical output of the ordinal logistic regression analysis which depicts data for total species abundance between

54 2008 and 2015. In order to understand this graph, it is important to understand the statistics behind it. An ordinal logistic regression analysis is a method of analysis where ‘ordinal’ refers to values that can be ranked in some order of value or likelihood. The categories used by PIRTRAM allow plant abundance data to be ranked from zero to dense, at a given point or transect. A regression analysis can be used to estimate the relationship between the year, the independent variable, and the aquatic plant species, the dependent variable. In Figure 26, every point on the graph represents change since 2008, such that for 2010, the actual change is depicting 2008, 2009, 2010; 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, etc. Since we know when drawdown occurred, one can interpret the output relative to the effect of drawdown. Finally, logistic regression is used when the dependent variables are categorical, and uses a logistic function, which is why the y-axes above have a scale of 0 to 1. A logistic function will always have an output between 0 and 1, and so, the output can be interpreted as a probability, or a percent out of 100 (Table 21). In this way, you could find the probability of Brasenia in mid-August 2009 at medium (M) quantities. A shift in categories is based on a one unit change from one year to the next, where a positive shift means that overall the species categories became denser. A negative shift means that abundance categories for an aquatic macrophyte became less dense, because the order is from zero to dense. These shifts can be used to extrapolate the effect of drawdown for macrophyte species in late summer, during peak growing season. However, coefficient data for each species is not shown here due to a lack of data points. While the trends observed for each plant in Graphs A – J do have value, there are too many confounding variables that may lead to misinterpreted or misleading trends.

Future analysis of this data could include multistate occupancy models, or other additional statistical analysis. This type of model, created in a program like R, would rely on detection or non-detection observations of a species, such that data for a species would appear as either 0 or 1; it is either present at a particular site or it is not, 0 or 1. It is important for this type of analysis that the site and survey do not change over the number of replicates (Kery & Shaub, 2012). This means that point T6-10 must be in the same location, be surveyed the same way, and can only be compared to sites surveyed the same way, for the same number of years. In this way, we can compare T6-10 to T5-1 for not only 2008, but 2008-2015, and all future years if surveyed using the same methods. Additionally, all past surveys have been conducted in mid-August, which adds further consistency, but it also means the results are only applicable to that particular month, and do not reflect changes occurring at different times of the year. In the future, rake toss surveys could be conducted in mid-June, mid-July, and mid-August, and these could be used to compare changes within a year. This type of consistency has currently been followed by the LMC at Windover Lake, and it is important that future surveys are conducted with similar attention to detail.

55

Figure 25. Total Species Abundance for Windover Lake, based on annual August rake toss plant survey data collected by the Windover Lake Management Committee and volunteers, August 2008 – 2015.

Figure 26. Change intervals based on the total abundance data. Each point represents change relative to the previous year. 2008 is not shown because there is no 2007 data for comparison. Drawdown years are noted on the graph; 2013-2014 shows the most apparent impact from drawdown, with a strongly negative departure from zero.

56

Table 22. Graphs A-J depict relative abundance graphs for individual plant and macroalgae species based on PIRTRAM data collected between 2008-2015, for Windover Lake. A brief description of the plant and general interpretation is included to the right of each graph. All plant descriptions aided in part by, or confirmed by (Tiner, Jr., Rorer, & Wiegand, 1988) (USDA, NRCS, 2016), unless otherwise specified. A) Watershield (Brasenia schreberi) is one of the most abundant, and therefore nuisance, species found in Windover Lake. The plant is easy to distinguish from other water lilies, based on the presence of slime on the stem and underside of the oval leaves. Brasenia does appear to decline in the year immediately postdrawdown, and then gradually increase in all following years (2009-2013).

B) Carex is a genus of sedge, a common wetland species that may also be found amongst emergent, rooted, shoreline vegetation. It is not typically counted as an aquatic species. Of note in this graph, Carex was only found in some abundance in 2008, although it was likely still present in later years, for the above stated reason.

57 C) Chara is a genus of green algae, of the family Characeae, and not actually an aquatic macrophyte. It does, however, resemble a plant in that it is multicellular with stem- and leaf-like branches. For that reason, it is often considered a ‘macroalgae’. In this graph, Chara is first noted only following the 20082009 drawdown. It gradually declines until post- drawdown, in 2014.

D) Elodea is a species of submerged waterweed, composed of branching stems with leaves arranged in whorls of 3 around the stem. Based on this graph, it is unclear as to how Elodea is affected in the long-term following drawdown. For both post

E) In drawdown years, the overall abundance relative to ‘Z’ decreased, but the abundance category for 2014, ‘M’, suggests the treatment was not successful lake wide.

F) Water Nympth, or Southern Naiad, (Najas spp.) is a submerged plant characterized by small teeth-like serrations on its narrow leaves. Stems are long, slender, and branching. Najas’ relationship with water level drawdown is unclear based on the two drawdowns depicted here, however the increase in abundance following the 20082009 drawdown suggests there may be some effect if conditions are right.

58 G) Yellow pond-lily (Nuphar lutea) is characterized by its yellow flowers, slightly heartshaped floating leaves, and a network of thick, spongy rhizomes that give rise to multiple stems. These anchor in the muddy bottom making the plant difficult to eradicate by harvesting It is unclear whether it is truly less abundant overall, or whether August is not the ideal time to survey Nuphar during the growing season.

H) White water lily (Nymphaea odorata) is characterized by its large white flowers, and round floating leaves up to 10” wide (with a single notch at the base of the leaf). Nymphaea is less tolerant of deep water and shade than the easily-confused genera Nuphar (Wennerberg, 2004). The leaves of Nymphaea are more round compared to Nuphar. For both drawdown periods shown, Nymphaea does decline initially. A long-term effect may or may not exist.

I) Potamogeton is a broad genus for pondweeds; A lack of species identification at Windover Lake has made it unclear what pondweed was included in the annual survey. Pondweeds may be floating or submerged. Floating-leaf pondweed (P. natans) grows in large monoculture beds in Windover, characterized by ~3” long ovate leaves and spikelets with pink flowers. 2013-2014 depicts overall decrease in abundance following a particularly prolific year (2013).

59 J) Like the pondweed family, Polygonum is a broad genus belonging to the smartweed family, which encompasses aquatic, wetland, and upland species. P. amphibium may be found as a floating-leaved rooted aquatic plant, or along the shallow littoral zone as a 3’ tall shrub. It is unclear what species was surveyed at Windover Lake, however this variation in habitat may account for the lack of presence in the rake toss data, and does not mean the species has been wholly absent in some years. K) Bladderwort (Utricularia spp.) is a free-floating submerged aquatic plant, composed of long stems and thread-like, leafy branches. Numerous tiny airfilled bladders are attached to the branches. The plant often floats just below the water surface, and at Windover, was often found stuck in dense Potamogeton patches. A decrease in abundance from 2013- 2014 may be attributable in part to the drawdown, although there is not enough data to be certain.

60

Figure 27. Rake toss sample locations, denoted by transect number (T1-T6), and the point along each transect (e.g. T6-1, T6-2) (Lake Management Committee of the Windover Corporation (TWC), 2015).

3.2 Phytoplankton & Zooplankton

Plankton refers to the microscopic organisms suspended in the water column, carried mainly by passive currents created by the wind or other turbulence. Plankton can be further broken down into plant and animal groups, referred to as phytoplankton and zooplankton, respectively. Both groups represent a wide taxonomic range, with a multitude of morphologies for functions including both feeding and movement.

61 Phytoplankton are the most basic primary producers found in freshwater lakes, if single-cell bacteria are not considered. This group is more commonly known as algae, and is responsible for much of the green color found in eutrophic systems. Phytoplankton introduce dissolved oxygen into freshwater, as a product of photosynthesis.

Both phytoplankton and zooplankton serve as food sources for fish and other aquatic organisms. An understanding of the planktonic community can aid in determining what other organisms will survive and thrive in a lake, based on feeding preferences of larger aquatic organisms. The genera of several phytoplankton found in the spring of 2016 can be seen in Table 23. Zooplankton were not identified at this time, although future studies may include this if deemed applicable for the use of a particular management tool.

Table 23. Phytoplankton collected from Windover Lake.

Collection Date Phylum Family Genus 9 April 2016 Bacillariophyta Tabellariaceae Tabellaria sp. Charophyta Desmidiaceae Staurastrum sp. Ochrophyta/Heterokontophyta? Dinobryaceae Dinobryon sp. Miozoa Ceratiaceae Certatium sp. Rotifera Brachionidae Keratella sp.

3.3 Wetland Description & Plant ID

The presence of wetlands was first acknowledged in the 1992-issued permit for water level drawdown. This permit, from the NYS Adirondack Park Agency (APA), described the presence of a Class 1 wetland in the vicinity of Windover Lake. This classification system is used, with little variance, by the APA, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and ranks wetlands based on numerous quality and function characteristics. A Class 1 wetland is of the highest quality and function. In comparison, Class 4 is a wetland of lowest quality or function. Permits for activities occurring in or near Class 1 wetlands are subject to greater scrutiny than lower class wetlands. The initial drawdown permit from 1992 describes the project site, and lists the evidence that contributes to this wetland classification. The evidence described by NYS APA Permit No. 91-349 includes: • “No other pond the size of Windover with a 6 to 7-mile radius which adds to the regional value of the lake and its associated wetlands.” • Wetland plants found: Variable Pondweed, Najas sp., Nuphar Luterm, Typha sp., Polygomum sp., Pontederia cordata, Juncus sp., Brasenia schreberi, and Nymphaea odorata. • Aerial photo interpretation suggests 20-25 acres of emergent marsh wetland. There are approximately 47 acres of deepwater wetlands associated with open water, and between a steep sloped upland and the emergent marsh, the presence of a forested bog/shrub bog wetland of ~5 acres. “The overall size and presence of two or more cover types results in this wetland complex having a value rating of 1” under 9 NYCRR 578.5.

62 Wetlands within the Adirondack Park are solely under the jurisdiction of the APA, which administers the Freshwater Wetlands Act, Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and the Adirondack Park Agency Act, Executive Law, Article 27, Section 801 (NYSDEC, 1995). The latter provides definitions and protective measures specifically intended for wetlands within the Adirondack Park, and in general, are more clearly defined and strict in their application than the regulations set forth in Article 24. Wetlands outside of the Adirondack Park are under the jurisdiction of the NYSDEC.

Wetland maps provided by the APA represent approximate boundaries, and are created by analysis of hydrology and vegetative cover from ortho-photographic imagery. These maps can be accessed and viewed by the public via the National Wetlands Inventory online which is a U.S. Fish and Wildlife service. A more precise boundary can be established by the APA or the NYSDEC, which should occur whenever a wetland may be disturbed by human activities. According to the APA, the agency will determine the exact boundary of a wetland by request when one is considering conducting a regulated activity within the wetland or adjacent area (APA, 2015). Such a boundary is established by delineation, a method that examines the vegetation, hydrology, and soil, in order to delineate the outer extent of a wetland, and thereby define where the regulated area begins and ends. Article 24, Section 24-0301, states that a wetland of at least 12.4 acres must be mapped in New York, with some exceptions (NYSDEC, 1992). Exceptions apply to wetlands located within the Adirondack Park, which require that a wetland be at least one acre in size, assuming other defining criteria like vegetation and soils are met. A wetland within the Adirondack Park that is adjacent to or exchanges surface water with a permanent body of water like Windover Lake, can be any size (NYSDEC, 1995). Both Article 24 and the APA Rules and Regulations regulate activity occurring within the adjacent area, or the 100-foot buffer outside of the wetland, marked horizontally to the wetland boundary. This is to ensure that regulated activities are kept in check when they border a wetland area.

In determining a wetland boundary, hydrology refers mainly to permanent or seasonal flooding (NYSDEC, 1995). To qualify as a wetland based on hydrology alone, the soil must be saturated with water to the base of the root zones for most plants for a period of at least two weeks during the growing season (NYSDEC, 1995). The growing season typically refers to the period following the last frost in the spring, and the first frost in the fall. Clues that indicate flooding or periodic inundation include the presence of watermarks on surrounding trees and rocks, fine sediment on the surface of leaf matter, drift lines of materials carried by the flow of water, and visual observation of pooled water or saturated soil (NYSDEC, 1995). Soil saturation for two weeks or more typically results in anaerobic conditions within the soil, which may result in chemical and physical alterations. Many plants growing in a wetland will have adaptations which allow them to survive in these anaerobic conditions, which leads to distinguishing physical characteristics, as well as taxa unique only to wetlands (NYSDEC 1995).

Hydric soil refers to soils that have been subject to anaerobic conditions, and now display physical or chemical alterations. These can be found long after the water has retreated or dried up, and can even remain preserved if the land is tilled for agricultural purposes. All soils fall into two groups, the mineral soils and the organic soils. Anaerobic conditions affect these two soil groups differently, and both segregate into further classifications based on the many ways anaerobic conditions alter the appearance of the soil. Mineral soils are composed of varying

63 percentages of clay, silt, and sand. Noticeable alterations to mineral soils, most typically used for wetland delineation, are the presence of gleying or mottling. Gleying refers a soil which has experienced removal of reduced iron and manganese, due to prolonged saturation and anaerobic conditions (NYSDEC, 1995). A gleyed soil will usually be a light gray, and sometimes a bluish or greenish gray. A mottled soil will have spots or patches of different colors, and is reflective of different degrees of saturation throughout the year. A soil can be both gleyed and mottled at the same time.

Organic soils form from organic material such as leaf matter, dead organisms and manure. Soil that is composed of at least 18 inches of organic material beginning at the surface, and soils with organic matter resting on the bedrock layer, are considered organic soils (NYSDEC, 1995). In aerobic environments, organic matter will eventually decay and cease to resemble the original material. When a soil is inundated with water long enough, the lack of oxygen creates anaerobic conditions which in turn impedes the breakdown of organic material (NYSDEC, 1995). The organic matter in anaerobic environments instead begins to form peat or muck, or mucky peat. The degree to which a hydric organic soil is muck or peat depends on the ratio of decomposed material to visible plant matter (NYSDEC, 1995).

Lastly, the plants that can survive in hydric soils and anaerobic conditions are referred to as hydrophytes, or hydrophytic vegetation. Morphological adaptations can be used to determine if a plant species qualifies as hydrophytic, such as the presence of hypertrophied lenticels or adventitious roots (NYSDEC, 1995). Most commonly, however, once a plant species is identified, it already has a wetland indicator status associated with it. The indicator status for each genera or species refers to the likelihood that that species will be found in a wetland or non-wetland area in a region. Species with an indicator status of obligate (OBL) are nearly always found in a wetland, with an estimated probability of >99% (NYSDEC 1995). Facultative wetland plants (FACW) are usually found in wetlands (67-99%), facultative plants (FAC) are equally likely to be found in wetlands as they are in dry areas (34%-66%), and facultative upland plants (FACU) are usually found in non-wetlands (1-33%) (NYSDEC, 1995). Upland plants (UPL) are almost always occur in non-wetland areas and are not found on a wetland plant list such as the U.S. Army Corps plant list. When the vegetation in a suspected wetland area is dominated by OBL and FACW plants, it is highly likely that it is indeed a wetland, and the vegetation is considered hydrophytic. If a formal wetland delineation is conducted, the percent areal cover of each species will be used in conjunction with the indicator status to determine where the boundary of the wetland is.The boundary of a wetland is usually found when an area dominated by wetland species grades or changes into a more facultative or upland species-dominated zone.

Methods

The wetland plant species in Table 24 were observed and recorded during the growing season for most plants, June 2016, and post-summer, in September 2015. Over 33 unique macrophytes were found between three locations, those being near the inlet, near the beaver lodge, and on the side of the road by the Hudnut property and powerlines. Macrophytes were identified using the Field Guide for Nontidal Wetland Identification (Tiner, Jr., Rorer, &

64 Wiegand, 1988). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ State of New York 2016 Wetland Plant List was used to determine the wetland indicator status of each genera or species.

Discussion

The majority of wetlands at Windover are present along the western edge of the lake; wetland vegetation is most notable surrounding the area of the inlet and northwards towards the Halliday property. Additional wetland within the watershed can be observed in Figure 28. Wetland vegetation and hydrology was also observed alongside Chatiemac Road, across the road from the roadside shoreline. Wetland acreage, near Windover Lake, and throughout the watershed, is not given due to the APA-generated maps providing only an approximate location of a suspected wetland.

The species recorded in Table 24 are mainly OBL and FACW species, as these represent the areas where APA maps have shown approximate wetland locations (Table 24). While a formal delineation should be conducted by the APA should any future work be planned near the wetland or adjacent area, these data supports the location of the mapped wetlands, and suggest that they may extend across Chatiemac Road and along the shoreline towards the major inlet. Activities that are regulated within wetland areas include, but are not limited to, land use and development, any draining, removal or dumping or material, and any structure building, road construction, or clearcutting of more than three acres (APA, 2015). There are numerous other activities, and exceptions, associated with the presence of wetlands within the Adirondack Park, and these should be investigated individually, on a case by case basis, before any work or potential disturbance proceeds.

Table 24. Vegetation found within approximate wetland locations at Windover. Species are grouped based on major vegetative strata, and subgrouped by indicator status, ranging OBL to FACU. Location abbreviations include, BV = [near to] Beaver Lodge; IN = Inlet; CH = Chatiemac Road, opposite the shoreline, and WL = Whole Lake. Common Name Latin Name Status Location Observation Date Trees

Balsam Fir Abies balsamea FAC BV 6/9/2016 Red Maple Acer rubrum FAC BV, CH 6/9/2016 Eastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensis FACU BV 6/9/2016 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus FACU BV 6/9/2016 American Beech Fagus grandifolia FACU CH 6/9/2016 Shrubs and Vines

Alder Alnus sp. FACW BV 6/9/2016 Viburnum (Hobblebush) Viburnum lantanoides FACU BV 6/9/2016 Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia FACU BV 6/9/2016 Emergent/Wet Meadow/Understory

Marsh St. Johnswort Triadenum virginicum OBL BV, IN 6/9/2016, 9/11/2015

65 Drooping Sedge Carex sp. OBL BV 6/9/2016 Sedges (other) Carex spp. OBL BV, IN 6/9/2016, 9/11/2015 Dark Green Bulrush Scirpus atrovirens OBL BV, IN 6/9/2016, 9/11/2015 Softstem Bulrush Schoenoplectus OBL BV, IN 6/9/2016, 9/11/2015 tabernaemontani Spike Rush Eleocharis sp. OBL/FACW BV 6/9/2016 Wool Grass Scirpus cypernius IN 9/11/2015 Nut Sedge IN 9/11/2015

Floating Marsh Hydrocotyle ranunculoides OBL BV 6/9/2016 Pennywort Burr-Reed Sparganium sp. OBL BV, IN 6/9/2016, 9/11/2015 Wild Iris Iris versicolor OBL BV 6/9/2016 Bedstraw Galium sp. OBL/FACW BV 6/9/2016 Meadowrue Thalictrum sp. FAC/FACW BV 6/9/2016 Blue Vervain Verbena hastata FACW BV, IN 6/9/2016, 9/11/2015 Spiraea Spiraea sp. FAC/FACW BV 6/9/2016 Goldenrod Solidago spp. BV, CH 6/9/2016

Narrow leaved Euthamia graminifolia IN 9/11/2015 Goldenrod Willow Herb Epilobium sp. IN 9/11/2015 Tear thumb Polygonum persicaria IN 9/11/2015

Floating Leaves/Submergent

Common Bladderwort Utricularia macrorhiza OBL WL - White Water Lily Nymphaea odorata OBL WL - Yellow Pond Lily Nuphar spp. OBL WL - Floating Leaf Pondweed Potamogeton sp. OBL WL - Watershield Brasenia schreberi OBL WL - Bog Species

Sundews Drosera sp. OBL BV 6/9/2016 Ferns and Allies

Sensitive Fern Onoclea sensibilis FACW BV 6/9/2016 Cinnamon Fern Osmunda cinnamomea FACW BV, CH 6/9/2016 Horsetail Equisetum sp. OBL/FACW CH 6/9/2016

66

Figure 28. Adirondack Park Agency and National Wetland Inventory wetlands within the Windover Lake watershed (data source: APA Geographic Information System).

67 3.4 The Fish Community

No study was completed regarding the fishery in Windover Lake due to a lack of interest in the fishery, as well as an attempt to discourage illegal trespass and fishing by outsiders through a lack of information on fish in the lake. From the 1992 drawdown permit, the fishery is described as including brown trout, brook trout, largemouth bass, sunfish, and bullheads (NYS APA Permit No. 91-349). Anecdotal evidence from the stakeholder survey alludes to the illegal, or unpermitted, stocking of sunfish sometime in the past, but no further information on this was found. Although the lake is privately owned, private lakes and sections of streams are still subject to regulation by the NYSDEC. A fish stocking permit and a Fish Health Inspection Report is required, at the very least, before new fish can be introduced to the lake (NYSDEC, 2009). Fish cannot be moved, or transported, from one lake to another.

Fish distribution information for the Siamese Pond Wilderness area provides some insight into the fish communities of nearby lakes, and may serve as a reference for species expected to be found in Windover Lake. Table 25, adapted from the Siamese Ponds Wilderness Unit Management Plan, describes recent fish distribution data. The fish found in the lakes, ponds, and rivers here today are largely there because of human and topographic forces. Old New York State records describe stocking over 8 million brook trout, brown trout, rainbow trout, black bass, muskellunge, various salmon, and nearly 200 million “food fishes”, including perch, pike, bullheads, and more, throughout the state in one year (Fifteenth Annual Report of the Forest, Fish and Game Commission, 1909). It is easy to speculate that in the early 20th century, when Windover Lake’s creators were attempting to build a hunting and fishing camp, that the lake was also stocked with fish. In fact, according to the written history of Windover Lake, the Glens Falls Times reported in 1918 that the pond lost 35,000 trout following an early dam failure (Hudnut, 2014). Topographic barriers to both native and stocked fish include various waterfalls, and man- made dams, along North Creek and the Hudson River, into which Windover Lake eventually drains ( (NYSDEC - DLF, 2005).

Within the watershed and upstream of Windover Lake, Bakers Mill Pond is listed as a Brook Trout fishery by the NYSDEC (NYSDEC, 2014). Bakers Mill Pond is also marked as being a fish stocking site although it has not been stocked in recent years and is not listed in fish stocking lists available from the NYSDEC since 2011. Historic stocking data available from 1962-1975 shows that Bakers Mill Pond was stocked with speckled trout fingerlings (Figure 29). Bakers Mill Pond is not labeled on modern maps, although several sections of Baker Brook appear wider than others on both digital mapping software such as Google Maps, and as seen in person.

Historically, brook trout made up a significant portion of the native fish community in the Siamese Ponds area. A decline of brook trout in the Siamese Ponds Wilderness area is believed to be the result of introduction of non-native species such as yellow perch, smallmouth bass, golden shiners, and brown trout, among other species (Table 25). Populations of brook trout in the Adirondack Park today exist largely in part due to routine stocking and reclamation. Reclamation refers to the eradication of all fish in a body of water, to allow for the stocking of brook trout without influence and competition from other, mainly non-native, species (NYSDEC

68 - DLF, 2005). Most Adirondack ponds are reclaimed by brook trout because the species is one of the likely earliest, native inhabitants.

Nearby Second Pond, accessible from a trailhead off Chatiemac Road, is managed as an Adirondack brook trout pond by the NYSDEC. A 1957 survey of the pond found brook trout, creek chubs, brown bullheads, and non-native golden shiners. The most recent survey by the DEC, in July 2000, found only brook trout and golden shiners. Stocking data shows that fall stocking, from 2011-2015, has introduced between 500 and 1,400 brook trout into the pond annually. The mean fish length for 2011-2015 stocked brook trout has been about 4.3 inches.

Table 25. Fish community distribution in the Siamese Ponds Wilderness area, adapted from the Siamese Ponds Wilderness Unit Management Plan (NYSDEC - DLF, 2005). Pre- and Post-1980 refers to fishery surveys conducted prior to 1980 by a variety of groups and individuals, and the surveys conducted by the Adirondack Lakes Surveys Corporation (ALSC) during the 1980’s, as well as more recent information. Pre-1980 (Early Distribution) Post-1980 (Recent Distribution) % Fish % Fish Net Change Category # of Lakes # of Lakes Communities Communities for Species Total Lakes 81 81 Unsurveyed Lakes 47 41 Surveyed Lakes 34 40 Fishless Lakes 0 0% 3 8% Lakes with Fish 34 100% 37 92% Brook Trout 31 91% 25 68% -19% Native But Widely Introduced Lake Trout 3 9% 2 5% -33% Brown Bullhead 20 59% 19 51% -5% Pumpkinseed 8 24% 7 19% -13% Creek Chub 14 41% 16 43% 14% Native White Sucker 9 26% 16 43% 78% Lake Chub 0 0% 0 0% 0% Blacknose Dace 5 15% 3 8% -40% N. Redbelly Dace 5 15% 4 11% -20% Common Shiner 3 9% 3 8% 0% Redbreast Sunfish 3 9% 0 0% -100% Round Whitefish 0 0% 0 0% 0% Cutlips Minnow 1 3% 0 0% -100% Non-Native Yellow Perch 3 9% 2 5% -33% Golden Shiner 16 47% 21 57% 31% Smallmouth Bass 1 3% 0 0% -100% Largemouth Bass 1 3% 3 8% 200% Chain Pickerel 4 12% 3 8% -25% Rock Bass 1 3% 2 5% 100%

69 Northern Pike 2 6% 0 0% -100% Rainbow Trout 2 6% 2 5% 0% Brown Trout 2 6% 3 8% 50% Splake 1 3% 0 0% -100% Landlocked Salmon 0 0% 1 3% 100% Lake Whitefish 1 3% 1 3% 0% Alewife 0 0% 1 3% 100% Spotfin Shiner 0 0% 1 3% 100%

Figure 29. An example of a stocking card from the NYSDEC in 1975. 1,543 Speckled Trout Fingerlings (STF) were stocked in Bakers Mill Pond, in two trips (T-1 and T-2).

3.5 Benthos & Other Wildlife

Benthic organisms were not studied at this time, but a survey may be relevant in the future depending on the form of management pursued. APA Permit No. 91-349, as well as later permits, state that “numerous invertebrate and benthic organisms are present,” although none are specified.

Water level drawdown has been shown to impact benthic communities, as mentioned in Section 3.1.1. Negative impacts are wide ranging. One study found that in twenty years of water level fluctuation, the littoral fauna community had been significantly altered. At this particular lake, located in North Wales, the rocky shoreline had changed into a muddy shore from repeated drawdowns (Hunt & Jones, 1972). Macroinvertebrates were also getting stranded on the shoreline as the water level dropped. Ultimately, food sources, shelter, and safe spaces for organisms to deposit eggs disappeared. Mollusks, beetles, and insect species declined from the stark changes to their environment, not the least of which was the loss of the aquatic macrophytes (Hunt & Jones, 1972). Conversely, Oligochaete fauna flourished as a result. Several

70 species of leeches were thought to have “undoubtedly benefited from the changed conditions” (Hunt & Jones, 1972). Cascading effects from these changes resulted in a lack of food for fish; in several studies, the macroinvertebrate community was so altered that it was no longer suitable to native trout (Hunt & Jones, 1972).

A study by Furey et al, found similar effects in the macroinvertebrate community of a lake in British Columbia, noting a peak in detritus-feeding organisms like the Oligochaetes (2006). Additionally, higher densities of benthic invertebrates were found below the drawdown exposure area compared to the same area in a natural, non-reservoir lake, suggesting the impact of drawdown extend beyond the exposed area (Furey et al., 2006). Lastly, over time, the benthic community was seen to support organisms with smaller bodies and drought and dessicantresistant body features (Furey et al., 2006). It is difficult to say what effect, if any, repeated drawdowns have had on the benthic macroinvertebrate communities of Windover Lake. These past studies offer additional factors to consider when using drawdown to control aquatic plants.

Wildlife found at Windover includes a recurring presence of loons, as well as a great blue heron rookery in a pine tree on the small island. Additionally, the lake is reported to be habitat to black ducks, mergansers, green heron, Canadian geese, beaver, otter, mink, muskrat, and raccoon (Permit No. 91-349). Additional aquatic organisms found include turtles, frogs, and salamanders (Permit No. 91-349).

Species found in the Siamese Ponds Wilderness area include an extensive list of amphibians and reptiles, small and large mammals, birds, and the potential for many unique, endangered or threatened species (NYSDEC - DLF, 2005).

71 Chapter 4. Lake and Watershed Opinion Surveys, 2015

4.1 Background Information

An important component of a management plan involves not only notifying the stakeholders and community of the project, but also involving stakeholders and the public to comment and contribute.

4.2 Windover Stakeholder Survey 2015 Results

In October 2015, an online survey was sent out to stakeholders belonging to the Windover stakeholder mailing list, to get a better understanding of the demographics and concerns of this group. A seven-question survey was developed using the online application Survey Monkey, which kept track of response rate and allowed the user to send reminder notices. The survey was distributed to an email list consisting of 118 emails derived from the 2014 Family Directory provided by the Lake Management Committee. Several paper copies of the survey were mailed to stakeholders upon request. There was an approximately 50% return rate from stakeholders (59/118).

4.2.1 Lake Use

Windover Lake is unique in that there are only six camps located at an accessible distance from the shore, in addition to several other nearby properties owned by Windover family members but with no direct lake access. It is difficult to gauge the level of use for these camps as they are often shared between many individuals in given year.

To assess the use of the camps and lake, stakeholders were asked to describe the frequency of their visits to the lake. Out of the 59 survey respondents, the largest groups were “Less Frequent but visit throughout the year,” with 31%, and “Special Occasions & Family Reunions only,” with 34% (Figure 30). Based on these results, stakeholders are largely split between visiting the lake highly infrequently, as in special occasions, or throughout the year but not frequently. It was noted that only 5% of respondents (three individuals) were permanent or year-round locals. Additional comments from stakeholders described once-a-year visits and variance from year-to-year.

A concern that came up in initial talks with the Windover Lake Management Committee was the potential for the introduction of aquatic invasive species. One way to assess this risk is by looking at who uses the lake. While the lake is not accessible to the public, family members and other stakeholders may bring guests. Figure 31 illustrates the usage of the lake by stakeholders only, stakeholders accompanying guests, and guest use without a stakeholder present. “Other” denotes an answer that did not fit into this category and allowed the individual to write in a comment box. The most pertinent of these responses included use of the lake by guests or renters who are family friends and familiar with the rules of lake use at Windover.

72 To further assess the potential risk from aquatic invasive species, stakeholders were asked about the recreational gear they used on the lake. Recreational boating is one of many pathways hat can transport aquatic invasive species into a lake, even in the case of kayaks and canoes. The types of invasive species that can be transported include zebra mussels and their larvae stage, plant fragments, and insect larvae. These can remain in boats, and on gear like personal floatation devices, unless they are properly drained, disinfected, and dried per regional protocols, described in the Management Plan.

Based on the survey results, 37% of respondents were aware of Clean, Drain, Dry protocols. To address how much of a threat this may pose, respondents were asked to select an option which best described their boat and gear use on Windover Lake. 87% of respondents used boats or gear that stayed at Windover Lake year around. 11% of respondents used the same boat or gear on Chatiemac Lake, located just up the road. 2% of respondents used the same boats or gear in other New York lakes, and 6% used boats on lakes outside of New York.

To understand how the lake is used, respondents were asked what recreational activities they were involved in, on or around the lake. Over 50% of respondents visited the lake highly infrequently, only 1-2 times per summer or on special occasions only (Figure 30). Therefore, it was useful to gain some insight on how stakeholders both use and value their lake. Swimming ranked as the most common activity, with 91% of respondents including this activity (Figure 33). This was followed closely by enjoyment of aesthetics, and canoeing and kayaking, both categories selected by 86% of respondents.

73 Frequent: Permanent/year - round resident locally, 5 %

Less Frequent, but Special Occasions visit throughout & Family Reunions the year (e.g. only, 34% Summer and Autumn visits) , 31%

1 -2 times a Summer Summer summer , 17 % months/fair months, visit weather, between one temporary and several residence , times per 5% month, 7 %

Figure 30. Frequency of stakeholder visits to Windover Lake, based on the 2015 Windover Lake Stakeholder Survey (n=58).

Other, 14 % Allow non -family members/guests to stay or recreate at Have only family the lake when I am members/stakehol not there , 11% ders use or stay at the lake, 30 %

Bring non -family members/guests to the lake , 45 %

Figure 31. Rate of response for each category in the following question: “In order to ensure that all lake users in the future are aware of the threat of invasive species, it is important to know who is using the lake and how. Select the option that best describe your actions regarding guests at the lake.” (n =56).

74 Aware of "Clean, Drain, Dry" methods

Use of boats or gear that stay at Windover year round

The same boat or gear is used on Chatiemac Lake

The same boat or gear is used outside of New York

The same boat or gear is used elsewhere in New York

The same boat or gear is used at other nearby lakes

0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 % Figure 32. Use of boats and gear at Windover Lake, relative to the same boat or gear being used on a different body of water, based on the 2015 Windover Lake Stakeholder Survey. Awareness of clean, drain, and dry aquatic invasive species prevention methods was calculated separately. (n = 54)

Swimming

Enjoyment of aesthetics

Canoeing/Kayaking

Relaxing at residence

Wildlife observation

Hiking

Fishing

Sailing

Ice Fishing

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

Figure 33. Recreational activities on and around Windover Lake based on the 2015 Windover Lake Stakeholder Survey (n =59).

75 4.2.2 Stakeholder Concerns Regarding the Lake and Watershed

Based on the survey results, the greatest concern was that of preserving present water quality (79%) (Figure 34). Both aquatic macrophytes and algae ranked as the second-most concerns, at about 60%, along with fecal pollution. Only 16% of respondents ranked the negative impacts of drawdown as a great concern; 65% of respondents considered the negative impacts of drawdown either of moderate or little concern. This was of note because drawdown has long been used as a aquatic macrophyte control technique on Windover Lake.

Although a largely subjective method for analyzing lake quality, understanding stakeholder perceptions of changes in the lake can sometimes indicate larger water quality problems. Based on the survey results, floating plant cover has showed the most change across all time periods given (76%). This finding was derived from the cumulative percentage of responses indicating any change, relative to “no change” (Figure 35). Water quality was perceived as the item showing the least change, across all time periods, or only 48% of respondents indicating some change.

Preserve Water Quality Aquatic Plants Algae Fecal Pollution Septic Trespass Habitat Sedimentation Runoff Fisheries Restore Lake to Past Quality Impact of Drawdown Potability

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

Great Moderate Little Unsure

Figure 34. Items of great, moderate, and little concern regarding environmental quality, based on the 2015 Windover Lake Stakeholder Survey (n =59).

76 Floating Plants

Submerged Plants

Depth

Algae

Water Clarity

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

Last 10 Years Last 2-5 years In the last year No change

Figure 35. Timeframe of observed changes in the lake as possible indicators of environmental quality changes, based on the 2015 Windover Lake Stakeholder Survey (n =49). Categories on the x-axis are ranked from greatest cumulative percentage of observed change to least, such that Water Clarity has the lowest percentage of observed changes for any time period (49%).

4.3 Watershed Taxpayer Survey 2015 Results

A separate survey was distributed to individuals with property within the watershed, based on 2014 Warren County Tax Parcel data. A list of property owner names and mailing addresses was compiled using the public data, totaling 135 individuals, organizations, or businesses. A letter describing the lake management project, as well as a description and map of the watershed, was included with the survey, which totaled ten questions and a general comment section (Appendix D). A labeled return envelope was included with each survey. Out of these 135 surveys, 34 responses were received.

The purpose of the watershed survey was to gain some insight on the environmental quality outside of Windover Lake, as well as public perception of the lake and watershed. The watershed is nearly 8 sq. miles, over 90% forested, and sparsely populated, so it is difficult to assess how the community uses the ponds and streams in the watershed without reaching out to them with a letter and survey, and even then, only 25% of property owners responded. From the start of this undertaking by SUNY Oneonta, it was apparent that there was disconnect between Windover Lake and its stakeholders, and the rest of the watershed, due to the water body being private and off-limits to the local community. In addition to the question responses, many of the comments by watershed property owners eluded to this fact.

4.3.1. Watershed Use

Respondents were asked to describe individual characteristics, as they related to Bakers Mills, NY demographics, and the proximity of their property to any water, such as a pond or stream. 37% of respondents indicated that they were a year-round, permanent resident of Bakers

77 Mills, while the remaining 63% were not. 47% of respondents indicated that they were summer or seasonal residents only, however no distinction was made between summer and winter seasonal residencies.

Survey respondents were asked to describe their property relative to Baker Brook, or any connecting ponds and streams. 64% of property owners indicated that their property bordered water within the watershed. It was unclear how many renter-occupied homes also bordered the brook, but it is unlikely that such a small sample size (n=34) would have revealed a difference between owner and rental property land use and water access.

Based on the survey results, 48% of respondents had access to Baker Brook, or a connecting pond or stream, via a relatively short-distance direct approach from their property. 38% of respondents indicated that they did not access Baker Brook or other water bodies, and the remaining respondents indicated a long-distance access point, such as a hiking trail, or roadside access.

Figure 36 shows recreational activities in the watershed, with emphasis on activities occurring on or around Baker Brook. Hiking ranked highest, with 53% of respondents selecting this choice, followed by fishing (37%) and no use of the brook or connecting water bodies (37%). Two comments of note stated, in regards to fishing in Baker Brook, “Attempted without success,” and “Although I fish it once a year, there are seldom any fish. 50 years ago you could catch your limit any day” (Anonymous, Watershed Taxpayer Survey 2015). Numerous survey comments also eluded to a beaver and/or beaver dam being removed from an area below Edwards Hill Road, which led to the depletion of a pond once stocked and used for fishing.

4.3.2 Environmental Quality Concerns

One of the most important questions in the watershed survey asked respondents to rank their concern for different environmental quality factors relative to Baker Brook and the watershed. From 31 total respondents for this question, concern for road salt ranked the highest with 50% considering it a ‘Great’ concern, and 27% considering it a moderate concern (Figure 37). The cumulative concern for road salt, meaning the sum of all respondents considering it ‘great’ or ‘moderate,’ is higher than any other concern. Additional concerns regarding heavy road salt use were expressed in the comments section. Following road salt, the next greatest concern was acid rain. Factors of least concern included small-scale livestock operations, and agriculture.

Knowledge of wetlands

Out of 34 surveys, 32 people responded to this question. Nearly 69% of respondents said they were aware of wetlands in the watershed, and 16% said they were not. The remaining respondents were not sure. One comment specifically mentioned disapproval for government overreach and regulation of wetlands. All wetlands within the Adirondack Park are under the jurisdiction of the Adirondack Park Agency (APA).

78 Final Comments on Watershed Survey

Overwhelmingly, the comment section of this survey was positive, with many respondents offering up advice, tip-offs to different environmental concerns, and offering their e-mail addresses or phone numbers for additional questions. Of particular concern were the following items, which elude to heretofore unexplored pollution problems, either entering or exiting Windover Lake: • “Concerned about deplorable eyesores – a partially burnt house – septic system that eventually drain[s] into brook” (32) • “I feel fuel spills, and contamination from Pierson Logging has, and will continue to pollute Baker Brook. Also their filling in of town ditches and drainage will continue to cause erosion & sediment issues. Also digging in a C(T) stream with heavy equipment & improper culvert install.” (21) • “Used to canoe & fish in pond @ bottom of Edwards Hill (basically a widening of Baker Brook caused by beaver dams – Unfortunately, they (The beavers) have been eliminated and the pond has become a wetland/stream.” “Development @ the top of Edwards Hill Road, primarily for rental properties. They are altering the stream channels for aesthetics and increasing the values of their properties.” “Damming upstream w/o prior DEC approval. Also a neighbor has built a huge garage for his logging business, including a diesel gasoline storage tank, near stream on Edwards Hill Rd. – concerns about possibility of gas tank leakage and runoff from huge logging trucks being kept there, polluting water.” (20) • “We have concerns about neighbors damming up free flowing streams on Edwards Hill Road.” (11) • “Every time they open the dam, they allow silt to go down stream” “There is a flat stretch of brook downstream [of Windover Lake]. The silt has deposited over 4’ deep in some areas. One area once had 5’ of water, now there is less than 1 foot” (34)

Any activity suspected of impacting the bed or banks of streams should be reported to the DEC or APA. A landowner may have a permit to work in or near the stream, but a lack of erosion controls qualifies as a violation. Culvert and drainage concerns should be brought to the attention of the town highway department. Spills can be reported to the DEC.

79 Hiking

Fishing

No Use

Hunting

Swimming

Other

Kayaking

0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 %

Figure 36. Recreational activities on and around Baker Brook, connecting streams or ponds, based on the 2015 Watershed Taxpayer Survey.

Road Salt Acid Rain Other household wastes Land clearing Aesthetics Great Construction/Development Moderate Potability Little Other* I don't know' Septic Waste Runoff Fish stocking Agricultural practices Small-scale livestock

0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %

Figure 37. Environmental quality factors, ranked from greatest concern to least concern, based on the 2015 Watershed Taxpayer Survey. * = Concerns related to beavers, silt moving downstream.

80 Chapter 5. Windover Lake & Watershed Management Plan

5.1 Management Plan Summary

The Windover Lake Management Committee, in conjunction with the SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station, has determined the following goals for the plan: 1. To preserve and maintain present water quality, through increased stakeholder awareness and involvement in lake and watershed activities. 2. Continued management of native aquatic floating plants and prevention of the introduction of nuisance and invasive aquatic species. 3. Developing a monitoring plan for algae, sedimentation rate, septic systems, and road salt runoff, should these become greater concerns in the future.

5.1.1 Introduction

A management plan is a document consisting of an explanation of each concern, problem, or goal facing the lake and lake association, and the subsequent management tools that can be utilized to address each of them. A management plan addresses short- and long-term management options, those that can be implemented immediately, and those that may require more planning before implementation, for lasting effects. Ultimately, all the options included in this management plan should only be those that the stakeholders of Windover Lake deem permissible on their lands and water, unless stated otherwise. Although not every stakeholder concern is currently an existing problem at the lake, this management plan seeks to guide stakeholders in recognizing problems and offering ways in which problems can be addressed and rectified in the future. This comprehensive management plan is intended for use by the Windover Lake Management Committee and Windover Corporation (TWC) Board of Directors.

5.2 Stakeholder Perceived Planning Priorities

To gain perspective and input from TWC stakeholders, a survey was distributed by mail and online through Survey Monkey in October 2015. The recipient list was composed of 118 individuals, with contact information provided by the Lake Management Committee of Windover Corporation. Of the 118 individuals contacted, 59 responded to the survey, with a return rate of 50%. The greatest issues of concern, by rank, include: 1. Preservation of present water quality, 2. Aquatic macrophyte and algae growth, 3. Fecal pollution, 4. Sanitary (septic) waste from camps, 5. Reduction/Prevention of trespass, 6. Sedimentation rate and lake depth, and 7. Runoff from Route 8 (See Chapter 4. Lake and Watershed Opinion Surveys).

Additional topics addressed in the management plan include prevention of invasive species, and a section on policy intended for TWC stakeholders and property owners, and guests of the lake.

81 5.3 Management Strategies

The following strategies address the stakeholder concerns regarding Windover Lake. Each concern is described in relation to data collected between 2014 and 2016 by the SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station, and historical data collected through the Citizens Statewide Lake Assessment Program (CSLAP) and other stakeholder efforts. Following a brief description of each topic of concern, management options are listed in detail. These management options are not meant to be limited to choosing only one option to address each concern, but instead can be applied simultaneously and in harmony with each other. Additionally, several concerns include relevant, but non-applicable, management options, which for different reasons are unlikely to be permitted, are cost-prohibitive, or are otherwise inadvisable for the management of Windover Lake. These were included so that future readers of this document will understand why these management tools were not pursued at this time.

5.3.1 Concern: Preserve Present Water Quality

Windover Lake is considered a class A(T) water body according to the NYSDEC Priority Waterbody Listing, 2007 (NYSDEC, 2007). Class A means Windover Lake is suitable for use as a water supply, swimming and recreating, and aquatic life support (NYSDEC, 2007). Class A(T) specifically refers to the lake being suitable for trout habitat. This is based on the CSLAP data collected between 1999-2003, and confirmed by data collected by SUNY Oneonta between October 2014 and April 2016. Critical measurements considered included total phosphorus levels, Secchi disk transparency, and chlorophyll-a. Preserving present water quality refers to minimizing or preventing changes, such that Windover Lake remains a class A(T) lake.

Option 1. Volunteer Monitoring Programs

What are they?

A volunteer monitoring program relied on volunteers to collect water quality data that is useful to both the lake association and the organizations that process and acquire the data. Volunteers from the lake community do the field work, and partnering organizations are responsible for the data analysis. For a relatively low fee, which includes all of the analysis costs, a lake association or citizen group gets an annual report on the condition of their lake. The cost is offset by the fact that a volunteer, who is responsible for collecting and transporting the water samples, performs most the labor.

The value in having an ongoing monitoring program at a lake is that for a low cost, stakeholders can track changes in water quality, and be better prepared to face a problem as it arises.

Are these programs applicable to Windover Lake?

Yes, although a stakeholder(s) must be prepared to undergo training and actively collect samples monthly, the duration of which depends on the program. One approach would be to

82 resume involvement in the New York State Federation of Lake Association’s (NYSFOLA) Citizen Statewide Lake Assessment Program (CSLAP) to which Windover Lake belonged from 1999-2003. Sampling for CSLAP occurs on a biweekly basis, and runs from June to October for all lakes. Basic water quality parameters measured include water temperature, pH, conductivity, calcium, color, transparency, chlorophyll-a, nitrogen and phosphorus. Additionally, volunteers can collect and submit information regarding water level, presence of invasive species, or aquatic plant or fish survey data (NYSFOLA, 2015). Lakes that are involved in CSLAP are encouraged to commit to five years of data collection, and it is important that volunteers are prepared to do this.

A second option is the Adirondack Lake Assessment Program (ALAP). While the data collected is like that of CSLAP, this program has 3-month and 5-month options and only requires monthly sampling. A three-month sampling season would span June, July and August, while a five-month sampling season would span May through September (Protect the Adirondacks, 2016). After water samples are collected, they must be brought to the closest drop location, which is conveniently located in North Creek, NY.

Cost?

Belonging to CSLAP requires a $370 participation fee per year for shallow lakes, which includes equipment, analysis, and shipping costs. A projected cost for five years of involvement in CSLAP would be $1,850.

ALAP’s three and five-month sample seasons and analyses have a cost of $175 and $275 per year, respectively, with a one-time $350 fee for the testing (Protect the Adirondacks, 2016). For comparison, a five-year commitment to ALAP would cost $1,225 for the three-month annual sampling season, and $1,725 for the five-month annual sampling season.

Option 2. Observational Monitoring & Stakeholder Education

What is it?

These methods can vary in their complexity and extent, but in general refer to water quality monitoring and education undertaken by the lake association or concerned citizens, without requiring involvement in an official monitoring program. Overall, preserving present water quality depends on obtaining water quality data in order to understand if changes have occurred. If it is not possible to join a monitoring program, stakeholders should still be able to recognize obvious changes in water quality, which may help determine if action should be taken.

Alternative methods for stakeholders may include use of a Secchi disk, to monitor changes in transparency. This information can be recorded and tracked easily, and may indicate long-term decline or improvement in clarity, although this is not a diagnostic tool. It is important to consider the following five areas when recording data (from Holdren et al., 2001): 1. Accuracy of sampling. This can be as simple as “calibrating” the measurement marks on the rope for the Secchi disk.

83 2. Precision, such that the volunteer monitor can reproduce the same technique, in the same location, at the same time, with the least human error. 3. Representativeness, which refers to the degree to which the data represents the lake as a whole. Consider the differences one may encounter between samples taken at the inlet, and those taken at the deepest point. 4. Completeness. This depends on the goal of monitoring of the monitoring plan. If one wanted to record a calendar year but missed several winter months, then the data set is not complete. 5. Comparability. Perhaps the most important component of any monitoring plan, data should be collected using standard methods not only so it can be compared from year to year, but also between other lakes.

Additional changes to watch for include the presence of an odor, a sulfurous or “rotten egg smell” coming from the lake or lake sediment, as well as changes in aquatic plant species, which may indicate a change in alkalinity (NYSFOLA, 2009). Encouraging stakeholders to educate themselves on water quality, and invasive species prevention and detection, is an important step in preserving water quality. This can be supplemented with distributing educational material on these topics, via newsletters or videos, or by hosting an information session for all stakeholders to attend.

Are these activities applicable to Windover Lake?

Somewhat. Relying on observational monitoring by stakeholders may not be dependable in the long run, especially if anecdotal evidence or a concern is not recorded or acted upon quickly. Use of a Secchi disk is recommended, at minimum, because it is a simple tool, requiring little skill. This means multiple stakeholders could be responsible for collecting this data throughout the year.

The annual rake toss aquatic plant survey performed at Windover Lake is a good example of an effective form of monitoring that does not require involvement in an official monitoring program. Continuing to collect annual plant data can help track changes in species presence or absence, density, and help alert stakeholders to the presence of an invasive species.

Lastly, educating stakeholders is an important component of maintaining and protecting a lake and watershed. By attending events like the annual NYSFOLA conference, or invasive species awareness programs put on by the nearby Lake George Association, stakeholders can stay up to date on information vital to their environment, and acquire a wealth of knowledge to bring back to Windover Lake. Additional information can be garnered from sources like the Adirondack Park Invasive Plant Program (APIPP), which is based out of Keene, NY, but has an informative website, as well as the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), which has an office in Warrensburg, NY.

Cost?

84 Stakeholder monitoring and education can come at little to no cost, but it does require some time commitment and persist effort on behalf of the organizers. A Secchi disk can be purchased online for as little as $15, or assembled from relatively inexpensive materials. Option 3. Routine Testing & Inspection

What is it?

Routine septic system pumping and inspection are recommended to prevent introduction of wastewater into the lake. Continuing fecal coliform testing is recommended, as this will alert the lake association to the presence of fecal bacteria entering the lake. A common recommendation is to have septic systems cleaned every three-to-five years depending on whether it is permanent or seasonal use (Holdren et al., 2001).

Is this applicable to Windover Lake?

Yes. To prevent septic contaminants from entering the lake, camp owners should undertake regular inspection as described in the Policy section at the end of the management plan. The camps at Windover are primarily only used during the summer months, and this poses the risk that septic systems could be left unchecked. This may be due to having different guests stay at the camp, who are not individually responsible for that property, and therefore the use of the septic system is overlooked or ignored. Additionally, without regular inspection, old septic systems can degrade, and a once fixable problem can become quite costly. In general, the life expectancy of a septic system is around 20 years or more with regular cleaning and inspection (Holdren et al., 2001).

Cost?

Filters and inspections can range between $200 and $300, while replacing a septic tank can be well over $1,000, especially if new fill dirt or topsoil is needed afterwards.

Option 4. Landowner Best Management Practices

What are they?

Best Management Practices (BMPs) refer to actions that result in the least impact to the natural environment, and are usually related to water quality. In addition to the regular inspection and cleaning of camp septic systems, landowners at Windover can observe several techniques that will prevent degradation of water quality. Most these fall into three categories: minimize runoff, eliminate pollutants, and capture and filter any runoff and pollutants that cannot otherwise be eliminated (LGA, 2012). Pollutant sources can be further defined as either point or non-point sources, meaning they either have a traceable source, or point, or they cannot be traced to one individual source. Pollution coming from a single septic system is usually traceable, and therefore is a point source. Less traceable is pollution entering the lake through runoff, as rainwater or snowmelt can wash pollutants from the watershed into the lake. This is an example

85 of non-point source pollution, when no single point is responsible. BMPs seek to address these pollution sources.

Is this applicable to Windover Lake?

Yes. Although Windover Lake is fortunate to be nested in a highly forested watershed with few man-made pollution sources, there are still many things stakeholders can do to address runoff, and capturing or filtering out pollutants. Runoff itself is not preventable, as it is induced from rainfall or spring snowmelt, but measures can be taken to slow down, and filter, the flow of water over land.

Water flows most easily across impermeable surfaces, like asphalt, because little to no water is filtering down into the ground. Although there is little asphalt immediately surrounding the lake, gravel, hard-packed soils and even short-cut grass can result in some overland flow of water if heavy rains occur. Remedies for this include maintaining a higher grass-height, and planting or maintaining up to a 25-foot buffer between the water’s edge and a mowed lawn. Within this buffer zone, native vegetation should be planted and allowed to thrive. Although this is not always the most attractive option from a landscaping perspective, the result is the roots of native vegetation filters out many nutrients, be they naturally derived or from a leach field, and prevent them from entering the lake (Figure 38). Figure 21 shows the differences in runoff and soil infiltration in different lakeside landscaping designs.

Other considerations regarding lawns and plantings include the slope of the land. Runoff will occur much more quickly across a steeply sloped lawn, and therefore landscaping and lawn location should take slope into account. It is highly recommended that steep slopes are vegetated with something other than grass, ideally native shrubs or trees, to minimize erosion. Deeply rooted vegetation holds soils in place better than most lawn grasses.

Proper lawn care is clearly important for camps that are located near the lakeshore. Regardless of whether having a buffer zone is an attainable goal for camps located along the shoreline, pesticide and fertilizer use should be extremely limited on lakeside lawns. While pesticide may have unwanted, negative effects on fish and wildlife, fertilizer may result in increased plant and algae growth.

Additional BMPs applicable to Windover Lake include finding clean sources for beach sand, and properly maintaining and inspecting septic systems. Septic systems and waste are discussed in a separate section of the Management Plan.

Cost?

The cost of implementing BMPs by individuals may vary greatly; a buffer zone can be created at no cost by planting native willow or alder cuttings, or simply by allowing present vegetation to grow unhampered for several years. It can also be aided by employing a landscaping company, which may be able to design and plant a more attractive buffer zone with the desired filtering functions. Such an option has become more locally available in recent years, with places like Lake George encouraging many lakeside residents to maintain a buffer zone.

86

Figure 38. Percent of runoff and surface infiltration based on land cover, from Bauer, et al., 2010.

Option 5: Implementing watershed wide BMPs: Windover residents have, and should have, concerns about increases in vascular plant abundance and the potential appearance of cyanobacteria blooms (HABs) that result from, in part, the impacts of increasing development over the entire watershed without the recognition of the importance of watershed wide agricultural, silvicultural, commercial, residential, and storm water BMPs including the protection of critical environmental areas and classic land use planning strategies used to minimize sprawl. Even within the Adirondack Park there is continuous pressure to increase sprawl. In order to address those concerns in a sustainable manner watershed BMPs need to be addressed. If they are not, classic in-lake management strategies must be implemented and continued in perpetuity to assure successful mitigation.

However inappropriate land use practices in watersheds have taken decades to produce the incipient signs of eutrophication and indeed even when fully implemented, with the possible exception of addressing serious problems with private household sanitary waste disposal systems (septic tanks) along lakeshores, it will take decades to produce positive results from watershed BMPs. Particularly as in Windover Lake’s case, the presence of excess vegetation in the eyes of recreational lake users is largely normal for pristine lakes of its size and morphology. It needs to be recognized that over long time periods the costs of maintaining the quality of the resource through watershed BMPs will be much less costly than those associated with short-term, in-lake management strategies. Furthermore, implementation itself requires changing the life styles of citizens in watersheds, many who have little interest in sacrificing traditional practices to benefit lake users who they typically perceive as well-to- do elite groups. Necessarily, adequate BMP implementation requires education, patience, and

87 persistence by stakeholders over long periods by those willing to become and remain involved with the governance of local communities.

Although probably of minor impact in the Windover Lake watershed, agricultural BMPs need to be considered since future development may well contribute appreciably to nutrient loading because the required land use modifications for productive farming disrupt the ecological functioning of native forested lands. In New York, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s sister agencies, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) work in collaboration with County Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) to bring federal and local funds to implement agricultural BMPs. There are also other funding sources from the federal government, NYSDEC, and other agencies. You should get to know the local individuals involved in the SWCD.

A way stakeholders can work with the above to implement BMPs is as follows: The data presented in this body of work, including documentation of lake degradation and the thresholds at which you have determined actions are necessary to mitigate problems, can be brought to the SWCD who then collaborates with the NRCS to develop proposals for funding of BMPs which then are articulated with the FSA (who largely controls the money). Your data provides documentation that gives the SWCD/NRCS proposals an edge when funding is available. Once those monies are received, farmers within the watershed are offered access to government programs that provide the dollars to do the work. Almost always some matching funds are required from farmers. If you can make an effort to provide at least some of the matching funds that farmers would normally contribute it would be an important incentive to final implementation.

All other watershed BMPs, including Navigational Use Regulations and other lakeside and in lake regulatory strategies to address user conflicts in New York, can be addressed with local (county, town, or municipal laws) or more comprehensively with Land Use Regulations (zoning), typically promulgated by towns.

Implementing or modifying land use regulations requires attendance at, and preferably membership on, Town Planning Boards over long periods in order to continually contribute to legislation that takes the quality and character of Windover into consideration. Because of the attitudes of non-lake citizens mentioned above, town officials and volunteers on planning boards need to be continually reminded of the tax contributions of lakeside property owners and advantage has to be taken of basic human nature. Good starts to get the process of the acceptance of proposed legislation often address lakeside concerns that have little to do directly with watershed BMPs. For example; If lakeside residents have a voluntary restriction on outboard engines that all are agreeing to, that can be written into local law or land use regulations without impacting anyone outside the family and should be comparatively easy to be promulgated (by the way, that is preferable to any voluntary agreement since without official standing such an agreement can be violated without consequence). And discussion regarding the above should bring other concerns to the fore.

Once officials recognize stakeholder concerns, and the way they are addressed, then all sorts of activities throughout the watershed benefitting the lake (and property values thereon) can be easier to implement (lot sizes, building setbacks, storm water practices, riparian buffers on major tributaries, and all sorts of normal “terrestrial planning” BMPs). Typically, restrictions directly addressing sprawl

88 along tributaries (Figure 3) normally become implemented only after crises occur. Few recognize that Land Use Regulations protect residents from unwanted actions that reduce the quality of their lives until someone proposes, for example, to clear a large area for commercial development. People tend to recognize a change in the quality of their lives with similar sorts of activity but don’t realize the basic fact that the denser development occurs, the greater the negative impact on water quality and biota.

It means little in a Comprehensive Lake Management Plan to indicate that watershed BMPs need to be addressed. Stakeholders need to know to implement them and to be realistic when balancing effort with short-term results. There have been many dollars spent in many situations with little observable effect since it takes decades to fully implement BMPS and further decades for ecosystems to respond. Those impatient for obvious short-term results need to be willing to dedicate financial resources to already mentioned in-lake management strategies. However, to maintain high quality lakes sustainably over long periods, watershed BMPs need to be part of a comprehensive plan.

5.3.2 Concern: Aquatic Macrophyte (weed) and Algae Growth

The littoral zone at Windover Lake makes up nearly 100% of the lake, which allows for extensive rooted, floating macrophyte cover during the growing season. The littoral zone is the most productive area of a lake, as, in addition to nutrient cycling and photosynthesis, the rooted vegetation provides habitat to fish and aquatic invertebrates, as well as sediment stabilization (NYSFOLA, 2009).

Beginning in 1993, stakeholders at Windover Lake have conducted an aquatic macrophyte survey through various methods; Surveys from 2008 – 2015 have utilized a rake toss point-intercept method. Annual aerial photography has also been used to assess the floating cover. Control efforts have mainly consisted of winter water-level drawdowns using the dam. This has been performed every four-to-five years since 1996 to manage the floating macrophyte cover (Kretzer, 2006). In the northeast, the goal of water-level drawdown is to expose and freeze the roots and rhizomes of the macrophytes, leaving them unable to regrow in the spring. Conditions for the Windover Lake drawdown include: At least two years between drawdown events; drawdown is not to exceed 4.5 feet, and the drawdown period should start between September 15 and October 1, with refill beginning by March 1 in a given year (Kretzer, 2006).

Algae growth, at this time, is not a problem. Although the stakeholder survey results listed algae growth as a top concern, no evidence from CSLAP data or the data collected by the SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station indicates that algae growth currently presents a threat to lake users, fish, or wildlife. Management options for algae at this time include water quality monitoring, to determine if a problem develops in the future, and best management practices for minimizing the amount of nutrients entering the lake.

Option 1. Water-level drawdown

What is it?

89 This management tool has been in use at Windover Lake since 1996 and refers to the intentional removal of water from the lake for the purpose of lowering the water level. Water is let out slowly, by gradually opening the sluiceway in the dam over a period of days or weeks, until the desired water level is reached. In the northeastern United States, water-level drawdown is most successful when conducted in the late fall. This is because there is a lower chance for natural refill in the fall and winter months, as opposed to the influx from thawing snow in the spring. Many tributaries entering the lakes are depleted following the summer and fall, as well. The result is that cold winter temperatures freeze the exposed lake bottom, as well as any vegetation and its roots.

The intention of this method is to kill off undesirable rooted vegetation during the winter so that it will be less prevalent in the coming year. Results vary depending on the plant species, as some plants or their seeds can be quite hardy and resilient, while others highly susceptible Table 26. Additionally, the removal of one species due to drawdown may result in the emergence of another species in the years following drawdown, as the niche of the dead plant is filled by something else. It is very important to recognize when and if a drawdown has reached its limit of effectiveness, and to minimize the impact from water withdrawal both in quantity and frequency as much as possible. From Nichols (1975), the continued use of drawdown can result in a shift in plant populations from those less tolerant – to those more tolerant – of drawdown.

Table 26. From ‘Diet for a Small Lake,’ the effect of drawdown on common aquatic plant species found in New York State. Decrease After Drawdown No Change or Variable Increase After Drawdown Brazillian elodea (Egeria densa) Bladderworts (Utricularia sp.) Duckweed (Lemna minor) Coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum) Cattail (Typha latifolia) Naiads (Najas sp.) Fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana) Common waterweed (Elodea sp.) Pondweeds (Potamogeton sp.) Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillatum) Eelgrass (Elodea canadensis) Water bulrush (Scirpus sp.) Milfoils (Myriophyllum sp.) Muskgrass (Chara vulgaris) Robbins pondweed (P. robbinsii) Water chestnut (Trapa natans) Southern naiad (N. quadalupensis) White water lily (Nymphaea p.) Watershield (Brasenia schreberi) Yellow water lily (Nuphar sp.)

Is this applicable to Windover Lake?

Based on a statistical analysis of rake toss survey data from 2008-2015, SUNY Oneonta has found that drawdown has had an immediate effect on most target aquatic macrophytes in the year immediately post-drawdown. Watershield (Brasenia schreberi) in particular showed a marked decline following drawdown events. Other floating-cover species, such as white water lily (Nymphaea odorata) and floating-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton sp.), have not displayed consistent trends in their response to drawdown. This may be due to differences in winter conditions during the drawdown periods of 2008-2009, and 2013-2014. The overall trend in the rake toss survey data shows that total species abundance does decrease in response to drawdown. This trend does not exist across individual species when individually considered.

90 Based on this data, it may be useful to utilize water-level drawdown at more consistent intervals, with a set number of years between events. Previous drawdowns have allowed for three, four, or five years in between winter drawdowns. Increasing the frequency of drawdowns, to three years consistently may yield the desired results or at least offer consistency for future analysis (Kretzer, 2006). Consequences, however, may include greater risk of freeze-thaw damage on the dam, negative impact on the populations of benthic, lake-dwelling organisms like crayfish, mussels, and insect larvae, and the development of a plant community that is more resilient to drawdowns.

Outside of aquatic macrophyte control, drawdown of lake water level exposes the dam for maintenance and repairs. It would also be conducive to the installation of a benthic barrier, as it is easier to place and secure a barrier on firm, consolidated sediments than submerging it in water and muck (Cooke et al., 2005). This option is explored separately, in this section.

Additional methods may need to be employed to target species that are tolerant of winter drawdown exposure, or those which tend to increase in response to drawdown. These include genera of some pondweeds (Potamogeton sp.), naiads (Najas sp.), and smartweeds (Polygonum sp.), all of which have been found in Windover Lake (Holdren et al., 2001).

Cost?

When a dam is already in place, the drawdown itself should cost nothing. Costs accrue due to any labor that may occur throughout the process, such as payment for the person-hours of monitoring and adjusting the sluiceway, or for any maintenance that occurs while the water level is low.

Option 2. Hand-harvesting

What is it?

Hand harvesting is an inexpensive method of removing unwanted plants that individual stakeholders can employ in front of their lakefront property. In the Adirondack Park, hand harvesting does not require a permit unless it becomes a large, lake-wide operation (NYSFOLA, 2009). An individual property owner may harvest up to 1,000 sq-feet in front of his or her property (APA, 2013). Advantages to harvesting aquatic plants by hand include the ability of the harvester to remove an undesired plant, while being selective in allowing other plants to remain. In order to be successful, one must pull up each plant slowly from the base or at the roots, to minimize breakage and fragmentation. Pulling up too many plants at a time can result in fragmentation and a quick return of the undesired plant. One should expect to encounter bottom disturbance and high turbidity as they are harvesting, but this should subside quickly following the operation. Per ‘A Primer on Aquatic Plant Management in NYS,’ this method is not very effective on plants with extensive root systems, such as lily pads, and goes on to say that these are not, or “should usually not” be the target plants (NYSDEC, 2005).

Disadvantages to hand harvesting include the extensive labor involved. It can also be difficult to pull deeply rooted plants by hand. All harvested plant material would also require a

91 disposal site. Hand harvesting may be suitable for property owners who seek floating plant control in years between drawdowns. The technique is best suited for swimming areas or boating channels, as it typically results in local control of plants but not lake-wide control (NYSDEC, 2005).

Suction harvesting is also considered hand harvesting, but refers to a much larger operation requiring permits and professional services. This topic will be discussed at the end of Section 5.3.2.

Is it applicable to Windover Lake?

Yes. Individual stakeholders with lakefront property may wish to begin hand-harvesting unwanted weeds. Although this is labor intensive, and requires locating a dumpsite for the unwanted plant material, harvesting by hand is a simple, effective, and relatively quick method to clear an area of unwanted plants. Depending on the density of plant cover and roots, it can be difficult to make a visible change in the plant community at a particular site. If the target plants include some type of water lily, the endeavor may be less successful due to the large and extensive root systems of species like yellow water lily (Nuphar lutea).

Cost?

Hand harvesting should come at little to no cost to the property owner, outside of the time required, if one intends to do the work independently. Hiring professional help or other individuals will obviously accrue a cost. Hand harvesting beyond the 1,000 sq-feet in front of one’s own property may lead to further cost, including that of an APA permit, NYSDEC permit, and possibly one from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Option 3. Benthic Barriers

What is it?

A benthic barrier is a physical barrier that blocks sunlight, and thereby photosynthesis, from occurring, ultimately killing the plants and organisms beneath it. Sometimes referred to as benthic mats or screens, these barriers can be composed of plastic, fiberglass, nylon, or even materials like burlap or gravel (NYSDEC, 2005). Installation depends on the size of the barrier; for a smaller, shallow setting, the barrier may be installed by several people from shore or from a boat (NYSDEC, 2005).

Is this applicable to Windover Lake?

At Windover Lake, use of a benthic barrier may be appropriate in the area between the shoreline and the big island. Lake depth in this area does not exceed 2-3 feet, making it feasible to install and monitor the barrier with some ease. Due to the presence of a Class 1 Wetland at Windover Lake, a wetlands permit would be required to install a barrier in this area. Material choice should be explored as part of the permitting process, as it may be necessary to purchase a

92 barrier through a vendor as opposed to constructing one’s own using tarp-like materials and PVC frames (NYSDEC, 2005).

Notable concerns in using a benthic barrier are the decline in oxygen under the barrier, and the subsequent decline in benthic organisms (Engel, 1983). Additionally, depending on the material used, gases from the sediments can get trapped and cause the benthic mat to balloon upwards and require re-anchoring (Engel, 1983). The NYSDEC recommends using benthic barriers in either accessible, intensive-use areas or only in areas of highest concern, due to difficulty with installation and re-anchoring, if need be (2005).

The Adirondack Park Agency may be a limiting factor, if use of a benthic barrier is pursued, as permits are generally granted for invasive species management and not for native species. This is not to say that it is not possible, but it may factor into whether it is allowed. As of 2016, the APA and NYSDEC were revising permit conditions regarding benthic barriers, as well as defining which agency would have regulatory authority.

Locations best suited for a benthic barrier include the lakebed adjacent to the Halliday property, if submerged roots and stumps do not interfere with the installation. Other waterfront properties with documented nuisance plant presence may wish to pursue this management option. Benthic barriers should not be used as a whole-lake treatment; such a proposal would likely not be granted a permit.

Cost?

Cost is highly variable depending on the material used. Polyethylene, geotextile fabrics, and other tarp-like materials are typical of benthic barriers, in addition to the rebar or weighted PVC pipes composing the frame. One should be selective in choosing the material, as some, like geotextiles, are more likely than others to allow organic gases to escape and not become trapped. ‘Diet for a Small Lake’ offers construction and installation tips for those wishing to build their own (NYSFOLA, 2009).

Companies with online stores have advertised 200 to 500 square foot benthic mats for as low $140 and up to $330, with costs varying by size, mat material, frames, and weights. For these products, the buyer assumes responsibility for installation of the product. Higher estimates have been found, including $10,000-$20,000 per acre, or more, which includes installation, removal, and maintenance if an outside company is used (NYSFOLA, 2009) (Holdren et al., 2001).

Option 4. Sediment Removal (Dredging)

What is it?

Sediment removal defines itself, but is highly variable in methodology. The most common cause for sediment removal is to increase depth, or to lower in-lake nutrient concentrations to inhibit algae growth. There are several common methods for dredging, or removing sediment. Dry excavation refers to sediment removal while the lake is drawdown or

93 drained. Wet excavation refers to dredging while the sediment is still wet, and may or may not require some water level drawdown. Hydraulic dredging requires a barge to float on the lake while a pump removes sediment and water from the lake bottom. Lastly, suction dredging, which can be one and the same with suction harvesting, as both require scuba diving. Dredging to control plant growth is a less common control technique in and of itself, as it is highly costly, and is more likely to be an additional benefit of dredging for other management purposes. The removal of sediment can have two main effects on aquatic plants: 1. Limiting light for aquatic plants by making the lake deeper. This will work if the new bottom is too deep for plants to grow. 2. Removing nutrient-rich, soft, bottom sediments and exposing sand or gravel. This will work if the sand and/or gravel do not support native growth.

Dredging will always remove plants and roots as a side effect, and so one could expect a reduction in plant growth at least in the short-term following a sediment removal project. Suction dredging, or suction harvesting, may be more effective at removing specific target species and their seeds as well.

A very important factor to consider when planning a dredging project for plant control is the Secchi disk transparency. There are different formulas for estimating the greatest depth that plants may grow depending on Secchi disk transparency. For the state of Wisconsin, located only slightly above New York based on the 45th parallel north, the equation for maximum depth of plant colonization is: log(푀퐷퐶) = 0.79 log(푆퐷) + 0.25 Where MDC = Maximum Depth of Colonization; SD = Secchi Depth in meters (Canfield, 1985). Therefore, for the average summer Secchi depth of 1.8 m at Windover Lake in 2015, one could expect to find submergent plants in less than 3.0 m of water, or about 9.3 feet. In 2002, when Windover Lake had an average summer Secchi depth of 2.19 m, the MDC would have been up to 3.3 m, or 10.8 feet. Although this is not a definitive value, an MDC of 3.0 m or more means that for dredging to be effective, lake depth would have to reach or exceed 3.0 m.

Is this applicable to Windover Lake?

Not directly. As described above, using dredging as a means of plant control is not a typical method of management, and more likely to be a component or side effect of dredging for other purposes. A comprehensive study by a dredging company will be necessary to ascertain the amount of sediment that can be removed, and by how much depth can be increased. A dredging company will also help identify priority areas, where sediment removal will be the most effective. As Windover Lake currently has a mean depth of around 6 feet, Secchi disk transparency reaches or surpasses the depth of much of the lake bottom. Therefore, both submergent and emergent plants grow throughout much of the lake.

Additional factors involved in deciding upon and planning a dredging project include the extensive permitting process. Dredging requires permits from the NYSDEC, APA, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and depending on the size of a project, may require a public comment period. An example of the components comprising the 2006 dredging project feasibility study of nearby Lake Algonquin, in the Town of Wells, NY, include (EcoLogic LLC, 2008):

94 • Diagnostic/feasibility study • Wetland delineation • Sediment texture and quality survey • Aquatic habitat and macrophyte assessment • Bathymetric survey • Soil infiltration tests in sediment basins • Watershed-wide strategies to reduce future sediment loading • Engineering study • Funding proposal • Permitting: ACOE, NYSDEC, APA • Monitoring

Cost?

For an average sediment depth of 2 feet, the cost of dredging can vary between $5,000 and $50,000 per acre. The 2001 cost range for a 100-acre water body, over a twenty-year period, is $1,500,000-$5,000,000 (Holdren et al., 2001).

Recent estimates for hydraulic dredging, although the least likely to be conducted on Windover Lake, puts cost at $21 per ton of material removed (Baltoumas, 2016). This cost estimate comes from a recent project on Mountain View Lake, in the Town of Bellmont, NY, in the northern Adirondacks. The final cost, which covers the removal of sediment from 74 acres of lake bottom, is estimated to be $2.5 million (Baltoumas, 2016). The Mountain View Lake dredging project is being conducted by EcoLogic, the same company responsible for the Algonquin Lake project in Wells, NY.

Option 5. Herbicide Treatment

What is it?

Herbicide treatment refers to killing plants using chemicals. Although herbicides are well studied and dosage is carefully based on treatment area and water volume, they are still highly controversial, especially in the Adirondack Park. Herbicides have been linked to environmental and human health problems in the past, and are therefore subject to increased scrutiny by both regulating bodies and the public. Federal regulations are designed such that when label instructions are followed correctly, the treated water will not impact human health or have negative effects on the environment, besides on the target species (Holdren et al., 2001).

Herbicides affect plants in two different ways, either killing them on contact, or killing them systemically. Contact herbicides rely on the correct concentration of chemical meeting the target plant. Although effective in the short-term by killing the stem and leaves of the target plant, a contact herbicide does not influence the roots so long as they are in the sediment.

Systemic herbicides function through absorption by the roots, stems, and leaves, which in turn disrupts cell division throughout the entire plant, regardless of external contact with the chemical (Holdren et al., 2001). In addition to affecting cell division, some herbicides can cause

95 the degradation of chlorophyll, or inhibit enzyme production, all of which contribute to plant death (Holdren et al., 2001).

Finally, herbicides differ in their effect on a species. An herbicide is chosen based on the target and non-target species. Eurasion watermilfoil, a species of concern in the Adirondack Park, has been treated effectively with the herbicide Triclopyr, which disrupts the growth process, but has no effect on native species like Potamogeton (Holdren et al., 2001). Selecting an herbicide for use at Windover Lake would depend upon consultation both with a licensed herbicide applicator, and the Adirondack Park Agency.

Is this applicable to Windover Lake?

Unlikely. Herbicide use in the Adirondack Park has long been contested, and its permit approval rating is low. Less than 20 miles from Windover Lake, the aquatic herbicide Renovate OTF (Triclopyr) was approved for use against invasive Eurasian water milfoil on Loon Lake (Knight, 2013). While this case illustrates the use of an herbicide within the Adirondack Park, its approval rating was most likely contingent upon the target species being invasive. Pursuit of an aquatic herbicide treatment for nuisance native species is not out of the question, according to a representative of the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) but approval by the APA board is not certain (L. Walrath, personal communication, March 24, 2016). In some cases, a public hearing has been held to aid the APA board in making an approval decision, and environmental groups may seek to oppose the action. Environmental groups have begrudgingly accepted treatment of invasive species by herbicides, but only as a last resort.

Additionally, herbicide applicators may be hesitant to work in the Adirondack Park given the potential for controversy and condemnation by environmental groups. If stakeholders decide to pursue an aquatic herbicide, it is best to go through the permit process first before an applicator begins planning, to avoid a loss of time and money if the APA board does not approve the project (L. Walrath, personal communication, March 24, 2016)

Cost?

The cost of herbicide application may range from $200 to $1,500 per-acre (NYSFOLA, 2009). Cost varies depending on the chemical used, the method of application, and the size of the treated area.

Additional methods, Not Advised

To make future management decisions less exhaustive, additional methods have been explored but ultimately ruled out. These include mechanical harvesting, biological control with triploid grass carp, and suction harvesting with aquatic plants.

Based on the lake size and depth, seeking a permit for mechanical harvesting is inadvisable (L. Walrath, personal communication, March 24, 2016). A mechanical harvester is difficult to operate in shallow areas and along shorelines, and requires a suitable launch site (NYSDEC, 2005).

96

Grass carp, an herbivorous fish species allowed in some Adirondack lakes by permit only, would similarly not be suitable for Windover Lake. Grass carp can be considered a full lake treatment, as they cannot be restricted to one area of a lake. Possible concerns that may arise when using grass carp to control aquatic plants include aquatic plant preferences, which may not always include the target species, or, at the other extreme, complete eradication of all aquatic plants (NYSDEC, 2005).

Lastly, suction harvesting, a method of hand harvesting that requires permits from the NYSDEC and APA, is unlikely to be successful at Windover Lake. For suction harvesting, also called diver dredging, a SCUBA diver uses a hose, attached to an engine creating suction, to suck up plants, roots, and the surface sediment. This material is sucked through the hose and into a collection basket located on a barge at the surface. Sediment and water can pass through the basket, but roots and plant debris are collected. Suction harvesting allows the diver to be selective about plants, and is highly flexible in allowing the hose to get under docks and in shallow water, and overall it can minimize some of the effort involved in actually hand harvesting the plants. It is not likely that Windover Lake would be a good candidate for this, given that the areas with the highest density of plants are also only one meter deep or less. This technique may also be cost prohibitive; it can cost between $400 and $1,000 per acre, but is dependent on the density of plants (Holdren et al. 2001).

5.3.3 Concern: Fecal Pollution

Fecal pollution refers mainly to the contamination of water by human and animal feces. The most common source of human fecal contamination is faulty septic or sewage treatment systems. Animal feces have a more direct pathway to lake water, such as through organisms like geese excreting waste directly into the lake or along the shoreline. The bacterium that gets introduced is a type of coliform bacteria, and while these are not harmful organisms themselves, their presence in a lake serves as an indicator of fecal contamination (NYSFOLA, 2009). Fecal contamination may mean pathogens are present, such as Salmonella or Cryptosporidium, the latter of which is the common pathogen risk for recreationalists drinking untreated water (NYSFOLA, 2009). Therefore, the presence of a high count of fecal coliform colonies is a good indicator that other pathogens are present, too.

Option 1. Continue annual testing & pursue septic system management options

What is it?

Annual testing for total coliform, specifically fecal coliform, requires that a volunteer collect a water sample to be sent or brought to a lab for testing. Total coliform testing refers to the detection of a group of coliform bacteria that is found in the environment, while fecal coliform testing detects bacteria that originated in the feces of people and animals (NYSDOH, 2005). Labs that perform coliform water testing will prescribe their own sampling protocol, but typically a volunteer must fill a sterile bottle with a certain quantity of lake water, keep the sample refrigerated and cool, and transport it within 24 hours of sampling to the lab. Testing for bacteria is important because it is not something that can be detected by the look, smell, or taste

97 of the water, and many bacteria are disease causing although the severity of the disease can differ.

Testing for coliform bacteria should occur in the late spring or early summer, per the New York State Department of Health, because coliforms are most likely to be detectable following wet weather (NYSDOH, 2005). Like any water quality testing in a lake, fecal coliform testing represents only that one sampling date, and more frequent testing should occur, especially if the water has tested positive in the past. It is important to note that lake water will nearly always have some coliform bacteria due to the surrounding natural environment and wildlife. Well water and other sources of drinking water should not contain coliform bacteria, and therefore should be subjected to stricter testing.

Adhering to New York State Compilation Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) is recommended as a standard for bacteriological quality at bathing beaches (NYSDOH, 2012). From NYCRR Part 6, Subpart 6-2.15, based on a single sample, the upper limit for bacteria density in freshwater is: • 1,000 fecal coliform bacteria per 100 ml • 61 enterococci per 100 ml • 235 E. coli per 100 ml

Is this applicable to Windover Lake?

The Lake Management Committee for Windover Lake has been testing annually for fecal coliform and it is important that this testing continue. The last fecal coliform test was performed in August 2015. Annual fecal coliform testing will alert stakeholders of the need to investigate and address possible septic leachate or animal problems.

Cost?

In 2015, the Lake Management Committee utilized Certified National Analytic Labs (CNA), based out of Ballston Spa, NY, for water testing. For one water sample, and two bacteriological tests (fecal coliform and E. coli), the cost was $50. CNA’s website lists Total Coliform water testing as costing $36 for one sample, but is likely that the test does not specifically target fecal coliforms. If a water sample comes back positive for fecal coliforms, plan to have a second water sample tested at the very minimum. Following positive confirmation of fecal bacteria, plan to have septic systems inspected and repaired when necessary (See Section 5.3.4).

5.3.4 Concern: Sanitary (Septic) Waste

The underlying problem when septic systems are a concern is the introduction of contaminants to the lake water and groundwater. These include bacteria and viruses, nitrates and phosphorus, dissolved metals, detergents, and other chemical solvents (DEP, n.d.). A properly functioning septic system should accept solid and liquids.

98 Option 1. Establish routine inspections and regular maintenance

What is it?

Homeowners should be able to recognize signs of a failing septic system within their home or camp, as well as those exhibited in the surrounding yard and lake. The four main signs that a septic system is failing includes: Sewage odor emitting from the septic tank or leach field; standing water or soggy soils over the location of the tank or leach field; a difference in the grass growing over the leach field, especially if it is more lush than the rest of the lawn during the summer and dry periods; lastly, slow-to-run drains and toilets, as well as backed-up sewage (DEP, n.d.) (CCE, 2013). At the shoreline, excessive weed or algae growth can indicate surficial flow of excess nutrients, sometimes attributable to a septic source.

Fecal coliform testing can also be a key indicator of biological contamination. Bacteria and viruses entering the lake may present themselves in the form of infections or illnesses associated with the swimming area (CCE, 2013). The use of indicator dyes can be useful to determine if there is direct drainage from the septic system into the lake, but if the dye test is inconclusive, that does not mean there isn’t a problem.

If any of these indicators are present, then a problem already exists. However, with seasonal camps especially, inspecting septic systems and leach fields regularly can prevent these problems from arising. Inspection should occur on an annual basis; one should inspect the septic tank for signs of sludge buildup, and ensure that the baffles are in place and functioning. The tank itself should be pumped at regular intervals. For seasonal camps, every 4-5 years should be sufficient (DEP, n.d.). For year-round residences, septic tanks should be pumped more frequently, every 2-3 years (DEP, n.d.).

Additional inspection and testing may apply to drinking water wells, which are also vulnerable to nitrates and bacterial contaminants from septic system effluent entering groundwater. Wells should be located and constructed according to standards set by the New York State Department of Health. Improperly situated or constructed wells are at greater risk from contamination (NYSDOH, 2014). Wells should be located no more than 100 feet from the absorption field, and no more than 50 feet from the tank itself Wells should also be at least 25 feet from a stream, lake, drainage ditch, or wetland (NYSDOH, 2014).

Is this applicable to Windover Lake?

Yes. A best-case scenario is that a septic system has a lifetime of 20 to 30 years, but at some point a septic will begin to fail (Solomon & Dersch, 1993). Although applicable to all homes, septic systems belonging to lakeside, seasonal camps should be especially subject to scrutiny through inspection and regular maintenance. Unlike many lakes with public access and therefore more oversight by the NYS Department of Health, The Windover Corporation and associated shareholder groups are responsible for conducting its own annual fecal coliform tests, as well as mandating a timeframe for inspection and maintenance.

Cost?

99

The cost of annual inspection by the homeowner is minimal, and routine pumping every 2-5 years may run only several hundred dollars. This is compared to the much higher costs associated with replacing systems, which may run $2,000 to $4,000 or higher, depending on the design and requirements based on the location (Solomon & Dersch, 1993).

Option 2. Update septic systems

What does this entail?

This refers to an examination of the age and type of each septic system located along the lake. Consider establishing a long-term plan to update or replace any older septic systems. It is possible that the septic systems installed at seasonal camps are undersized, relative to increased use since the structure was first built (CCE, 2013).

If one intends to replace a septic system, alternative or advanced on-site wastewater treatment options should be explored. These are usually modified septic systems with advancements in drainfield design and function, as well as added filtering components designed to remove a greater amount of phosphorus (CCE, 2013). Indoor composting toilets are an alternative to a septic system, having come a long way since privies and outhouses.

Is this applicable to Windover Lake?

Yes. The Windover Corporation and associated shareholder groups should verify the age and type of system in place for each camp. It may be relevant to compile a list of updates, last occurrence of sewage removal (pumping), and projected pumping or replacement. Alternatively, this could remain the responsibility of each homeowner. Increased awareness regarding the failure and future replacement of a septic system can go a long way in preventing septic system failure and lake contamination.

Cost?

Updating or replacing a septic system can be very costly, and varies depending on the scope and design.

Option 3. Best Management Practices

Camp owners and all guests should follow best management practices, in addition to inspection and repairs, in regards to use of a septic system. These practices include (DEP, n.d.):

• Compost food waste or put it in the trash; do not rinse it down the drain.

• Place all grease in a designated container; do not rinse hot grease down the drain.

• Mark the location of the septic tank and leach field; this will ensure it is protected from vehicles and other disturbances.

• Conserve water when possible.

100 • Do not use toxic or phosphorus-containing cleaning products; at the very least, look for low-phosphorus products.

• Contact a professional site evaluator if you suspect septic failure; contact the department of health regarding contamination concerns.

• Maintain a buffer zone downhill of the septic system and leach field when applicable; a shoreline buffer is described in Section 5.3.1 Avoid planting trees and shrubs on top of the septic tank and leach field. • 5.3.5 Concern: Reduce Trespass

The land parcels and lake bottom belong solely to The Windover Corporation, and as such, most unauthorized access to the lake would fall into the category of criminal trespass on private property. New York State trespass and posting laws are explored in this section, to better address this concern.

Option 1. Improve Signage In and Around the Lake

What does this entail?

All ‘Posted’ signs should be checked annually at the very least, and signs be re-written or posted whenever one becomes old or is removed. ‘Posted’ signs should be visible at or near all boundaries of the property that is closed to the public. This is to ensure that any person approaching the property, at any point of potential egress, can see the signage. To qualify as criminal trespass, according to New York State Penal Law § 140.05, a person must have knowingly entered upon the private premises (NYS, 2013). Conversely, if postings are not conspicuous, and a person enters the premises or private water body without knowing it is private, they do so lawfully and are not guilty of criminal trespass ( (NYS, 2013).

New York State Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) § 11-2111 - § 11-2115 expand on the Penal Law provisions, and set forth specific guidelines in regards to hunting, trapping, and fishing on rural, private lands. Per ECL § 11-2111, signs should be at least 11”x11”, and posted no more than 650 feet apart, on each side of the property, and on each side of any corners on the property. The signs should display the owner or organization’s name and address, clearly written, along with a conspicuous statement regarding use of the area ( (NYSDEC, 1992). If the sign has the word “posted” on it, then it is not required to list the activities that are not permitted, e.g. no fishing, camping, boating. Care should be taken if a sign does not state the land is posted, and instead lists unpermitted activities, as this may permit other activities by exclusion ( (NYSDEC, 1992).

In regards to liability, the New York State General Obligations Law (GOL) § 9-103 would protect the property owner, or occupant, in most cases of trespass. Whether or not the property is posted, the owner or occupant has no duty to keep the premises safe for entry, nor “give warning of any hazardous condition” (NYS, 1964). This is also true when a person has permission to enter the property, as GOL § 9-103 states that permission grants no assurance that the property is safe to enter and that the property owner assumes no liability for the individual’s actions.

101

This condition changes if there is willful or malicious intent when the property owner fails to warn or “guard against” hazardous conditions, and if the landowner charges for access to the property (NYS, 1964). A hazardous condition may be an open well, or a building at high risk of collapse; it is in the best interest of the property owner to fill in the well or tear down the building to avoid being liable under gross negligence charges (Brown, n.d.). Natural, observable conditions like exposed rocks and roots, lakes, and streams, are not conditions for which the landowner is typically held responsible (Brown, n.d.). It is always possible that an individual may sue the landowner anyway, but by doing everything possible to warn against or remove hazards and dangerous conditions, then the landowner is likely to be favored by the court (Brown, n.d.).

It is therefore highly recommended that property owners post highly visible, conspicuous posted signs. Further actions that may be taken, which were recommended to members of The Windover Corporation, include installing fake cameras and indicating on signs that the area is under surveillance.

Is this applicable to Windover Lake?

This is highly applicable to Windover Lake, and many of these steps have already been discussed and undertaken by The Windover Corporation. It is important, though, to keep up the efforts on an annual basis, by organizing stakeholders to check and maintain posted signs and other forms of deterrents, such as fake cameras. Suspected hazards and dangerous conditions should also be dealt with efficiently.

Cost?

A single, plastic 11”x11” ‘Posted’ sign costs $1.29 at Home Depot, and a roll of Tyvek signs can be purchased for even less per individual sign. Annual maintenance, if conducted by the landowner, should come at no cost, and only require the time it takes to check and repair any damaged signs. Costs may accrue if additional items, such as a fake or functioning camera is purchased and installed, and if any hazards must be removed with significant labor or equipment.

5.3.6 Shallow Water Depth & Sedimentation Rate Management

“Sedimentation” came up as a concern numerous times in the comments section of the Windover Lake stakeholder survey. Sedimentation often refers to the accumulation of particles on the lake bottom, and can include organic matter like algae, animal feces, and dead organisms, and inorganic matter like silt (Holdren et al. 2001). This is a very important component in a lake, affecting nutrient cycling, planktonic biomass, and other critical processes (Holdren et al. 2001). At Windover Lake, the actual stakeholder concern largely refers to the sedimentation rate as it impacts lake “shallowing,” or accumulation and buildup on the lake bottom. Many stakeholders perceive Windover Lake to have become shallower over time.

102 The sedimentation rate refers to the amount of sediment filling in a lake over time (Holdren et al. 2001). While this can happen in any lake, a dammed body of water is more likely to have a fast rate of sedimentation because it has a limited outlet. The dam can act as a barrier to sediment, as well as water.

Windover Lake is dammed, and has never been very deep, so any sedimentation can threaten its existence. Measuring the sedimentation rate will take several years but it is important to begin assessing the amount of sediment in the lake right now, and manage for sedimentation in the future. Dredging, ultimately, is the solution to a shallow lake, and it is included as a management option in this section. However, this can only be pursued once it is determined that the lake is, or isn’t filling in, with sediment from the watershed.

Option 1. Comparison of Bathymetric Maps

What is this?

A current map of the lake bottom can be compared to an existing, or older, bathymetric map (Holdren et al. 2001). This method provides a rough estimate of change in the lake depth over time. It requires that the water level be the same between both maps, and it may be useful to use a marker on the dam for this (Holdren et al. 2001). A problem that may come up is the accuracy of these maps, depending on the skill and tools available when it was originally made.

Although not a terribly scientific method, this will offer some insight as to whether the lake is filling in by a couple inches each year, a foot of sediment, or hardly any discernible amount. Sediment may also distribute unevenly and therefore settle in greater amounts in one area than another. Identifying a relatively high sedimentation rate (a discernible accumulation of an inch or so), may indicate that there is an erosion problem in the watershed (Holdren et al. 2001). This should be addressed before any larger project, such as dredging, is pursued, or else the lake will continue to fill in.

Is this applicable to Windover Lake? Windover Lake last had a bathymetric map made in 1985 (Figure 39). There is no evidence to support that the lake has been re-mapped, although the visual quality of the map has been improved since 1985. To achieve an accurate present day comparison, Biobase mapping software was used to create a new bathymetric map in 2016 (Figure 39). This mapping tool includes bottom hardness and vegetation cover, although these are not pictured here. Stakeholders should consider having the lake re-mapped in the future, either professionally, or plan to use a Fish (Depth) Finder with a GPS to make a new map. At best, the lake should be mapped and assessed annually, but a longterm plan may include at least every five years, or a similar more feasible increment.

Cost?

A bathymetric map can be made very cheaply, but with some labor involved, if one measures lake depth with a rod or rope and records the location with a handheld GPS unit. It is recommended that at the very least, a Fish Finder - GPS combination unit is used, which allows

103 one to save and upload trips to web-based programs or geospatial processing software. These units are available at most sporting goods or fishing stores, and can cost between $100 and $700.

Figure 39. Comparison of bathymetric maps for Windover Lake. Left, 2016 map, and right, 1985 map.

Option 2. Water Level Drawdown

What is it?

Water level drawdown is described under Section 5.3.2 as it relates to aquatic plant management. The process does not vary for those wishing to use drawdown as a sedimentation management tool. The intention is to dewater the lake bottom, which results in compaction of the sediments as they dry out or freeze. Sediment compaction may result in a drop in oxygen demand and a drop in the long-term release of phosphorus (Holdren et al. 2001). However, given that much of the lake bottom is also exposed to snow and spring meltwater, and dead organic matter from the aquatic plants, it is unlikely that this effect extends beyond a potential positive side effect

Is this applicable to the sediments in Windover Lake?

Yes. The sediments found on the lake bottom are predominantly dark brown, fine, and silty, and over a meter thick in some places before consolidated bottom is reached. Continuing the practice of water level drawdown could help these sediments compact, as an added benefit in addition to the aquatic plant control.

Cost?

104 No additional costs would be accrued while using drawdown to manage sediment, aside from those already mentioned in regards to aquatic plant management and drawdown. Therefore, there is effectively no cost for this method of sediment management.

Option 3. Construction, Forestry, Riparian, & Shoreline Best Management Practices (BMPs)

What is it?

These are management tools that address erosion in the watershed, and specifically those that contribute to sediment accumulation in the lake. Areas of concern in the watershed include anywhere that land is cleared of vegetation, ground cover is disturbed or soils are exposed. This might occur from logging and skid trail construction, creating pasture for even a few livestock, or the clearing of land for a new house. Activities like these put all streams and lakes at risk, because the influx of sediment also brings excess nutrients and heavy metals, and fills in habitat. Most loggers, contractors, and livestock cultivators are aware that Article 15 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law requires measures be in place to prevent loose material from washing away. This includes installation of silt fences, hay bales, or sandbags, when necessary. Logging and haul roads can be graded and seeded following the operation. These measures should be used for small-scale land disturbance projects, as well.

Groundcover and riparian zone management (as well as shoreline management) helps reduce runoff, erosion, and prevents excess nutrients from entering streams and lakes. Management includes planting, maintaining, or expanding vegetative buffer strips; planting native grasses; mulching, or securing with geotextiles and cobble, any soil that cannot be vegetated, and protecting eroding stream channels with riprap. The latter falls under “bed and bank” disturbance, and a permit would be required from the NYSDEC. Existing wetlands should be allowed to persist unaltered, as these can serve as sediment traps and nutrient sinks, preventing these from entering lakes and streams.

Is this applicable to Windover Lake?

Somewhat. The Windover Lake watershed is already over 90% forested so sediment inputs from the watershed are naturally going to be minimal (Homer, 2012). If one conducts a logging or land clearing operation on their property, one should pursue all possible erosion management techniques. If one hears or knows of such a project in the watershed, and is concerned, it may be worthwhile to inquire what erosion mitigation techniques are in place, but proceed with caution.

Shorelines and stream banks should be visually inspected annually, and any areas of concern should be brought to the attention of the property owner.

Cost?

These BMPs are highly variable in cost, and are only necessary when a land disturbing project is ongoing, or when a problem occurs, such as the slumping of a stream bank. Seeding

105 with grass and using hay bales to minimize erosion of a slope is on the least expensive end of the spectrum. Hiring a landscaping company to grade a slope, install riprap, and plant a vegetative buffer may be costlier.

Option 4. Dredging

What is it?

This management tool is highly costly, and may not currently be applicable. Discerning the sedimentation rate will be important in determining if dredging should be pursued in the future. Dredging refers to the removal of sediment from the lake bottom, and there are multiple methods available should this option be pursued. These include “dry” excavation, when the lake is exposed, such as during a drawdown event. This management tool is mainly used to increase the depth of a water body, but may also be used to decrease, by removal of sediments, oxygen demand, nutrients, and metals like iron and manganese (Holdren et al. 2001). Dredging can also be used to remove rooted vegetation, as discussed in Section 5.3.2.

Is this applicable to Windover Lake?

Possibly. Dredging requires permits from the NYSDEC, APA, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and is subject to much of the same scrutiny as herbicide use in the Adirondack Park. The presence of wetlands, and the connection of the water body to the Upper Hudson River Watershed, may make this a less-than-ideal pursuit. Dredging only small areas may make this project more likely to be permissible, but there are many factors involved. Short- and long-term impacts on habitat and wildlife must be considered. The quality of the removed material is important, as it is required to provide a suitable dumpsite and some sediments may be dangerous to expose and place on land (Holdren et al. 2001).

Cost?

The cost of dredging typically runs very high. Costs accrue from engineering and permitting costs, construction of a containment area, equipment and operational costs, disposal costs, restoration of the containment area, and monitoring costs (Holdren et al. 2001). More information on cost is discussed in Section 5.3.2.

5.3.7 Concern: Runoff from Route 8

Runoff from the state highway is a concern because any sand or salt placed on the road does not percolate through the asphalt and disappear. It instead is washed off of the impermeable surface by rain and into the soil on either side of the road. Sand can be addressed by many of the sedimentation management techniques described in Section 5.3.6, as well as by efforts by the highway department.

106 Option 1. Maintain shoreline & roadside buffer zone

What is it?

Shoreline buffer zones are described in Section 5.3.1. Planting or maintaining a buffer zone will aid in nutrient uptake by plants, preventing many nutrients from entering surface water or groundwater. Additionally, rooted vegetation stabilizes soil and prevents erosion. Vegetation can slow the overland flow of runoff and thereby allow more water to infiltrate the soil, instead of flowing directly into a lake or stream. Natural bacteria found in soils function as an additional nutrient filter.

Roadside buffer zones refer to vegetated areas alongside roads and in ditches, which serve many of the same benefits as any shoreline buffer zone. They slow the overland flow of runoff from paved or hard-packed roads, and aid in nutrient uptake.

Is this applicable to Windover Lake?

Yes. Areas of concern include a gravel lake access point off of Route 8. Property owners may want to consider planting and improving the buffer zone between the gravel access road and the lake. Possible solutions may include implementing shallow drainage ditches to direct runoff away from the lake, or installing a channel drain system. This access road, as well as all other driveways and roads adjacent to the lake, should be inspected regularly for signs of washout and erosion.

Cost?

Variable. Installation of any drainage mechanisms may require contacting the APA and NYSDEC, depending on the size and scope of the project.

Option 2. Water quality monitoring

What is it?

Water quality monitoring refers to observatory and sampling efforts by stakeholders or scientists in order to assess changes in the lake. Monitoring would help indicate if salinity was changing due to road salt entering the lake from Route 8, by measuring the conductivity of the lake water. A rough measurement of the electrical conductivity of water, this parameter changes based on the type and concentration of ions in the water. Although different formulations may be used these days, many people are familiar with the chemical formula for road salt, which is NaCl, or sodium chloride. Sodium and chloride are both ions, which dissociate in the water, and an increase or decrease is detectable by measuring conductivity.

Is this applicable to Windover Lake?

107 Yes. This is highly applicable to Windover Lake, for more reasons than monitoring runoff from Route 8. Water quality monitoring, whether conducted through an official program like ALAP, or by having water samples tested by another organization, is a definitive method for determining if changes have occurred over time. Should salinity appear to be a concern, having the data to support the claim will be useful in instituting changes with local highway departments.

Figure 40 shows results from ALAP data, as well as data collected through the Adirondack Lakes Survey Corporation (ALSC). The data in Figure 40 shows that ALAP lakes have chloride concentrations 22 times those of the ALSC lakes; this is largely due to ALSC lakes being fairly remote and in mountainous, road-free areas (Kelting and Laxson, 2010). Conversely, ALAP lakes include the Cascade Lakes, located along Route 73 heading toward Lake Placid, NY, and Lake Colby, located along Route 86 outside of the Village of Saranac Lake, NY (Kelting and Laxson, 2010). While it is unclear if any lakes or ponds near Route 8, in Warren County, were included in this data set, it is likely that Windover Lake has been subject to a similar addition of chloride due to road salt throughout its history. Participation in a program like ALAP would provide chloride testing, and allow Windover Lake to contribute to furthering research into the effects of road salt, and future alternative de-icers.

Figure 40. Cumulative Frequency Distribution curve for average chloride concentrations in lakes and ponds participating in ALAP and the Adirondack Lakes Survey Corporation (ALSC) between 1998 and 2009, from Kelting and Laxson, 2010.

Cost?

Costs for joining CSLAP or ALAP are described in Section 5.3.1.

108 Option 3. Pursue cooperation with the NYS Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and local highway departments

What is it? This refers to the ability of stakeholders to contact state and local highway departments regarding improvements along Route 8 and Chatiemac Road, the two roads that run alongside Windover Lake. The greatest concern is road salt or sand runoff into the lake. Road salt, specifically NaCl, has many well-studied negative impacts on the environment. NaCl increases the salinity of groundwater and surface water adjacent to roads; it has been shown to negatively impact soils by making them more prone to surface runoff, erosion, and sedimentation; it decreases the health of roadside plants; and lastly, NaCl displaces heavy metals that accumulate on road sides from motor vehicles, meaning they are more likely to contaminate adjacent surface water (Kelting and Laxson, 2010). Presently, road salt alternatives, improved techniques and equipment, and improved training and public education, are all part of recommendations being made to the New York State Department of Transportation (Kelting and Laxson, 2010). The implementation or improvement of vegetated swales along the roads, as well as the addition of runoff filters and sediment basins, would aid in managing runoff from the roads. These are all the responsibility of the highway departments, state or local, but stakeholders may observe their roadside property for areas of concern. Above all, change in water quality will only result from a change in de-icing material and application.

Is this applicable to Windover Lake?

Yes, and no. Groups like ADKaction.org and Paul Smith’s College Adirondack Watershed Institute (AWI) are encouraging change at the state level. Local change may be initiated by involvement in town or county meetings.

Cost?

Not likely to accrue a cost.

5.3.8 Prevention of Invasive Species Introduction

It is critical that invasive species, specifically plants, are prevented from entering Windover Lake. Plant fragments and seeds can cling to kayaks and canoes, or hide inside the hull, until they are transported unknowingly to another lake. Species like the Zebra Mussel and the microscopic spiny waterflea can also hijack boats and fishing gear, and concern for these invasive species is no less important. However, the extensive littoral zone, extending into most areas of the lake, makes Windover Lake prime habitat for species like Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum). Invasive milfoil could grow in high densities throughout the lake, blocking sunlight, depleting oxygen, and altering fish and macroinvertebrate habitat.

Invasive species prevention has been a hot topic in the Adirondack Park for years now, after well-known and well-studied bodies of water like Lake George have fallen victim to numerous invasives. Eurasian watermilfoil was first documented in Lake George in 1985, and by 1987, had become one of the ten most abundant species in the lake (Madsen and Boylen, 1990).

109 It was found to grow in a wide range of depths, between one and seven meters, but favoring the three-four meter depth range (Madsen and Boylen, 1990). Eurasian watermilfoil can grow in dense, closed canopies, reducing light intensity beneath it. This was not found to be the case with canopies formed by native plants, which allowed light attenuation similar to that of open water (Madsen and Boylen, 1990). Dense root mass formed by this species can also out-compete native species (Madsen et al., 1991). Although by far not the only species of concern, its presence in Lake George and other nearby lakes put Windover Lake at risk of losing natural biodiversity, and a subsequent decline in water quality.

The options listed below range from extreme measures, to those that can be implemented gradually and thoughtfully through stakeholder education.

Option 1. Limit Boat Use on Windover Lake to Watercraft that Remains on the Premises Year-round

What does this mean and is it really applicable to Windover Lake?

This would mean that stakeholders and lake guests could no longer bring their own canoes, kayaks, stand-up paddleboards, or sailboats, if they were used on other waterbodies. This is an extreme measure for preventing the introduction of invasive species, but based on survey results, 87% of respondents said that the boat or gear they used on Windover Lake also stayed there year round. This does not mean that additional watercraft and gear is not also brought to the lake by these respondents, but it does suggest that there is already a low percentage of at-risk boats and gear entering Windover Lake. A compromise may include the provision that many canoes and kayaks are already present and available at Windover Lake, and that guests of the lake are encouraged to use these as an alternative to bringing their own. This is not a statement based on factual evidence that there are indeed many canoes and kayaks, but again is supported by the survey respondent data.

Cost?

This is a no-cost measure for invasive species prevention, although it may be difficult to monitor and enforce. Therefore, Option 2 may present a more reasonable alternative.

Option 2. Establish Sanitation Protocols for Boats and Gear

What does this mean and is it really applicable to Windover Lake?

This refers to washing and disinfecting boats and gear before they enter Windover Lake, especially if they were used on or in another body of water recently. Lakes with public access often establish boat-washing stations or provide equipment like power washers right at the boat launch, in order to clean boats before and after they enter the water body. Although Windover Lake receives far less boat traffic than a public boat launch, given the proximity of the lake to those with known invasive species, like Loon Lake, Brant Lake or Lake George, it is reasonable to establish a sanitization protocol.

110

A sanitization protocol may be as simple as posting a sign or explaining at a meeting that all lake users are expected to follow the Check, Clean, and Dry procedure for preventing invasive species. One may also hear about draining and disinfecting, as other steps in this procedure. These are explained below: • Check - Visually inspect the boat for mud, plants, or attached mussels, and remove these by hand if possible (NYSDEC, n.d.). • Clean (and disinfect) - Clean the boat with hot water; this means at least 140°F for 10 seconds on a surface, in order to ensure any invasive species are destroyed. Other means of cleaning and disinfecting a boat include using a 2% bleach solution, either sprayed or wiped on or used as a soak for gear, or a 200 ppm Potassium Chloride (KCL) solution, a product available at hardware stores, requiring only one teaspoon per two gallons. • Dry - Allowing boats and gear to dry is an acceptable method on its own, but requires a five-toseven-day period of drying between uses on different bodies of water. This period may be longer if it is particularly humid. It is important that all parts of the boat are dry; if the inside of a kayak is still holding some water after a week, it may just be easier to disinfect. • Drain - This step is largely applicable to power boats with a bilge area, live wells, and other water-holding compartments (NYSDEC, n.d.).

Cost? Cost depends on how TWC decides to implement protocols like this. It should come at no cost to distribute this information to all stakeholders via email. Clean-boat protocols should also be included in the Windover Lake stakeholder policy. Greater efforts may include posting a sign at common boat launch sites (e.g. the two beaches on either side of the dam), or hosting a meeting or workshop on the topic.

Option 3. Education for stakeholders on common, local invasive species

What does this entail?

As alluded to in Option 2 of Section 5.3.8, educating stakeholders on common invasive species from New York and especially the Adirondack Park is a good way to promote awareness and help make lake users feel responsible for their lake. ‘Early detection, rapid response’ is an idea that if an invasive species is found early enough, and is met with a rapid response by people, then it can usually be eradicated before it becomes a problem. Although not every invasive is going to be successful in every lake, due to factors like sediment quality and alkalinity, it is not worth the risk. Response can mean as little as hand-pulling the invasive plant as soon as it is seen, or planning in conjunction with state agencies to implement more intensive management techniques.

The Adirondack Park Invasive Plant Program (APIPP) website offers an online map of Adirondack lakes with known invasive species; stakeholders can check if they may have encountered an invasive species before returning to Windover Lake (Table 27).

111 Table 27. Common Invasive Species of Concern in New York State (after NYSDEC’s ‘NY Boater’s Guide to Cleaning, Dry, and Disinfecting Boating Equipment) Aquatic Invasive Plant Species in New York State

Eurasian Watermilfoil Fanwort

Variable-leaf Watermilfoil Hydrilla Curly-leaf Pondweed Water Chestnut Aquatic Invasive Animal Species in New York State

Asian Clam Fishhook Waterflea

Zebra Mussel Spiny Waterflea Quagga Mussel Rusty Crayfish

Is this applicable to Windover Lake?

Highly applicable. Holding a workshop or meeting regarding invasive species recognition and response could be incorporated into training for the rake toss survey. Volunteers could simultaneously check the lake for invasive species, while also conducting the rake toss survey. Alternatively, organizing an invasive species awareness day or weekend may interest those interested in paddling on the lake, but who do not wish to be responsible for the rake toss survey.

Participating in a water quality-monitoring program would also be a good indicator if the lake acidity was changing, making it more susceptible for zebra mussel colonization.

Cost?

Minimal, apart from joining a water quality monitoring program (See Section 5.3.1).

Option 4. Plant Only Native Species

What is it?

This option refers largely to terrestrial planting and landscaping, and specifically planting and maintaining species that are native to this region of the Adirondacks. Species that are native are going to naturally be more tolerant of the soils and climate, including harsh winters and drought. The benefits of planting native species along shorelines and as landscaping include not having to water these plants, or apply fertilizer, as they are far more likely to be successful on their own (Bauer, et al., 2010). A successful native plant will grow large roots and filter runoff and leachate better than distressed, non-native species. Native plants will also be more attractive to native, beneficial insect pollinators.

112 By contrast, planting invasive or non-native species will decrease the benefits gained from the natural environment. Non-native species can be highly tolerant of poor conditions like drought or thin soils, but they may not provide the same food or shelter for native insects, nor stabilize and filter runoff as effectively as native plants.

Is this applicable?

Yes. Several concerns, especially regarding runoff and sedimentation, can be managed in part by planting or maintaining buffer zones. Therefore, it is important that property owners at Windover are aware of the need to plant and maintain native vegetation only. Recommended plants species include Black Eyed Susan, Columbine, Cardinal Flower, Mountain Laurel, Bee Balm, and Joe Pye Weed (Bauer, et al., 2010). Cardinal Flower and Joe Pye Weed may already be found near Windover Lake, as these are wetland species. Native shrub species, ideal for lake and stream buffer zones, include gray or silky dogwood (Cornus racemosa, C. amomum) and speckled alder (Alnus rugosa) (Bauer, et al., 2010). Many more native species exist, and it is recommended that anyone seeking to plant or encourage native species talk to a local landscaping company, or another horticulturalist.

Cost?

Highly variable. Hiring a landscape architect or private landscaping company will accrue some cost. Alternatives include finding local, native plants similar to alder or that can be readily split and transplanted along shorelines. It would be best to consult the NYS APA for information on native species that are expected to be successful, and for information on permits, if they are required.

5.4 Windover Lake Stakeholder & User Policy, 2016

Perhaps the most important component of the Windover Lake Management Plan, and all future management, is the development of a Windover Lake property owner and lake-user policy. This policy will ensure that many of the management tools and techniques are enforceable, or at the very least, expected, of those who own shoreline properties and/or use the lake. The following topics should be addressed by the Windover Lake Management Committee and TWC Board of Directors: • Septic tank inspection and pumping for all camps at established time intervals (e.g. three-five years, annually, etc.) • Placing of ‘Posted’ signs and annual inspection, replacement. Expectations for each property-owner, and agreement of who will oversee sign placement and inspection for all jointly-owned parcels. • The use of boats and gear, in regards to invasive species prevention. If applicable, establish expectations of inspection and cleaning boats and gear before use on Windover Lake. • Installation and maintenance of buffer zones on all shorelines; Expectations for each property-owner, and agreement of who will oversee implementation and inspection of all jointly-owned parcels.

113 • Any additional lake and land-use related topics that are not otherwise regulated under law, and therefore would apply solely to The Windover Corporation and its stakeholders.

Such a policy, addressing these topics and more, as deemed appropriate by the LMC and board, should be made public and accessible to all property owners and stakeholders.

114 References Adirondack Museum. (2007, November 1). Adirondack Journal - Unique Object from Collections. Retrieved December 12, 2015, from Adirondack Museum: http://www.adkmuseum.org/about_us/adirondack_journal/?id=49 APA. (2013, August 20). Hand Harvesting of Aquatic Plants. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from Adirondack Park Agency: apa.ny.gov/Documents/Flyers/HandHarvestingOfAquaticPlants.pdf APA. (2014). Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan. New York State Adirondack Park Agency. Raybrook: NYS Adirondack Park Agency (APA). APA. (2015). Rules and Regulations. NYSDEC, Adirondack Park Agency. Raybrook: Adirondack Park Agency. Baltoumas, D. (2016, July 18). Mountain Lake dredging project estimated to cost $2.5 million. Retrieved August 6, 2016, from Watertown Daily Times: http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/news05/mountain-lake-dredging-project-estimated-to- cost25-million-20160718 Bauer, P., Bozony, K., Keppler, D., Lindyberg, G., Navitsky, C., Schadler, M., . . . Spinelli, B. (2010). Do-It-Yourself Water Quality: A Landowner's Guide to Property Management that Protects Lake George. Lake George, New York: The FUND for Lake George. Brown, T. L. (n.d.). Recreational Access and Owner Liability . Retrieved August 1, 2016, from Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University: http://www2.dnr.cornell.edu/ext/info/pubs/LegalFinancial/liability_boundary_posting.htm Canfield, D. E. (1985). Relations Between Water Transparency and Maximum Depth of Macrophyte Colonization in Lakes. J. Aquat. Plant Manage., 23, 25-28. Carlson, R. E. (1977). A Trophic State Index For Lakes. Limnology and Oceanography, 361-369. CCE. (2013). Your Septic System: Considerations for Shoreline Property Owners. . Retrieved August 18, 2016 Cooke, G. D. (2005). Restoration and Management of Lakes and Reservoirs. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group. DEP. (n.d.). Septic Systems: How They Work and How to Keep Them Working. Retrieved August 18, 2016, from Maine Department of Environmental Protection: http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/watershed/septic.pdf. EcoLogic LLC. (2008). EcoLogic. Retrieved August 6, 2016, from Lake Algonquin Dredging Feasibility Study, Environmental and Invasive Species Monitoring, and Streambank Restoration: www.ecologicllc.com/pdf/LakeAlgonquin.pdf Engel, S. (1983). Evaluating Stationary Blankets and Removable Screens for Macrophyte Control in Lakes. J. Aquat. Plant Manage., 21, 73-77. Furey, P. C., Nordin, R. N., & Mazumder, A. (2006). Littoral benthic macroinvertebrates under contrasting drawdown in a reservoir and a natural lake. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 25(1), pp. 19-31. George, D. G. (2003). Using a continuous function for residence time to quantify the impact of climate change on the dynamics of thermally stratified lakes. Journal of Limnology, 62, 21-26. Holdren, C., W. Jones, and J. Taggart. (2001). Managing Lakes and Reservoirs, Third Edition. N. American Lake Manage. Soc. and Terrene Inst., in coop. with Off. Water Assess. Watershed Prot. Div. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

115 Homer, C. H. (2012). The National Land Cover Database, U. S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 20123020. U. S. Geological Survey. Hudnut, J. M. (2014). An Adirondack Lake: A Dam, A Farm, and Two Families. Hunt, P. C., & Jones, J. W. (1972, December 3). The Effect of Water Level Fluctuations on a Littoral Fauna. Journal of Fish Biology, 4, pp. 385-394. Kelting, D. L. (2010). Review of Effects and Costs of Road De-Icing with Recommendations for Winter Road Management in the Adirondack Park. Paul Smith's College, Adirondack Watershed Institude. Saranac Lake: AdkAction.org. Kery, M., & Shaub, M. (2012). Chapter 13. Estimation of Occupancy and Species Distributions from Detection/Nondetection Data in Metapopulation Designs Using Site-Occupancy Models. In M. Kery, & M. Shaub, Bayesian Population Analysis Using WinBUGS: A Hierarchical Perspective (pp. 413-461). Waltham, Massachusetts: Academic Press. Knight, C. (2013). Park Regulators Approve Herbicide for Loon Lake Milfoil Battle. Retrieved from North Country Public Radio (NCPR): http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/21632/20130318/park-regulators- approveherbcide-for-loon-lake-milfoil-battle Kretzer, W. A. (2006). Windover Lake: A Long-Term Assessment of Nuisance Aquatic Floating-Leaved Vegetation and Lake Drawdown as a Control Method (1993-2006). Lake Management Committee of the Windover Corporation (TWC). (2015). An Assessment of Aquatic Vegetation in Windover Lake, North Creek, New York. North Creek: Self-published. LGA. (2012). 15 Simple Strategies for Sustainable Lakeshores & Landscapes to Protect Lake George. Retrieved May 15, 2016, from Lake George Association: http://www.lakegeorgeassociation.org/publications/documents/May2012Homeownersguidetolake friendlylivingbrochureforweb.pdf Lord, P. H., & Johnson, R. L. (2006). 2006 Aquatic Plant Monitoring Guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.eaglelake1.org/archives/documents/plant_surveys/2006 aquatic plant monitoring guidelines.pdf Madsen, J. D., & Boylen, C. W. (1990). The physiological ecology of Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.) and native macrophytes in Lake George: depth distribution of biomass and photosynthesis. Rensselaer Fresh Water Institute, 89(6), 52. Madsen, J. D., Sutherland, J. W., Bloomfield, J. A., Eichler, L. W., & Boylen, C. W. (1991). The decline of native vegetation under dense Eurasian watermilfoil canopies. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 29, 94-99. Nichols, S. A. (1975). The Impact of Overwinter Drawdown of the Aquatic Vegetation of the Chippewa Flowage, Wisconsin. Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters , pp. 176-186. NYS. (1964). No duty to keep premises safe for certain uses; responsibility for acts of such users. New York General Obligations Law § 9-103. NYS. (2013). Trespass. New York State Penal Law §140.05, 4. New York State. NYSDEC - DLF. (2005). Siamese Ponds Wilderness Unit Management Plan . Albany: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - Department of Lands & Forests. NYSDEC. (1992, September). Environmental Conservation Law § 11-2111 - § 11-2115. Private Refuges and Posted Lands. NYSDEC. (1992, September). Environmental Conservation Law § 24-0101 - § 24-1305. Freshwater Wetlands.

116 NYSDEC. (1995). Freshwater Wetlands Delineation Manual. NYSDEC. (2005). A Primer on Aquatic Plant Management in NYS. Retrieved December 12, 2015, from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/ch6p2.pdf NYSDEC. (2007). The 2003 Upper Hudson Basin Waterbody Inventory and Priority Waterbodies List. Retrieved November 15, 2014, from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/pwluhud07.pdf NYSDEC. (2009, September 16). Stocking Privately Held Waters. Retrieved from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/57966.html NYSDEC. (2011, December 7). OGC 9: Enforcement Guidance: Public Rights of Navigation and Fishing. Retrieved from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation : http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/74771.html NYSDEC. (2014). Fishing Spots in Warren County. Retrieved 2016, from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/38365.html NYSDEC. (n.d.). A New York Boaters Guide to Cleaning, Drying, and Disinfecting Boating Equipment. Retrieved 2015, from New York State Department of Enviromental Conservation: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/boatdisinfect.pdf NYSDOH. (2005, March 8). Coliform Bacteria in Drinking Water Supplies. Retrieved August 1, 2016, from New York State Department of Health: https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/water/drinking/coliform_bacteria.htm NYSDOH. (2012, February). Part 6, Subpart 6-2 Bathing Beaches. Retrieved August 1, 2016, from New York State Department of Health: http://www.health.ny.gov/regulations/nycrr/title_10/part_6/subpart_6-2.htm#s6210 NYSDOH. (2014). Individual Water Supply Wells - Fact Sheet #6. Retrieved August 18, 2016, from New York State Department of Health: https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/water/drinking/regulations/fact_sheets/docs/fs6_guidan ce_for_code_enforement_officials.pdf NYSFOLA. (2009). Diet for a Small Lake: The Expanded Guide to New York State Lake and Watershed Management. N.Y. State Fed. Lake Assoc. NYSFOLA. (2015). What is CSLAP? Retrieved December 15, 2014, from N.Y. State Fed. Lake Assoc.: http://nysfola.mylaketown.com/What-is-CSLAP Obertegger, U. G. (2007). Water residence time as a driving force of zooplankton structure and succession. Aquatic Sciences, 69, 575-583. Protect the Adirondacks. (2016). Adirondack Lake Assessment Program (ALAP). Retrieved April 15, 2016, from Protect the Adirondacks: http://www.protectadks.org/programs/lake-assessment-alap/ Smith, J. A. (2013, March 6). Hamlet of Oregon. Retrieved December 12, 2015, from Town of Johnsburg Historian: http://townofjohnsburghistorian.weebly.com/oregon.html Solomon, D., & Dersch, E. (1993). What To Do If Your Septic System Fails. Lansing: Michigan State University Extension. Taube, C. M. (2000). Chapter 12. Instructions for Winter Lake Mapping. In J. C. Schneider (Ed.), Manual of fisheries survey methods II: with periodic updates. (Vol. Fisheries Special Report 25). Ann Arbor: Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Tiner, Jr., R. W., Rorer, A., & Wiegand, R. (1988). Field Guide to Nontidal Wetland Identification. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service & Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources.

117 Titus, J. E., & Sullivan, P. G. (2001). Heterophylly in the yellow waterlily, Nuphar variegata (Nymphaeacae) effects of [CO2], natural sediment type, and water depth. American Journal of Botany 88(8), 1469-1478. Town of Johnsburg. (2014). North Creek Water District Annual Drinking Water Quality Report for 2014. Johnsburg: Town of Johnsburg, Warren County. U.S. EPA. (2000, December). Ambient Water Quality Recommendations: Information Supporting the Development of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria for Lakes and Reservoirs in Nutrient Ecoregion VIII. Washington, D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/lakes8.pdf U.S. EPA. (2013). Total Nitrogen. Retrieved from United States Environmental Protection Agency: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/totalnitrogen.pdf USDA, NRCS. (1989). Soil Survey of Warren County New York. Natural Resources Conservation Service - Soils. U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA, NRCS. (2016). The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 28 November 2016). National Plant. Greenseboro, NC 27401-4901 USA. USGS. (1999). New York geologic map data; 1:250,000 Bedrock geology of NYS. Retrieved July 10, 2016, from U.S. Geological Survey: http://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/state/php?state=NY Walker, J. D., Geissman, J. W., Bowring, S. A., & Babcock, L. E. (2012). Geologic Time Scale v. 4.0. Geological Society of America. Wennerberg, S. (2004). Plant Guide for Yellow Pond-lil (Nuphar luteum L. sm.). USDA-NRCS National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, Lousiana., Accessed from: http://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/pg_nulu.pdf. YSI. (2012, March). 6 Series Multiparameter Water Quality Sondes User Manual. Retrieved from YSI Incorporated : https://www.ysi.com/File%20Library/Documents/Manuals/069300-YSI-6- SeriesManual-RevJ.pdf

118 Appendix A. Nutrient Concentrations Nutrient concentrations for Windover Lake, collected between October 2014 and April 2015. Date Depth (m) Ammonia (mg/L) Nitrate + Nitrite (mg/L) Total Nitrogen (mg/L) Total Phosphorus (μg/L)

10/18/14 1 bd bd 0.2 23 10/18/14 2 bd bd 0.23 18

10/25/14 0.5 bd bd 0.21 139

10/25/14 1 bd bd 0.19 29 10/25/14 1.5 bd bd 0.21 15 10/25/14 2 bd bd 0.22 19

11/21/14 0 NA bd 0.13 17

11/21/14 0.5 NA bd 0.13 13 11/21/14 1 NA bd 0.14 17 11/21/14 1.5 NA bd 0.13 14 11/21/14 2 NA bd 0.14 14

1/29/15 0 NA 0.13 0.24 62

1/29/15 0.5 NA 0.12 0.25 21 1/29/15 1 NA 0.12 0.24 38 1/29/15 1.5 NA 0.12 0.24 12 1/29/15 2 NA 0.11 0.22 24

2/28/15 0 NA 0.11 0.16 5

2/28/15 0.5 NA 0.11 0.17 7 2/28/15 1 NA 0.1 0.14 6 2/28/15 1.5 NA 0.1 0.16 14 2/28/15 2 NA 0.1 0.15 24 2/28/15 2.5 NA 0.09 0.15 77

3/28/15 0 NA 0.15 0.29 15

3/28/15 0.5 NA 0.14 0.23 14 3/28/15 1 NA 0.13 0.21 11 3/28/15 1.5 NA 0.12 0.2 11 3/28/15 2 NA 0.11 0.19 11 3/28/15 2.5 NA 0.1 0.19 12

4/26/15 0 NA 0.05 0.21 12

4/26/15 0.5 NA 0.05 0.22 11 4/26/15 1 NA 0.05 0.22 12 4/26/15 1.5 NA 0.06 0.22 13 4/26/15 2 NA 0.05 0.2 12 4/26/15 2.5 NA 0.05 0.24 13 4/26/15 0 MID-LAKE NA 0.05 0.23 18 4/26/15 0.5 MID NA 0.05 0.21 13 4/26/15 1 MID NA 0.05 0.22 14

119 4/26/15 1.5 MID NA 0.05 0.23 13 4/26/15 2.0 M NA 0.05 0.23 14 4/26/15 INLET NA 0.06 0.22 14 BD = Below detection level (0.02 mg/l for nitrate and ammonia; 0.04 mg/l for total nitrogen; 4μg/l for total phosphorus).

Appendix A. Nutrient Concentrations Nutrient concentrations for Windover Lake collected between May 2015 and September 2015. Date Depth (m) Ammonia (mg/L) Nitrate + Nitrite (mg/L) Total Nitrogen (mg/L) Total Phosphorus (μg/L) 5/10/15 0 NA bd 0.14 13 5/10/15 0.5 NA bd 0.11 12 5/10/15 1 NA bd 0.13 12 5/10/15 1.5 NA bd 0.13 12 5/10/15 2 NA bd 0.11 12 5/10/15 2.5 NA bd 0.13 16

5/27/15 0 NA bd 0.08 15

5/27/15 0.5 NA bd 0.06 16 5/27/15 1 NA bd 0.1 20 5/27/15 1.5 NA bd 0.06 16 5/27/15 2 NA 0.02 0.1 15

6/12/15 0 NA bd 0.22 18

6/12/15 0.5 NA bd 0.22 15 6/12/15 1 NA bd 0.18 15 6/12/15 1.5 NA bd 0.3 18 6/12/15 2 NA bd 0.21 17 6/12/15 2.5 NA bd 0.28 19

6/27/15 0 NA bd 0.17 19

6/27/15 0.5 NA bd 0.2 15 6/27/15 1 NA bd 0.24 37 6/27/15 1.5 NA bd 0.3 102 6/27/15 2 NA bd 0.14 30 6/27/15 2.5 NA bd 0.22 22

7/11/15 0 NA bd 0.1 15

7/11/15 0.5 NA bd 0.1 20 7/11/15 1 NA bd 0.12 17 7/11/15 1.5 NA bd 0.11 17 7/11/15 2 NA bd 0.09 16 7/11/15 2.5 NA bd 0.1 40 7/11/15 INLET NA 0.04 0.1 25

8/1/15 0 NA bd 0.15 17

120 8/1/15 0.5 NA bd 0.14 17 8/1/15 1 NA bd 0.12 17 8/1/15 1.5 NA bd 0.13 20 8/1/15 2 NA bd 0.14 17 8/1/15 2.5 NA bd 0.15 18

8/17/15 0 NA bd 0.17 12

8/17/15 0.5 NA bd 0.19 14 8/17/15 1 NA bd 0.15 14 8/17/15 1.5 NA bd 0.18 13 8/17/15 2 NA bd 0.16 15 8/17/15 2.5 NA bd 0.2 21

Appendix A. Nutrient Concentrations Nutrient concentrations for Windover Lake between September 2015 and February 2016. Date Depth (m) Ammonia Nitrate + Nitrite Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (μg/L) 9/3/15 0 NA bd 0.17 9 9/3/15 0.5 NA bd 0.22 9 9/3/15 1 NA bd 0.19 10 9/3/15 1.5 NA bd 0.19 8 9/3/15 2 NA bd 0.18 9 9/3/15 2.5 NA bd 0.16 40

9/11/15 0 NA bd 0.22 12 9/11/15 0.5 NA bd 0.17 11 9/11/15 1 NA bd 0.2 14 9/11/15 1.5 NA bd 0.27 10 9/11/15 2 NA bd 0.28 16 9/11/15 2.5 NA bd 0.45 36

9/25/15 0 NA bd 0.31 10 9/25/15 0.5 NA bd 0.36 14 9/25/15 1 NA bd 0.32 14 9/25/15 1.5 NA bd 0.41 15 9/25/15 2 NA bd 0.29 17

10/8/15 0 NA bd 0.35 19 10/8/15 0.5 NA bd 0.36 18 10/8/15 1 NA bd 0.37 20 10/8/15 1.5 NA bd 0.36 20 10/8/15 2 NA bd 0.37 19 10/8/15 2.5 NA bd 0.4 26 10/8/15 BAKER BROOK NA bd 0.13 25

10/23/15 0 NA bd 0.14 13 10/23/15 0.5 NA bd 0.17 16 10/23/15 1 NA bd 0.12 16

121 10/23/15 2 NA bd 0.13 16

11/23/15 0.5 NA bd 0.15 13 11/23/15 2 NA bd 0.2 14

1/23/16 INLET NA 0.25 0.1 14 1/23/16 0 NA 0.08 0.27 24 1/23/16 0.5 NA 0.08 0.17 13 1/23/16 1 NA 0.08 0.17 14 1/23/16 1.5 NA 0.07 0.17 12 1/23/16 2 NA 0.05 0.13 14 1/23/16 2.5 NA 0.03 0.12 13

2/27/16 0 NA 0.07 0.22 27 2/27/16 0.5 NA 0.07 0.17 21 2/27/16 1 NA 0.07 0.12 14 2/27/16 1.5 NA 0.07 0.16 15 2/27/16 2 NA 0.04 0.11 20 2/27/16 2.5 NA bd 0.1 17

122 Appendix B. Physiochemical Water Quality Data Physiochemical water quality measurements for Windover Lake (surface to 2.5m) collected with a YSI unit, between October 2014 and February 2016.

Temperature (°C) Depth (m) 10/18/14 10/25/14 11/21/14 1/29/15 2/28/15 3/28/15 4/26/15 5/10/15 5/27/15 6/12/15 6/27/15 7/11/15 8/1/15 8/17/15 9/3/15 9/11/15 9/25/15 10/8/15 11/23/15 1/24/16 2/27/16 0 9.25 0.28 0.5 0.22 0.06 5.98 19.76 21.44 20.16 21.13 22.10 24.78 26.32 23.46 23.54 17.92 13.72 3 0.18 0.26 0.5 13.78 9.26 0.53 0.36 0.15 0.30 5.96 19.75 21.43 20.16 21.15 22.03 24.77 26.26 23.46 22.85 17.88 13.68 2.98 0.45 0.56 1 13.78 9.21 0.83 1.17 0.47 0.88 5.95 19.73 21.44 20.12 20.95 22.01 24.78 24.5 23 22.67 17.83 13.65 2.96 1.78 0.76 1.5 13.78 9.20 1.24 2 1.29 1.69 5.94 17.29 21.24 19.96 19.30 21.98 24.77 22.1 22.39 22.62 17.8 13.6 2.94 3.05 2.34 2 13.77 8.78 1.46 3.14 2.35 2.93 5.93 16.13 21.13 17.71 18.48 20.30 24.54 21.02 21.81 22.21 17.74 13.58 2.95 3.77 3.62 2.5 8.75 2.60 4.08 3.08 2.96 5.88 15.11 16.99 17.74 19.12 24.41 20.63 21.23 22.35 17.63 13.58 2.92 4 3.9 pH Depth (m) 10/18/14 10/25/14 11/21/14 1/29/15 2/28/15 3/28/15 4/26/15 5/10/15 5/27/15 6/12/15 6/27/15 7/11/15 8/1/15 8/17/15 9/3/15 9/11/15 9/25/15 10/8/15 11/23/15 1/24/16 2/27/16 0 7.82 8.35 8 7.37 7.34 7.67 8.11 7.46 7.27 8.11 7.73 7.58 7.89 7.75 8.09 7.18 6.87 0.5 8.26 7.62 8.15 7.71 7.31 7.26 7.58 8.43 8.01 7.35 7.22 8.03 7.73 7.57 7.81 7.62 8 7.14 6.61 Probe 1 8.01 7.48 7.97 Probe 7.58 Calib. 7.23 7.27 7.49 8.3 7.94 7.33 7.18 7.74 7.67 7.49 7.75 7.54 7.91 7.27 6.6 Calib. 1.5 7.85 7.42 7.84 7.5 Error 7.19 7.33 7.47 8.21 7.83 7.3 7.15 7.48 7.61 7.46 7.66 7.46 7.85 7.18 6.67 Error 2 7.77 7.32 7.75 7.42 7.15 6.93 7.37 8.09 7.64 7.05 7.12 7.17 7.4 7.15 7.59 7.42 7.82 7.08 6.86

2.5 7.03 7.15 7.25 6.8 6.4 7.87 7.08 6.75 7.09 6.77 6.81 6.84 7.47 7.13 7.71 6.82 6.71

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) Depth (m) 10/18/14 10/25/14 11/21/14 1/29/15 2/28/15 3/28/15 4/26/15 5/10/15 5/27/15 6/12/15 6/27/15 7/11/15 8/1/15 8/17/15 9/3/15 9/11/15 9/25/15 10/8/15 11/23/15 1/24/16 2/27/16 0 10.87 14.03 12.26 12.96 12.85 12.01 9.14 9.11 9.03 8.79 8.47 8.42 10.22 8.3 7.75 8.5 9.32 11.95 13.81 12.38 0.5 10.88 10.88 13.56 13.52 13.1 13.09 12.06 9.17 9.17 8.99 8.64 8.36 8.4 10.25 8.28 7.69 8.47 9.31 11.95 13.71 13.31 1 10.85 10.87 13.4 13.34 12.91 12.65 12.07 9.18 9.2 8.97 8.6 8.35 8.4 10.25 8.82 7.63 8.43 9.29 11.96 12.74 13.42 1.5 10.85 10.86 13.38 12.91 12.18 11.84 12.07 10.05 9.21 8.89 8.75 8.32 8.4 10.15 8.92 8.07 8.41 9.21 11.95 11.64 14.82 2 5.45 10.86 13.25 10.67 10.1 10.02 12.08 10.29 9.25 9.84 8.4 7.59 8.38 9.68 7.31 7.32 8.43 9.16 11.95 9.62 13.95 2.5 4.89 10.6 6.7 7.44 8.23 3 3.9 3.85 6.11 4.06 0.74 8.64 5.74 0.7 8.52 11.95 13.19

123

The State of Windover Lake – August 2016 Appendix B. Physiochemical Water Quality Data Physiochemical water quality measurements for Windover Lake (surface to 2.5m) collected with a YSI unit, between October 2014 and February 2016.

Conductivity (mS/cm) Depth (m) 10/18/14 10/25/14 11/21/14 1/29/15 2/28/15 3/28/15 4/26/15 5/10/15 5/27/15 6/12/15 6/27/15 7/11/15 8/1/15 8/17/15 9/3/15 9/11/15 9/25/15 10/8/15 11/23/15 1/24/16 2/27/16 0 0.105 0.155 0.141 0.118 0.138 0.056 0.070 0.085 0.081 0.071 0.070 0.091 0.095 0.106 0.113 0.122 0.183 0.080 0.085 0.049 0.5 0.110 0.105 0.110 0.102 0.113 0.142 0.056 0.070 0.085 0.080 0.071 0.070 0.091 0.095 0.106 0.112 0.122 0.183 0.080 0.082 0.044 1 0.110 0.105 0.096 0.097 0.111 0.135 0.056 0.070 0.085 0.080 0.071 0.070 0.091 0.105 0.106 0.111 0.122 0.183 0.079 0.077 0.045 1.5 0.110 0.105 0.095 0.094 0.107 0.128 0.056 0.074 0.085 0.080 0.068 0.070 0.091 0.123 0.106 0.111 0.122 0.183 0.080 0.074 0.065 2 0.110 0.105 0.112 0.088 0.100 0.114 0.056 0.076 0.085 0.069 0.063 0.079 0.092 0.139 0.114 0.121 0.122 0.183 0.079 0.084 0.068 2.5 0.105 0.143 0.132 0.113 0.248 0.081 0.076 0.069 0.079 0.094 0.136 0.185 0.124 0.123 0.183 0.079 0.098 0.098

124 Appendix C. Stakeholder Survey Windover Lake stakeholder opinion survey sent to 118 individuals listed on the family directory.

1. Please select the option that best describes the frequency of your visits to Windover Lake: ___ Frequent: Permanent/year-round resident locally ___ Less frequent, but visit throughout the year (e.g. Summer and Autumn visits) ___ Summer months/fair-weather, temporary residence (e.g. staying at your camp for extended periods) ___ Summer months, visit between one and several times per month ___ 1-2 times a summer ___ Special occasions and family reunions only ___ Other (please specify): ______

2. What is your age? ___ Under 12 ___ 12 – 17 ___ 18 – 24 ___ 25 – 34 ___ 35 – 44 ___ 45 – 54 ___ 55 – 64 ___ 65 – 74 ___ 75 or older

3. To ensure that all lake users in the future are aware of the threat of invasive species, it is important to know who is using the lake and how. Select the option that best describe your actions regarding guests at the lake: ___ Have only family members (i.e. Windover relatives) use or stay at the lake ___ Bring non-family members/guests to the lake ___ Allow non-family members/guests to stay or recreate at the lake when I am not there ___ Other (please specify): ______

4. What recreational activities on and around the lake are you involved in? (Check all that apply) ___ Canoeing/Kayaking ___ Sailing ___ Swimming ___ Fishing ___ Ice fishing ___ Hiking ___ Relaxing at residence ___ Enjoyment of aesthetics ___ Wildlife observation ___ Other (please specify): ______

5. Boats (canoes and kayaks) and gear (fishing, life jackets) can transport aquatic invasive species if they are not properly cleaned and dry before they are used at Windover. Please check any

125 statement that applies to you and your recreation habits at Windover: ___ The same boat or gear is used on Chatiemac Lake. ___ The same boat or gear is used at other nearby lakes (e.g. Brant Lake, Lake George, etc.) ___ The same boat or gear is used elsewhere in New York. ___ The same boat or gear is used outside of New York. ___ I use boats or gear that stay at Windover Lake year-round. ___ I am aware of the “Clean, Drain, Dry” methods for inspecting and cleaning boats and gear.

6. To what extent are the below listed items a concern to you relative to Windover Lake?

Great Moderate Little I don’t

Concern Concern Concern know Preserve present water quality ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Restore lake to previous conditions ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Aquatic plant (weed) growth ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Algae growth ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Runoff from Rt. 8 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Negative impacts of drawdown ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Increased sedimentation ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Sanitary (septic) wastes from camps ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Fecal pollution ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Reduce trespass by uninvited boats on ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ lake and public fishing from road Depletion of fisheries ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Potability (drink-ability) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Other: ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

7. Please select the time-frame that best describes any changes you’ve witnessed in Windover Lake: In the last In the last 2-5 In the last 10 No change year years years Water clarity ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Floating aquatic plants ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Submerged (underwater) aquatic ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ plants Lake Depth ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Algae ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

8. If there are any concerns that were not addressed by this survey, or if you would like to include any

126 other information, please describe this below:

Appendix D. Watershed Survey Opinion Survey Concerning the Recreational Utilization of Baker Brook and Surrounding Streams and Ponds

I. Individual Characterization 1. Are you a permanent resident of Bakers Mills? (Circle one) YES NO N/A (Not Applicable) 2. Are you a summer or seasonal resident only? YES NO N/A 3. Do you own property that borders Baker Brook or a connecting stream or pond? YES NO N/A 4. Do you rent property that borders Baker Brook or a connecting stream or pond? YES NO N/A

5. How do you access Baker Brook, or any connecting streams or ponds? (Check which option applies) ____ Short-distance direct access from your property ____ Longer-distance access, such as a hiking or off-road trail ____ Roadside access ____ I do not use the brook or other connecting bodies of water ____ Other: ______

6. What recreational activities are you involved in on or around the brook, connecting streams, or ponds? ____ Fishing ____ Swimming ____ Kayaking ____ Hunting ____ Hiking ____ I do not use the brook or other connecting bodies of water ____ Other: ______

7. How often do you use the brook (or connecting streams and ponds) in a year? ____ Greatest use year-round ____ Greatest use during the summer months

127 ____ Greatest use weekends and holidays ____ No pattern of use ____ I do not use the brook or other connecting bodies of water ____ Other: ______

Continues on next page … II. To what extent are the below listed items of concern to you relative to Baker Brook environmental quality?

1. Environmental quality factors (Select level of concern for each) Great Moderate Little I don’t Concern Concern Concern know Road Salt ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Acid Rain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Septic waste runoff ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Other household wastes ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Construction/development ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Land Clearing ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Agricultural Practices ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Small-scale livestock ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Fish stocking ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Potability (drinkability) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Aesthetics ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Other: ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

2. Are you aware of wetland areas along Baker Brook and ponds connected to it? (Circle one) YES NO Not Sure

3. What do you think about present use of the brook, tributary streams and ponds? (Answer in the box below)

128

4. Do you have any other comments, questions, or concerns?

Appendix E. Vascular Plant Observations - Historic Vascular Plants Observed in Windover Lake since 1993 Common Name (Genus) Type No. 91-349 No. 96-226 No. 99-263 CSLAP TWC BFS

Cattail (Typha) Emergent X X

Cattail (Typha latifolia)* ✝ Emergent X

Water smartweed (Polygonum) Emergent X X X

Water smartweed (Polygonum Emergent X amphibium)*✝ Pickerel weed (Pontederia cordata)*✝ Emergent X X X

Rush (Juncusspp.)*✝ Emergent X X X X

Sedge (Carex spp.)*✝ Emergent X X X X

Floating Leaf Pondweed (P. natans) Floating-Leaved Kretzer X

Yellow Water Lily (Nuphar luteum)*✝ Floating-Leaved X X X X X

Watershield (Brasenia schreberi)*✝ Floating-Leaved X X X X X X

White water lily (Nymphaea odorata)*✝ Floating-Leaved X X X X X

✝ Submergent X X Small pondweed (Potamogeton pussilus)*

Naiad (Najas sp.)*✝ Submergent X X X X

129 Bladderwort (Utricularia) Submergent X X

Bladderwort (Utricularia vulgaris)*✝ Submergent X X

Waterweed (Elodea spp.) Submergent X X

Western waterweed (Elodea nuttallii)‡ Submergent X*

Common waterweed (Elodea canadensis) Submergent X

Quillwort (Isoetes braunii) Submergent X

Stonewort (Chara spp.)✝ Submergent X X

Pondweed (Potamogeton spp.) Submersed/Floating X X X

*Elodea nuttallii listed in CSLAP for years 1999, 2001. Grey shading = most abundant at time of survey (if noted).

*Species listed in APA Permit No. 91-349; ✝Species listed in APA Permit No. 99-263; ‡ Species listed in CSLAP Reports 1999-2003

Appendix F. Rake Toss Points Used in Statistical Regression Analysis Transect Latitude Longitude T1 - 1 43.6296 -74.01308 T1 - 2 43.62977 -74.01293 T1 - 3 43.62983 -74.01282 T2 - 1 43.63102 -74.01572 T2 - 2 43.63083 -74.0153 T2 - 3 43.63112 -74.0148 T3 - 1 43.6363 -74.01323 T3 - 2 43.63623 -74.01288 T4 - 1 43.635 -74.01433 T4 - 2 43.63488 -74.01467 T4 - 3 43.63475 -74.01495 T5 - 1 43.63028 -74.01048 T5 - 2 43.6304 -74.01027 T6 - 1 43.63043 -74.0147 T6 - 2 43.63073 -74.01458 T6 - 3 43.63095 -74.01448 T6 - 4 43.6312 -74.01435 T6 - 5 43.63147 -74.0142

130 T6 - 6 43.63178 -74.0141 T6 - 7 43.63207 -74.014 T6 - 8 43.63233 -74.01392 T6 - 9 43.63263 -74.01388 T6 - 10 43.63293 -74.01383

131 OCCASIONAL PAPERS PUBLISHED BY THE BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION (cont.)

No. 38. Biocontrol of Eurasian water-milfoil in central New York State: Myriophyllum spicatum L., its insect herbivores and associated fish. Paul H. Lord. August 2004. No. 39. The benthic macroinvertebrates of Butternut Creek, Otsego County, New York. Michael F. Stensland. June 2005. No. 40. Re-introduction of walleye to Otsego Lake: re-establishing a fishery and subsequent influences of a top Predator. Mark D. Cornwell. September 2005. No. 41. 1. The role of small lake-outlet streams in the dispersal of zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) veligers in the upper Susquehanna River basin in New York. 2. Eaton Brook Reservoir boaters: Habits, zebra mussel awareness, and adult zebra mussel dispersal via boater. Michael S. Gray. 2005. No. 42. The behavior of lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush (Walbaum, 1972) in Otsego Lake: A documentation of the strains, movements and the natural reproduction of lake trout under present conditions. Wesley T. Tibbitts. 2008. No. 43. The Upper Susquehanna watershed project: A fusion of science and pedagogy. Todd Paternoster. 2008. No. 44. Water chestnut (Trapa natans L.) infestation in the Susquehanna River watershed: Population assessment, control, and effects. Willow Eyres. 2009. No. 45. The use of radium isotopes and water chemistry to determine patterns of groundwater recharge to Otsego Lake, Otsego County, New York. Elias J. Maskal. 2009. No. 46. The state of Panther Lake, 2014 and the management of Panther Lake and its watershed. Derek K. Johnson. 2015. No. 47. The state of Hatch Lake and Bradley Brook Reservoir, 2015 & a plan for the management of Hatch Lake and Bradley Brook Reservoir. Jason E. Luce. 2015. No. 48. Monitoring of seasonal algal succession and characterization of the phytoplankton community: Canadarago Lake, Otsego County, NY & Canadarago Lake watershed protection plan. Carter Lee Bailey. 2015. No. 49. A scenario-based framework for lake management plans: A case study of Grass Lake & A management plan for Grass Lake. Owen Zaengle. 2015. No. 50. Cazenovia Lake: A comprehensive management plan. Daniel Kopec. 2015. No. 51. Comprehensive lake management plan, Lake Moraine, Madison County, NY. Benjamin P. German. 2016. No. 52. Determining effective decontamination methods for watercraft exposed to zebra mussels, Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas 1776), that do not use hot water with high pressure spray. Eric A. Davis. No. 53. The state of Brant Lake, & Brant Lake management plan. Alejandro Reyes. 2016. No. 54. The state of Truesdale Lake & Truesdale Lake management plan. Christian Jenne. 2017. No. 55. The state of Rushford Lake. Edward J. Kwietniewski. 2017. No. 56. Comprehensive lake management plan Goodyear Lake, Otsego County, NY. Caitlin Stroosnyder. 2018.

Annual Reports and Technical Reports published by the Biological Field Station are available at: http://www.oneonta.edu/academics/biofld/publications.asp