Comprehensive Lake Management Plan, Lake Moraine, Madison County, Ny

COMPREHENSIVE LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN, LAKE MORAINE, MADISON COUNTY, NY

Benjamin P. German

Occasional Paper No. 51 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 COMPREHENSIVE LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN, LAKE MORAINE, MADISON COUNTY, NY

Benjamin P. German

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

STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE AT ONEONTA

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

Acknowledgments:

Dr. Bill Harman Dr. Daniel Stich Dr. Kiyoko Yokota

Matt Albright Mark Cornwell James Everard Scott Ingmire Scott Kishbaugh Steve Lorraine John Slater Holly Waterfield

Table of Contents Title Page 1.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………1 2.0 Management Goals, Objectives, Action Steps……………………………………………..1 2.1 Goal: Foster sustainable multi-use recreational opportunities 2.2 Goal: Reduce contribution of nutrients and sediment from the watershed to improve water quality and help reduce nuisance plant growth 2.3 Goal: Continue implementing the plant control strategies outlined in the 2006 aquatic plant management plan 2.4 Goal: Seek to maintain and improve fishery and ecosystem function to support wildlife that utilize Lake Moraine 2.5 Goal: Utilize, maintain and update plan as new information is gathered 3.0 Public Input…………………………………………………………………………….………..14 3.1 Stakeholder survey 3.2 Public meetings 4.0 Needs Assessment…………………………………………………………………………….15 4.1 Environmental concerns 4.1.1 Excessive plant & algae growth 4.1.2 Invasive & nuisance species 4.1.3 Sanitary waste 4.1.4 Fishery 4.2 Recreation & use concerns 4.2.1 Navigation & safety 5.0 Lake & Watershed Characteristics…………………………………………………………17 5.1 Water quality 5.1.1 Introduction 5.1.2 Methods Lake sampling protocols Laboratory analysis 5.1.3 Results & discussion Physical/chemical parameters Nutrients Trophic Status Summary 5.2 Fishery 5.2.1 Introduction 5.2.2 Methods Data collection Analysis 5.2.3 Results 5.2.4 Discussion 5.3 Aquatic plant community 5.3.1 Introduction 5.3.2 Methods 5.3.3 Results Native plants Invasive plants 5.3.4 Discussion Native plants Invasive plants Eurasian watermilfoil Curly-leaf pondweed Starry stonewort

6.0 Watershed Management………………………………………………………………………56 6.1 Watershed characteristics 6.2 Septic systems 6.3 Watershed nutrient management 6.3.1 Watershed nutrient reduction strategies 6.3.2 Watershed programs

7.0 In-Lake Management………………………………………………………………………….61 7.1 Plant and nutrient control 7.1.1 Previously implemented management strategies 7.1.2 Considering management alternatives 7.1.3 Aeration/oxygenation 7.1.4 Bio-Control 7.1.5 Bottom barriers 7.1.6 Chemical sediment treatment/ phosphorus inactivation 7.1.7 Drawdown 7.1.8 Dredging 7.1.9 Harvesting 7.1.10 Herbicides 7.1.11 Selective withdrawal 7.1.12 Management of Nutrient Inputs 7.2 Management alternatives for navigation and lake use 7.2.1 User conflicts 7.2.2 Navigation & safety 8.0 References……………………………………………………….……………………………76 9.0 Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………80 Appendix A: Stakeholder Survey Appendix B: Reference Conditions Appendix C: Physical & Chemical Water Quality Data Appendix D: Nutrient Concentrations Appendix E: How to interpret isopleths Appendix F: Lake Use Law

Comprehensive Lake Management Plan

Lake Moraine, Madison County, NY

Prepared for the Lake Moraine Association

1.0 Introduction

Lake Moraine is located in southeastern Madison County, NY. It has two basins, and both are located within the town of Madison. The lake provides recreational opportunities to more than 200 shoreline property owners as well as the general public via state launching facility on the causeway separating the basins. The Lake Moraine Association (LMA) has been managing the lake since the middle of the 20th century; it was formally incorporated on May 28th, 1977, and currently has yearly membership of around 100 people. Under the purview of the LMA, Lake Moraine has been the subject of biological surveys and various plant management practices for years. The system has faced several management challenges over time, especially nutrient loading - a major factor contributing to excessive plant and algae growth. In 2006 a detailed aquatic plant management plan was prepared by Allied Biological Inc. outlining the current status of the plant community and control alternatives for dealing with the excessive plant and algae production that has plagued the lake for years (Allied Biological, 2006). The LMA decided it would be desirable to create a comprehensive plan that went beyond managing only for plant and algae control. The objective of this document is to provide information to support sustainable quality and use of Lake Moraine and the surrounding watershed. To achieve this, the document identifies priority management issues based on a compilation of 1) issues identified by members of the LMA at public meetings and the 2014 stakeholder survey, 2) New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) fisheries survey data, and 3) contracted survey data related to the fishery, limnology and aquatic plants.

2.0 Management Goals, Objectives, Control Actions

“It is the mission of the LMA to improve the water quality of the lake through weed control, waste/pollutant management, education, and other methods while at the same time maintaining the recreational use of the lake, encouraging water safety, and protecting the environment.” –LMA Mission Statement

The management goals for Lake Moraine were developed as a collaborative effort between the LMA board of directors and members, public input, and representatives from the Lake Management M.S. program at SUNY Oneonta. Public forums and a stakeholder survey were conducted to identify areas of widespread concern, as well as to gauge public opinion.

2.1 Goal: Foster sustainable multi-use recreational opportunities

Objective: Regulate lake use by time and/or location to support differing recreational preferences of stakeholders.

Action Steps • Maintain and update as necessary signage indicating no wake zones, lake-use regulations, invasive species prevention, etc. • Evaluate possibility for stricter regulations on personal water craft (PWC) to restrict time or location(s) for use. • Host an open forum where interested parties can discuss lake-use conflicts and potential solutions. • Continue to petition town board and local law enforcement to monitor the lake for law violations frequently and randomly, particularly during heavy usage times in the evenings and on weekends, and to take direct action against violation of existing laws. • Revisit current laws (Town of Madison Local Law #1, 1986, 2012) to ensure they address all of the current lake-use conflicts and concerns. • Establish enforceable, defined limits such as decibel restrictions to give law enforcement firm numbers to use for assessing violations. For example, current law states: “[Motor boats shall NOT be operated]: (h) without adequate muffler system”

This is difficult to enforce and should be changed to include values. A revised version might read: “[Motor boats shall NOT be operated]: (h) with engines or other means of propulsion that produce sound in excess of 60 dB at 100 feet.”

With this change officers could set up a course with a dB meter and have boaters drive past at full throttle to ensure everyone meets this requirement. Violators would need to modify engines to comply with the dB requirement.

• Update and distribute navigational and use regulations such as those found in Town of Madison Local Law #1 (1986, 2012) that go beyond general NYS boating regulations. • Ultimately it is up to the Lake Moraine stakeholders and the LMA to decide what the most important regulatory considerations are. The laws should be structured in a way that is enforceable and addresses each area of concern, ensuring sustainable social wellbeing and a lake that supports the best possible use for stakeholders. • For more on this topic refer to section 7.2.

Objective: Encourage the public to be actively engaged in lake management endeavors in an effort to build cooperation among lake users.

Action Steps • Encourage membership and participation in the Lake Moraine Association. • Support existing volunteers and recruit new volunteers to accomplish CSLAP lake monitoring and launch stewardship. • Hold public forums and workshops to ensure stakeholders have a chance to be heard and to keep everyone up to date on current management efforts and strategies. • Continue with seasonal activities that bring lake users together such as a boat parade and picnic. Consider inviting a special presenter to give a brief talk on a topic of interest. • Continue circulating LMA newsletter, and include snippets or brief educational articles that inform stakeholders about citizen strategies (things “everyone” can do such as shoreline best management practices (BMPs)) that enhance the lake ecosystem function. o The LMA should maintain a list of applicable practices and may wish to require new shoreline projects to be approved by the LMA. Shoreline BMPs may include: . Crowned driveways with gravel, rock or grass cover . Dripline trenches . Establishing no-mow zones . Infiltration steps . Infiltration trenches . Lake-shore vegetation management standards . Lake-friendly yard maintenance (lawn chemicals, pet waste etc.) . Lined drainage ditches

. Live staking . Open-top culverts & rock aprons . Pervious pavement . Planting and maintaining vegetated areas . Rain gardens . Re-sloping, rock toe & rip rap . Roof top downspout disconnection and drywells . Vegetated berms . Vegetative swales . Waterbars . For further information about these strategies see: • (Holdren et al. 2001) • (NYSFOLA, 2009)

2.2 Goal: Reduce contribution of nutrients and sediment from the watershed to improve water quality and help reduce nuisance plant growth

Objective: Encourage implementation, and continued use of agricultural BMPs in the watershed.

Action Steps • Allocate funds to determine a nutrient budget for Lake Moraine. o Source and quantity of nutrient inputs must be ascertained to facilitate informed management decisions regarding the watershed, sanitary waste, and the internal nutrient load. This will ensure that money spent on in- lake management is properly focused. • Provide educational materials on agricultural BMPs, which may include techniques such as: o Proper animal waste management (storage, transport, disposal, etc.) o Erosion reduction measures . Maintain buffer strips around surface waters/wetlands . Crop rotation . Proper irrigation practices . Cover crops . Implementation of strip, terrace, and contour farming . Filter strips . Proper drainage ditch management . Grazing management

. Barnyard storm water management o Fertilizer application in appropriate concentrations and amounts, taking into consideration: . Solubility of phosphorus component . Pre-application soil phosphorus level . Soil composition (e.g. sandy, loamy or silty) . Rate, physical method, and timing of application o Restriction of animal access to sensitive sites like stream crossings o Comprehensive nutrient management planning (CNMP) • Facilitate communication between farmers and lakeshore residents regarding water quality and sediment concerns (work with the Madison County Soil & Water Conservation District). o Work with Madison County Soil and Water Conservation District to organize a meeting with farmers working in the watershed. Discuss current and future activities that might benefit the watershed, this may help identify processes or practices that can be improved or modified. o Formally recognize farmers in the watershed who take steps to improve the Lake Moraine watershed. This can be done with incentives such as the “Lake-Friendly Farmer” sign awarded (through the NYS Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) Program) to farmers who implement agricultural BMPs in the watershed. • Evaluate possible incentive programs/funding sources for implementation of BMPs. o NYS Agricultural Nonpoint Source Abatement & Control Grant Program. o Municipal tax breaks for farmers who implement new BMPs. o Consider matching state dollars with LMA/tax district dollars for specific projects. • For further information or assistance on this topic contact: o U.S. Department of Agriculture . Farm Service Agency . Natural Resources Conservation Service o Madison County Soil & Water Conservation District o Madison County Planning Dept. o Town of Madison • Additional BMP Resources: o Animal Waste Management Field Handbook: USDA NRCS National Engineering Handbook (NEH): Part 651. o Core4 Conservation Practices: the common sense approach to natural resource conservation (USDA/NRCS).

o National Handbook of Conservation Practices (USDA/NRCS). o Agricultural Phosphorus and Eutrophication (USDA Agriculture Research Service/EPA). o Forest*A*Syst: A Self-Assessment Guide for Managing Your Forest. o Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook: A Guide for Establishing and Maintaining Riparian Forest Buffers (USDA/Forest Service). o Water/Road Interaction Technology Series (USDA/Forest Service).

Objective: Ensure lake shore residents are current on septic pumping/inspection.

Action Steps • Provide educational information on the importance of septic maintenance to the sustained quality of desired uses for Lake Moraine. • Continue with septic maintenance incentive program (subsidizing cost). • Explore alternatives for sanitary waste management such as municipal sewer district, regulations/protocols for riparian residents, and incinerating and/or composting toilets for island camps. • Implement septic inspection requirements and maintenance protocols. This can be accomplished through local/town laws or land-use regulations.

Objective: Improve lake-shore function by encouraging shoreline BMPs (rain gardens, restoring natural vegetated buffer between yards and lake, erosion control strategies, reduce chemical use, etc.).

Action Steps • Sponsor an annual workshop for lake residents to provide basic information/training and tips on proper lakeshore stewardship from a qualified specialist. • Identify property owners who are willing to implement runoff reduction practices. If sufficient commitment is secured, LMA should help seek funding sources to assist property owners. • Encourage lakeshore residents to adopt simple strategies to reduce nutrient runoff: o Locate fire pits a minimum of 50 feet from the waterline. o Prevent grass clippings, leaves and lawn debris from entering the lake. o Clean up pet waste promptly. o Stabilize soil on steep shorelines with retaining walls, gabions or other erosion control structures. • Continue maintenance and use of sediment catchment basins.

• Formally recognize property owners who implement these strategies as leaders in improving enjoyment of the lake for everyone. • Consider adjusting/intensifying land use regulations. o A lake protection district or similar organization may be beneficial to facilitate BMP implementation.

Objective: Continue monitoring water quality with the Citizens Statewide Lake Assessment Program (CSLAP) to facilitate early detection of potential issues and to add to the existing long-term dataset that began in 1986.

Action Steps • Recruit and support volunteers for the CSLAP monitoring. • Consider expanding monitoring efforts in the Lake Moraine watershed to include more detailed data. o Consider acquiring a dissolved oxygen (DO) probe and start collecting DO data in order to gain a more complete picture of water quality throughout the year. o Consider testing lake sediments for toxins such as copper, and for nutrient concentration. • Review sampling data annually to adjust monitoring efforts so that as new concerns arise, as a result of lake monitoring findings or public input, they can be properly addressed and adaptively managed.

2.3 Goal: Continue implementing the plant control strategies outlined in the 2006 Aquatic plant management plan

Objective: Continue employing management strategies targeted at curbing nuisance plant and algae growth.

Sub-Objective: Control Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) so that it makes up less than 25% of plant biomass on future annual BFS surveys at all locations.

Action Steps • Protect and enhance the native plant community to support natural ecosystem function in Lake Moraine: o Avoid harvesting aquatic plants in areas with native plant growth. o Consider chemical treatment only when necessary and at the lowest

effective dose, with monitoring before and after treatment to quantify effectiveness. o Treat native plants only when/if they impede ecological function or desired use. o Educate stakeholders on the difference between invasive plant growth and native plant growth that sustains the natural balance of the ecosystem. o Identify and protect areas with beds of native plants from boat and other recreational traffic. These areas provide critical breeding habitat for fish. • Continue annual BFS plant community survey to monitor change over time.

Objective: Monitor the status and impacts of the invasive starry stonewort (Nitellopsis obtusa).

Action Steps • Consider targeted monitoring of starry stonewort in addition to the annual BFS plant surveys to characterize potential spread and density of this invasive plant. • Consider mapping areas of densest growth to monitor how starry stonewort affects other plants in those areas (gauge growth impacts on other plant species). • Survey young of the year and yearling fish populations (particularly species such as bass that spawn in late spring/early summer when starry stonewort is dense) to monitor recruitment and spawning success. This will be of particular importance if starry stonewort beds continue to spread.

Objective: Prevent new invasive species from entering Lake Moraine.

Action Steps • Continue to support and recruit volunteers for the newly instituted launch stewardship program, potential sources for volunteers include: o College students at local universities (Colgate, Morrisville, Cazenovia, Hamilton) o Local sportsman/conservation organizations o 4-H o Boy/Girl Scouts • Educate public through signage, brochures, and word of mouth about the importance of properly cleaning boats and gear between uses. The best control of invasive species is prevention. o With a well-informed community all lake users can support monitoring

efforts, keeping a watchful eye for new invasions as they enjoy the lake. o • Continue annual monitoring to detect any future introductions as quickly as possible, early recognition is important when dealing with invasive species.

2.4 Goal: Seek to maintain and improve fishery and ecosystem function to support wildlife that utilize Lake Moraine

Objective: Promote stable fish community by improving littoral (shallow near-shore) and lake-shore habitat.

Action Steps • Work with local agencies such as the Region 7 Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to establish management goals for the fish community. o Determine what the anglers want. . An angler survey could be conducted as a part of boat launch stewardship. o Determine which fish species will best serve ecosystem function (e.g. invertebrate grazers, predators, algae grazers, planktivorous fish) so they can be managed accordingly. o Ascertain what fishery Lake Moraine is realistically capable of supporting o Evaluate whether or not stocking should continue. . If stocking is continued, decide what species. • Ensure new shoreline projects will not negatively impact the fishery. o Keep local DEC fisheries office (and permitting offices) involved to avoid projects that will undesirably influence fish community. • Maintain lake-shore buffer strips and identify critical habitat for spawning and rearing. o This will facilitate fisheries protection during future management activities and support long term stability of the fish community. • For more information on the fishery refer to section 5.2.

2.5 Goal: Utilize, maintain and update plan as new information is gathered

Objective: Practice adaptive management based on current data. • Table 1 outlines New York State guidelines for water quality and biotic community, included are objectives that will benefit Lake Moraine if maintained.

Action Steps • Assemble an annual summary of management activities (even if the no action alternative is employed). Digital copies of this summary should be kept by the secretary of the LMA to ensure continuity of information – this is essential to determine what was successful and what wasn’t to advise future management decisions. • Incorporate new, relevant data into the plan as it becomes available. This will ensure well informed, evidence-based management decisions. • Continue monitoring. Nearly all management activities require some form of monitoring to gauge success (or failure) and to keep management of Lake Moraine on track to accomplish the goals set by the stakeholders. • Monitor the following parameters that can be used to update the plan: o Fishery by DEC or contractor. o Plant community and species distributions by the BFS or another contractor. o New invasive species. . This can be accomplished not only through surveys mentioned above, but also through launch stewards and stakeholders who may be the first to encounter new invaders. o Water quality. . Currently included in CSLAP: • Secchi depth • Temperature • pH • Conductivity

• Chlorophyll a • Total phosphorus • Total nitrogen • Nitrite/ammonia • Calcium . CSLAP deficiencies should also be assessed: • Dissolved Oxygen (profile surface → bottom) • Total hardness • Total alkalinity o Other data deficiencies that may prove useful: . Nutrient budget. • Determine quantitatively to what extent the watershed, sanitary wastewater, and internal nutrient loading contribute

nutrients to Lake Moraine. . Zooplankton, phytoplankton and macro-algae communities. . Macrobenthos (bottom living invertebrates). . Biological oxygen demand of near-bottom waters. . Copper concentration in lake sediments.

Objective: Continue building a solid financial base to provide funding for implementation and monitoring of lake management activities.

Action Steps • Utilize tax district and LMA funds where appropriate to fund management endeavors. • Explore possible funding for new management initiatives through grants such as the NYS Environmental Protection Fund and the Chesapeake Bay Program. Identify other potential funding sources for lake protection/management endeavors.

Table 1 – Lake Moraine physical and chemical parameters, NYS standards, current conditions, and management objectives (standards modified from 6 CRR-NY X A 2 § 703.3) Parameter/Definition Part 700 NYS Standard Current Condition Management Objective Turbidity- Governed by the levels of algae and other particles in No Increase that will cause During the summer of 2015, > 3.0 meters Secchi disk depth the water. Transparency is often used as a proxy for turbidity. To a substantial visible contrast Secchi disk depths ranged for the May - October average, measure transparency a black and white Secchi disk is lowered to natural conditions from 2.5-5.6 meters. measured ≥ once per month from the surface down to a point where it is no longer visible Average sumer values between 1986-2015 were all greater than 2.0 meters, with a 25 year average of 3.0 meters

Phosphorus and nitrogen- These nutrients None in amounts that will result TP concentrations < 20 µg/l TP mean surface sample control the overall productivity, because phosphorus in the growth of algae, weeds in the surface waters of the lake based on surface mean measured and nitrogen limit the growth of algae. In Lake Moraine and slimes that will impair the ranged from 9 to ~30 µg/l from 2013-2015 monthly May - October phosphorus is most likely the limiting nutrient waters for their best usages. NYSDEC uses a statewide guidance value of 20 µg/l for TP pH-The scale of pH values ranges from No less than 6.5 nor more than 8.5 Present pH values in Lake Moraine fall within the acceptable range. Given No less than 6.5 nor more than 8.5 0 (acidic) to 14 (basic) with pH 7.0 being a neutral condition, the local geology, acidification is not considered to be likely at this time which has the least effect on biological organisms

Dissolved oxygen (DO). Oxygen is In waters where trout spawn, no less than 7 During the summer, the uneven heating DO must be >5.0 mg/l in surface required for fish and other heterotrophic aquatic life to survive and mg/l from other than natural conditions. In trout of Lake Moraine by the sun, causes the lake to naturally stratify, forming waters. If >2 mg/l oxygen concentrations can be maintained in reproduce waters, no less than 6 mg/l and at no time shall two distinct layers: a warm surface layer and a deep, colder layer. The bottom waters through the summer, the lake will benefit with less the concentration be less than 5 mg/l hypolimnion is the lower, non-circulating layer of water. During the summer nutrient contribution from internal loading as algae in surface waters sink to the lake bottom and decay, the oxygen near the bottom of the lake becomes depleted. If the bottom DO is not maintained over 2 mg/1, additional phosphorus will be released by the bottom muds. In 2013-2015, hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen measured at one meter above the sediments was <1 mg/l during much of summer stratification. This anoxic water dominated the hypolimnion until fall turnover

Table 1 (continued) – Lake Moraine physical and chemical parameters, NYS standards, current conditions, and management objectives (standards modified from 6 CRR-NY X A 2 § 703.3) Parameter/Definition Part 700 NYS Standard Current Condition Management Objective Chlorophyll a - the common green pigment in algae used as an None The 1986-2014 summer average Summer mean chlorophyll a indicator of algal levels in the lake. chlorophyll a in Lake Moraine was 9.6 µg/l should be < 7 µg/l (10 of the past 29 years Moraine has met this standard)

Lake water level None The level of the lake is In the fall before ice in the lake level maintained by the NYS Canal Corp at 1211.55 feet above mean sea is frequently dropped 3-6 feet to protect shorline infrastructure and level (AMSL). Weather conditions cause some variability around this kill aquatic plants. Outside of this drawdown period (if continued) value. the target lake level should remain at 1211.55 feet AMSL

Aquatic vegetation- aquatic plants and macroalgae that grow None See Section 5.3 Management activities should address attached to or rooted in the bottom sediment provide habitat for aquatic plants that are nonnative and found in dense beds within the fish and other aquatic life. half a meter of the surface that interfere with use. The occurrence of Chara (Characeae) and other native plant species should be preserved. The introduction or propagation of invasive species such as Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum ), Curly- leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispu s) and Starry stonewort (Nitellopsis obtusa ) should be prevented

The Fishery None Moraine supports a diverse Management activities should focus warmwater fishery with black bass, tiger muskie, walleye, black crappie on providing angler opportunity and maintaining adequate predator and chain pickerel being the primary gamefish to prey ratios to support a sustainable fishery. A balanced fishery will prevent overpopulation of small invertebrate grazers which can increase plant growth by removing the insects that feed on growing stems

3.0 Public Input Direct and targeted input from the LMA and other stakeholders is critical for further development and implementation of this plan.

3.1 Stakeholder Survey A public opinion survey was conducted in 2014 to identify issues of widespread concern, and to gauge subjective perceptions of lake status (Appendix A). This ensures that available funds and management strategies target the issues that are important to stakeholders. Of the roughly 200 surveys that were delivered, 68 were returned (34% return rate). The top concerns identified by the survey, in order of frequency were as follows: Environmental Concerns (> 50% of respondents indicated item was of “great concern”)

1. Algae and weed growth 2. Undesirable introductions of plants and animals 3. Water clarity 4. Sanitary wastes from cottages 5. Agricultural practices

Navigation & Safety Concerns (> 50% combined “moderate concern” & “great concern”)

1. Boat wakes 2. Boat speeds 3. Lack of law enforcement on the lake 4. Increasing numbers of boats on the lake 5. Boat noise 6. Boat size

Activities of others that affect personal enjoyment of Lake Moraine (> 50% of respondents indicated this item was of “great concern”)

1. Personal Water Craft (PWC)

The survey provided valuable information about public opinions that will assist the LMA in making informed decisions for the future management of Lake Moraine.

3.2 Public Meetings An open meeting was held on June 17, 2015 at the White Eagle Conference Center in Madison, NY to discuss management alternatives to address the primary concerns identified by the survey. Both social and environmental concerns were brought up and numerous alternative management strategies were presented for comment and discussion. No formal decisions were made at this meeting; however, it served to inform those in attendance of possible courses of action to address each concern. On July 18, 2015 a second public meeting was held at the White Eagle Conference Center. At this meeting high-priority concerns were again discussed and several strategies of interest were selected to address them. These public forums helped design the potential management strategies detailed in this plan. A suite of these strategies needs to be selected by the LMA and other stakeholders in the Lake Moraine community for future implementation.

4.0 Needs Assessment

4.1 Environmental Concerns

4.1.1 Excessive plant & algae growth Algae and aquatic macrophyte growth were the highest-priority concerns of stakeholders according to the 2014 survey. Although aquatic macrophyte growth was the concern identified by stakeholders, this concern actually is a symptom of the real issue: an excess of available nutrients promoting excessive plant growth. This problem has wide-ranging effects on the ecology of Lake Moraine, including the aquatic plant community. In fact, many of the problems that the stakeholders listed as “great concern” on the 2014 survey are consequences of excessive nutrients in the system that result from nutrient loading. Nutrient loading is input of nutrients (e.g. nitrogen, phosphorus) into the lake water. Increased nutrient loading typically causes increased production of plants and algae, often leading to oxygen depletion in bottom waters when they decay. Three common sources generally contribute the most to the nutrient load: 1. Watershed: agriculture in the watershed, particularly when Agricultural BMPs are not employed, can lead to nutrient-rich runoff into the lake. 2. Sanitary waste: household wastewater from the dwellings on the lake shore and islands has the potential to contribute large amounts of nutrients directly into the lake if not properly treated. Good design and maintenance are required to avoid potential impacts of sanitary waste in the lake. 3. Internal nutrient loading: internal loading can occur after other sources of nutrients cause excessive primary production (usually in the form of plant and algal growth). When these organisms die and sink to the bottom the process of decay depletes the

surrounding water of oxygen (Gachter & Mares, 1985). When the water at the sediment interface is devoid of oxygen, phosphorus and other nutrients which were biologically unavailable in the lakebed under aerobic conditions are released into the water column in forms that are biologically available. Sections 5.1 and 6.0 will discuss current nutrient levels and present some ways to reduce or control inputs.

4.1.2 Invasive & nuisance species Also of great concern on the 2014 survey was the undesirable introduction of plants and animals. Several species of non-native plants have been introduced to Lake Moraine during the past few decades. Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) has been abundant in the lake for at least 25 years (Hohenstein et al. 1997) and has been the primary focus of plant control efforts. Curly leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), another invasive plant, has been present in the lake since the 1990s. It can be found seasonally in high density, particularly early in the growing season. More recently, starry stonewort (Nitellopsis obtusa) was found in the lake, likely having been introduced sometime before or during 2007 (Harman et al. 2007). The impacts of this new invasion are yet to be determined. Non-native organisms often have no natural predators in the ecosystems to which they are introduced. In these situations, often accelerated by other advantages such as multiple reproductive strategies, non-native species can quickly grow out of control impeding recreation and causing problems for native flora and fauna and are commonly called ‘invasive’ species. The easiest way to control invasive species is to prevent their introduction in the first place. To facilitate this, the LMA has instituted a boat launch stewardship program. Further discussion of invasive and native plants can be found in section 5.3.

4.1.3 Sanitary Waste Inadequate wastewater management is a problem near many bodies of water, and Lake Moraine is no exception. Disposal of household wastewater near a waterbody can be problematic without properly designed or maintained septic systems. This is exacerbated by aging infrastructure associated with lakeside and island camps. Twenty-nine percent of property owners indicated their septic system was more than 20 years old on the 2014 survey. Even with actively maintained systems, it is possible for sanitary wastewater and associated nutrients to leach into the lake. Presently, several alternatives for wastewater management are being discussed by the LMA, including; a “sewer district”, stricter regulations on existing septic systems, incentive programs for improvements, and island camp waste protocols. These strategies can result in better management of household wastewater; see section 6.2 for further information.

4.1.4 Fishery The fishery of Lake Moraine provides many opportunities for recreational angling. These opportunities are facilitated, for both lake residents and the general public, by the state launch and parking area. The LMA has augmented state stocking efforts for several years. Both walleye (Sander vitreus) and tiger muskellunge (Esox masquinongy × Esox lucius) have been stocked to improve recreational fishing and supplement the predatory fish population. Thus far the human dimension of fisheries management in Lake Moraine has been based on the perceptions and desires of the angling population, and has primarily been communicated through personal conversation. Human dimensions of the fishery are augmented by biological data collected in fisheries surveys conducted by NYSDEC, providing valuable information on the fish community (further discussed in section 5.2). Fisheries goals that incorporate both angler interests and biological impacts of annual stocking need to be established to determine management priorities and whether resources should continue to be allocated to fish stocking efforts.

4.2 Recreation & Use Concerns

4.2.1 Navigation & Safety Lake Moraine is a popular summer recreational destination. The waterbody is classified as a Class B lake under the NYS Environmental Conservation Law, and provides a variety of recreational opportunities for both the residents and the public. Both the lakeshore residents and the public enjoy a variety of activities around the lake including: fishing, waterskiing, tubing, motor cruising, sailing, swimming, and jet-skiing. With many simultaneous activities on the lake, use conflicts and safety concerns inevitably arise. Jet skis and water-skiers cross paths, and swimmers near shore are affected by the wakes that result from motorized activities. On some weekends the lake is so busy that many of the lake property owners elect to stay off the water until a quieter time. Though speed limits and no-wake zones are in place, enforcement of these laws has been a less than optimal, resulting in non-compliance by many lake users. Restricting time and location for the use of different types of watercraft is one possible solution to mitigate user conflicts. This is discussed in detail in section 7.2.

5.0 Lake & Watershed Characteristics

The watershed of Lake Moraine is 2,065ha (5102ac) (Madison County Planning Dept. 1996) made up primarily (> 50%) of agricultural land (Figure 1). The lake is an artificially raised (by impoundment) natural lake of glacial origin. It is located in southeast Madison County, in the township of Madison (Figure 1). The dam at the south end of the lake was constructed in 1836 as a part of the Chenango canal. The lake is

maintained at an elevation of 369 m (1211.5 ft) above mean sea level. Today the dam is capable of both hypolimnetic and surface release, and maintained and operated by the NYS Canal Corp. The lake comprises two separate basins (north and south) divided by a human-constructed causeway, on top of which Madison County Route 87 intersects the north and south basins. The basins are connected by a submerged culvert installed beneath the causeway. The north basin is smaller, with a surface area of 30 ha (74 ac) with a mean depth of 1.1 m (3.7 ft) and a maximum depth of 3.7 m (12 ft). Payne Brook, the largest tributary to the lake, flows into the north end of the north basin. The south basin is much larger with a surface area of 77 ha (189 ac), a mean depth of 5.4 m (18 ft) and a maximum depth of 13.7 m (45 ft) (Table 2).

The south basin of Lake Moraine is dimictic. It mixes twice annually, typically in November before ice cover and again in March or April following ice-out. When not mixed, the basin is thermally stratified. The north basin also tends to stratify twice per year, though due to its shallow nature, by the end of the summer the water column warms all the way to the bottom. This causes the north basin to experience a proportionally longer period of mixing compared to the south basin. To understand how these lake characteristics relate to potential “reference” or baseline conditions Lake Moraine can be compared to conditions in nearby, limnologically similar, Hatch Lake (Appendix B).

Table 2 - Lake Moraine morphometrics and physical characteristics (modified from Madison County Planning Dept., 1996) Metric South Basin North Basin 189.48 30.12 76.68 ha 74.42 ac Surface Area ac ha Max Depth 13.7 m 44.9 ft 3.7 m 12 ft Mean Depth 5.4 m 17.8 ft 1.1 m 3.7 ft 0.48 1.35 % Relative Depth % 4.02 4.40 x 1.16 x x 1.06 x Volume 10⁶m³ 10⁹gal 10⁵m³ 10⁸gal 0.93 1.87 km 1.16 mi 0.58 mi Max Length km Max Effective 0.93 1.75 km 1.08 mi 0.58 mi Length km 0.64 0.64 km 0.40 mi 0.40 mi Max Width km Max Effective 0.56 0.64 km 0.40 mi 0.35 mi Width km 0.34 0.46 km 0.29 mi 0.21 mi Mean Width km 3.25 6.26 km 3.89 mi 2.02 mi Shoreline Length km Shoreline 1.97 1.63 Development Watershed to Lake ratio 19 :1

Figure 1 – Map of Lake Moraine denoting watershed boundary, municipal boundaries, and major roadways (Madison Cnty. Plng. Dept. 2015)

5.1 Water quality

5.1.1 Introduction

NOTE: All values discussed in this section are from the south basin unless otherwise indicated.

Lake Moraine has been included in the CSLAP sampling since 1986. This program, administered by the NYSDEC, provides long-term water quality monitoring encompassing a variety of parameters with the notable exception of dissolved oxygen. The historical data resultant from the program are invaluable and were utilized in assessing long-term changes in water quality and trophic status. The SUNY Oneonta BFS has taken water quality measurements in each basin, including dissolved oxygen, on 2–3 sampling occasions during the summer season in association with annual plant community surveys since 1997 (Bennet et al. 1997). Findings from these surveys are summarized in annual reports published by the SUNY Oneonta BFS (Harman & Albright, 2013; German & Albright, 2014).

5.1.2 Methods Lake Sampling Protocols For the purpose of the current study, a standard location in each basin was selected for sample collection. The deepest point of each basin was located using a bathymetric map and a depth sounder (north basin = 3.7 m, south basin = 13.7 m). These two locations (Figure 2) were used for the duration of the study to collect profile data and water samples for laboratory nutrient analysis. Field data were collected at a minimum frequency of once per month (weather/ice conditions permitting) from September 28, 2013 through July 28, 2015.

A YSI 6820 V2 Comact Sonde (YSI Inc., Yellow Springs, OH, USA) was used for the collection of all water quality data in the field. The sonde was calibrated in the lab following YSI recommended procedures (YSI, 2010) immediately prior to sampling. Measurements were taken at constant depth intervals (north basin = every 0.3m, south basin = every 1m) at each sampling location (Figure 2). Dissolved oxygen, specific conductivity, pH, temperature and in situ chlorophyll a were measured at each depth starting at the surface (Appendix C). It should be noted that these in situ chlorophyll a measurements are not as accurate as results from laboratory analyses; they are presented for reference only.

Water transparency was measured using a Secchi disk. Chlorophyll a samples were collected and analyzed as a part of CSLAP (S. Kishbaugh unpubl.). Near-surface (1.5 m) samples were collected with the use of a Kemmerer bottle. In the lab 100ml was filtered through a 0.45µm pore size, 47mm diameter mixed ester filter, placed in a labeled glass vial, and wrapped in aluminum foil. A chloroform-methanol extractant was added in anticipation of centrifugation and analysis with a spectrophotometer. Detection range for CLSAP samples was < 0.01 to 1020µg/l (NYSDEC, 2016).

1-Inlet (nutrients only) 2-North Basin 3-South Basin

Figure 2 – Bathymetric map of Lake Moraine indicating locations used for sample collection.

Laboratory analyses Water samples for laboratory nutrient analysis were obtained using a 1.2-l Kemmerer bottle. In the south basin individual 125-ml samples were collected at 0, 4, 8, and 12 meters. In the north basin surface (0 m) and bottom (3.7 m) samples were collected. On some sampling occasions a third sample was collected from the north basin at the primary inlet (Figure 2). Each bottle used for nutrient samples was acid washed before use. Lab analyses of total phosphorus (TP), total nitrogen (TN), nitrate and nitrite were conducted at the SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station following collection (Appendix D). Carlson indices were referenced for average concentrations based on trophic status; mesotrophic lakes have an average TP concentration between 12-24 µg/l (Carlson, 1977).

A Lachat QuickChem FIA+Water Analyzer® (Hach Company, Loveland, CO) was used to process water samples for nutrient concentrations (Table 3). Each 125-ml water sample was preserved with 1 ml of H₂SO₄ following field collection. Total phosphorus concentration was determined using persulfate digestion followed by single reagent ascorbic acid (Liao & Marten, 2001). Nitrite and nitrate levels were measured using the cadmium reduction method (Pritzlaff, 2003). Total nitrogen concentration was assessed using peroxodisulfate digestion (Ebina et al. 1983) followed by the cadmium reduction method (Pritzlaff, 2003).

The Redfield ratio (Redfield, 1934) is often used to estimate which essential elements (carbon, nitrogen, or phosphorus) is/are likely to be limiting production in a system. The molar ratio of elemental N and P from water samples at selected locations (Table 4) was used to estimate whether nitrogen or phosphorus is likely limiting primary production in Lake Moraine. To calculate N:P ratio, TN and TP were averaged from surface collections taken from fall 2013 to spring 2015.

Table 3 – Lab analysis methods used to analyze nutrient concentrations of Lake Moraine water samples including chemical constituents analyzed, method and associated reference(s), and the detection limit for each analysis. Method Detection Nutrient Method reference limit persulfate digestion Total Liao & followed by single 0.004 mg P/l phosphorus Marten, 2001 reagent ascorbic acid Elemental N cadmium Pritzlaff, as nitrate + reduction 0.04 mg N/l 2003 nitrite method peroxodisulfate Ebina et al. digestion Total 1983; followed by 0.02 mg N/l nitrogen Pritzlaff, cadmium 2003 reduction method Results & Discussion

Physical & Chemical Parameters

Shortly after ice-out in spring the water column in Lake Moraine was a uniform temperature of 4–5°C (39–41°F) (Figure 3). As water near the surface was warmed by the sun it created a layer of warm (less dense) water, the epilimnion. Beneath this layer cooler bottom water (hypolimnion) remained unaffected by the suns warming rays. Waters of different density do not mix readily unless perturbed (e.g., by wind), and as the surface warmed further (up to 25°C [77°F] in summer), mixing between surface and bottom waters ceased (Figure 3).

In late fall as the epilimnion was chilled to the point of freezing, the insulated hypolimnion remains at temperatures similar to summer bottom temperatures (6–8 °C), cooling slowly. As a result, colder (i.e. denser) surface water sinks, and the lake mixes. During winter, the lake becomes inversely stratified with ice on top, and water temperature becomes warmer from the ice to the hypolimnion, with maximum temperatures of 4–5°C in the deepest water. When ice melts during spring, the surface warms quickly and the whole process begins again. As a result of this process, Lake Moraine thermally stratifies in summer and winter (Figure 3; See Appendix E for information on interpreting isopleths).

Figure 3 – Temperature isopleths from the south basin of Lake Moraine 2013-2014.

Oxygen is critical for aerobic respiration carried out in aquatic systems. It also plays an important role in many natural processes, including nutrient cycles. Temperature and oxygen are inversely related; as temperature increases oxygen solubility decreases. The primary sources of oxygen in the water column are diffusion from the atmosphere and photosynthesis. Often the oxygen contained in the hypolimnion at the onset of stratification is all that will be available until water temperatures equalize and the lake mixes.

Respiration by aquatic organisms consumes oxygen. Oxygen depletion occurs more rapidly in productive lakes, and can result in complete loss of oxygen (anoxia) in parts of the hypolimnion. Anoxia occurs when the oxygen demand within the hypolimnion exceeds the available oxygen. Aerobic organisms cannot survive in bottom waters during periods of anoxia and they will die if they cannot move to more oxygenated water in the metalimnion or epilimnion. Anoxia at the bottom of a lake also

results in changes to the chemistry of water. Anoxia at the water-sediment interface can promote internal nutrient loading by releasing iron-bound phosphorus from sediments into the water column where it can be used by plants and algae. If these nutrients diffuse through fall turnover they mix with surface water and can cause algal blooms, among other issues.

The surface waters of Moraine stay reasonably well oxygenated throughout the year. Oxygen depletion does not appear to occur in water shallower than 5 m (16 ft) in the south basin. However, two periods of anoxia in the hypolimnion were observed in the 2014 monitoring season, one from March-April and again from June-October (Figure 4).

Figure 4 – Dissolved oxygen isopleths from the south basin of Lake Moraine 2013-2014

The north basin also undergoes periods of anoxia. Concentrations in the bottom 0.5 m (1.6 ft) of water were < 5 mg/l (enough to stress many aquatic organisms such as fish (Doudoroff & Shumway, 1970)) from December to February (Figure 5). In summer

the north basin had much more severe anoxia with over a meter (3.2 ft) of water near the bottom with less than 2mg/l from June through September. Dissolved oxygen concentrations below 2 mg/l do not allow fish or aerobic invertebrates to utilize the habitat deeper than 3 m (10 ft). Deep-water oxygen depletion is common in eutrophic lakes, and management strategies employed to reduce nutrient inputs may relieve anoxia during periods of stratification. Continued monitoring is important to assess changes in lake oxygen concentrations seasonally and in the coming years.

Figure 5 – Dissolved oxygen isopleths north basin Lake Moraine 2013-2014.

In NY the pH in natural lakes ranges from less than 5 in some Adirondack lakes to over 9 in very alkaline lakes (Scott et al. 2005); however, a pH of 6.5-8.5 is considered normal and is ideal for most aquatic organisms. The pH is not a static value and can change over time. The diurnal cycle of photosynthesis and respiration, in addition to other natural processes, can affect the degree of fluctuation in pH. For example, algal blooms often increase pH as dissolved carbon dioxide decreases with photosynthesis.

In Lake Moraine seasonal average surface pH levels generally range between 7.2 and 7.9 which is well within the NYS guidelines of 6.5-8.5(NYS Standards 6 CRR-NY X A 2 § 703.3). Although pH does not appear to be a concern in Lake Moraine at this time, monitoring efforts should continue to assess possible future changes.

Conductivity is an indicator of the amount of dissolved minerals in the water. Minerals such as magnesium and calcium are important for many aquatic organisms serving a function in several critical life processes. Calcium, for instance, is vital for crustaceans to form their protective shells. There are a number of things that can increase conductivity including: septic leaching, road salt, and agricultural runoff. In general, lower conductivity is typically an indication of fewer eutrophying inputs.

There was a significant difference (two-tailed paired t test, df = 16, t = 5.79, p ≤ 0.01) in surface conductivity during 2013-2015 (n = 17, mean = 307 µS/cm, standard deviation (SD) = 46 µS/cm) and the CSLAP surface conductivity values from 1986-2011 (n = 212, mean = 237 µS/cm, SD = 38 µS/cm). The average 2013-2015 values for the entire water column were slightly higher than mean surface values (342 µS/cm). Overall, conductivity has shown a slight increase in recent years. The specific cause of this increase is not known at this time.

Lake water transparency is an indicator of nutrient status and lake productivity. It is easy to measure, and when recorded over a long time period, it provides limnologists with a rough estimate of seasonal and yearly productivity. Water transparency is measured with a Secchi disk. In general, higher transparency suggests lower productivity or absence of suspended particles. Many factors can contribute to low transparency including; suspended sediments, planktonic algae, humic compounds, storm water runoff, or in some cases physical suspension of substrate by bottom dwelling fish such as common carp (Cyprinus carpio).

Mean Secchi depth in Lake Moraine from 1986-2015 (Figure 6) was 3.0 m (10 ft), the minimum recorded value was 0.6 m (1.97 ft) in 2011, and the maximum recorded value was 5.8 m (19.03 ft) in 2002. The lowest annual average of the 29 year record was 2004 with 2.02 m (6.63 ft).

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Depth (meters) Depth 3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

Figure 6 – Average of summer Secchi depth readings taken in the south basin of Lake Moraine 1986-2015 (CSLAP). [Number of individual summer readings ranged from 4-16, depending on year]

Chlorophyll a is a photosynthetic pigment, and is found in all algae. It is commonly used as a proxy for algal abundance. Concentrations of chlorophyll a, determined by the standard lab protocol for CSLAP, were quite variable throughout the year in Lake Moraine, but they typically peaked in late summer (S. Kishbaugh unpubl.). The summer (June-August) average 1986-2014 was 9.58 µg/l. This is above the threshold for mesotrophic lakes according to the EPA trophic status guidelines of 2-7 µg/l (EPA, 2010). Even so, summer averages for 10 out of the past 29 years have fallen at or below this threshold, with 8 of these within the past 15 years (Figure 7). Remarkably, the lowest and highest summer mean concentrations of the 29 year data set were recorded within the last five years, with averages of 2.95 µg/l in 2009 and 22.05 µg/l in 2011. Annual peak values are recorded in most instances between August-September, and minimum values are recorded around spring and fall turnover. YSI sonde readings for chlorophyll a were also recorded for reference for 2013-2015 (Appendix C), though these results were not used for detailed analysis due to their limited reliability.

* Trophic status limits according to EPA 2010 75 Chlorophyll a 70 Summer Mean 65 60

55 Hypereutrophic >30 µg/l* 50 µg/L (ppb) µg/L 45 40 35 concentration a

30 25 20 Eutrophic

Chlorophyll >7-30 µg/l* 15 10 5 Mesotrophic >2-7 µg/l* 0 Oligotrophic <=2 µg/l*

Figure 7 – Average summer chlorophyll a concentration Lake Moraine 1986-2014. White squares indicate individual readings taken throughout the sampling season (CSLAP, 2014).

Nutrients

Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for plants and algae, and in many aquatic systems is the limiting factor for growth. When phosphorus binds to oxygen it forms phosphates, phosphates ionically bond to other charged particles forming many different types of phosphates, some are water soluble, but many are not. The sum of soluble and insoluble forms of phosphorus is total phosphorus.

Though it occurs naturally at low concentrations in freshwater, human activities around the lake and watershed have the potential to greatly increase the phosphorus load in the lake. Natural processes can also impact phosphorus concentrations; for example, when aquatic macrophytes die they decompose on the bottom, this process may release considerable amounts of phosphorus (Graneli & Solander, 1988). Strange (1976) posited that rooted macrophytes have a net sequestration of P when looked at on a long time scale, such as the course of a year. However, this does not negate the instantaneous release of phosphorus that occurs during a time (such as a summer herbicide treatment) when nutrients are in high demand. So, though aquatic macrophytes may sequester P overall, when nutrient release occurs after an herbicide treatment or natural die-off, it has the potential to spur and algal bloom or the expansion of a different (possibly invasive) macrophyte.

Additional sources of phosphorous can include fertilizers, household waste, geological features, industrial processes, storm water runoff, and improperly or untreated wastewater. If these sources are not properly managed, the phosphorus enters waterways where it can cause an array of issues. In freshwater lakes like Moraine one of the most obvious symptoms of phosphorus loading is excessive growth of plants and algae.

5 Total Phosphorus µg P/l µg Phosphorus Total

Figure 8 – Mean summer total phosphorus concentration from surface samples Lake Moraine 1986-2015 (CSLAP, 2014). [Number of individual summer samples ranged from 4-16, depending on year]

Epilimnetic TP concentrations vary throughout the year. Average annual summer values in Moraine have ranged from 11-21 µg/l (Figure 8). The lowest surface value observed was 6 µg/l in 1989 and the highest was 57 µg/l in 2011. The 29-year average of summer mean surface TP was 15.4 µg/l. TP concentration in the hypolimnion from samples collected in 2014 was unpredictable, ranging from 7 to 895 mg/l (Figure 9). Phosphorus concentration increased dramatically during fall, and concentration was higher at the bottom (mean = 122 µg P/l, SD = 246 µg P/l) than at the surface (mean = 15 µg P/l, SD = 5 µg P/l; Wilcoxon test, W = 68, p < 0.05). The greater SD at the bottom can be attributed to two outlier values > 500 µg P/l (Figure 9). Due to sampling constraints it is not known if these two outliers represent true concentrations or if they are a result of sample contamination. Results of the Wilcoxon test remain significant if these outliers are omitted.

1000

100

10 Total Phosphorusµg P/l

Figure 9 – Total phosphorus concentration at the surface (gray circles) and bottom (black squares) of Lake Moraine, 2013-2014.

Osgood (1988) suggested a formula for predicting the likelihood of vertical P transport as a result of wind mixing during summer stratification. This “Osgood Index” (sensu Cooke et al. 1993) can help estimate the potential influence of hypolimnetic nutrient release during the summer growing season, based on lake basin shape. Calculated as:

푧̅ Where = average depth in meters and = surface area in km². In general, lakes with 표 Osgood Index values (OIV) > 6 are dimictic,�퐴 and have a higher likelihood of vertical P 푧̅ 퐴표 transport during summer. Lakes with an OIV < 5 tend toward polymixis and are more likely to exhibit vertical P transport. The south basin of Lake Moraine has an OIV of 6.2. This suggests that it should be resistant to wind mixing while stratified, and observational evidence supports this prediction. The south basin has an OIV of 2.0 and experiences comparatively weaker stratification (resistance to mixing) as a result. Though the OIV differs between basins, it is important to note that only summer vertical P transport is predicted by this index. If nutrients enter hypolimnetic waters as a result of summer anoxia, they can still be brought up during fall turnover; even in lakes that heavily stratify. An essential element to plants, total nitrogen (TN) is the sum of ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, and organic nitrogen compounds. Biologically available forms of nitrogen such as nitrite and nitrate have the greatest potential impact on productivity in the lake. Land use around the lake can have a substantial influence on nitrogen levels in the lake. Sources of

nitrogen found in lakes include: fertilizers, animal waste, sanitary waste, storm water and agricultural runoff, and diffusion from the atmosphere.

Primary producers require more than a dozen essential elements for growth, however with a comparatively limited supply of nitrogen and phosphorus, primary production in freshwater lakes is often limited by one of these two nutrients. Of course, other factors temporally limit growth of plants and algae including: light, water temperature, grazing activity and plant density.

The inlet of Lake Moraine at Payne Brook contained the highest average TN and TP, and had the lowest N:P in the lake. Interestingly, as water traveled through the north basin, into the south basin, eventually leaving the lake over the dam, average nutrient concentrations decreased. For TN this decrease was significant (Kruskal-Wallis, χ² = 6.99, df = 2, p < 0.05). TP also decreased significantly over the same path (Kruskal- Wallis, χ² = 7.73, df = 2, p < 0.05). Anecdotally, the N:P ratio appeared to increase as water moved further from the inlet, though there were too few inlet nutrient samples to determine whether or not this increase was statistically significant (Table 4). Though the current data was not conducive to statistical analysis, when compared to the findings of Guildford and Hecky (2000) the N:P ratios (Table 4) suggest a strong likelihood of P limitation.

These results suggest that phosphorus is the limiting nutrient in Lake Moraine, though further study is warranted to substantiate this. In light of this, it is important to consider that that 1 pound of phosphorus can produce 500 pounds of algae (Wetzel, 2001). The observed drop in average TP from the inlet to near the outlet (47-15 µg/l) suggests that much of the phosphorus enters the lake as soluble reactive P, or relatively labile forms of organic P and is quickly utilized by plants, algae and other natural processes. The increase in the N:P ratio over the same space may also indicate some phosphorus sequestration through other mechanisms.

Some forms of phosphorus are not “available” for biological processes, and some may settle to the bottom before it is used. Currently it is unclear what impact these two factors have on available phosphorus in Lake Moraine. Regardless, management activities should focus on reducing the phosphorus load entering the lake to curb plant and algal production. Possible in-lake strategies to combat excess phosphorus include aeration of the bottom waters in the south basin, or the addition of phosphorus binding agents such as alum. Further information about watershed level and in-lake strategies for nutrient control can be found in sections 6.3 & 7.1 respectively.

Table 4 – Total nitrogen, total phosphorus and N:P ratio from 3 locations at which surface nutrients were sampled in Lake Moraine (Note: values are annual averages from surface samples). Total Total Mass Molar Sample Nitrogen Phosphorus ratio ratio location mg N/l mg P/l N:P N:P Inlet 1.01 0.05 21.68 47.92 North 0.89 0.02 40.92 90.44 South 0.75 0.01 50.02 110.55

Trophic Status

Eutrophication is a natural process by which lakes are enriched in dissolved nutrients that can facilitate the growth of aquatic plants and algae. Over time the increased productivity leads to an increase in decomposing biological material. This decomposition can cause DO to become depleted, particularly in the hypolimnion. Lakes can be classified by type, based on the degree or extent of eutrophication. Lakes constantly transform and are said to undergo an “aging” process following formation, although most of the time this process is too slow to notice. On a geological time scale lakes are quite ephemeral (NYSFOLA, 2009). Lakes are generally classified in stages along a continuum of eutrophication, or trophic status (Table 5).

Table 5 - General characteristics commonly associated with different trophic states of freshwater lakes Trophic Nutrient Biological Water Water State Load Productivity Clarity Appearance Oligotrophic Low Low High Deep Blue Moderate to Greenish Mesotrophic Moderate Moderate High Blue Eutrophic High High Low Green Dystrophic Low Variable Variable Brown

The trophic status of a lake is by no means rigidly defined, as much overlap is possible and the trophic status of a lake may vary depending on the indicator used (Table 5).

The Trophic Status Index (TSI) (Carlson, 1977) was used to rank the trophic status of Lake Moraine on a scale from 1 to 100, based on several key factors: transparency (Secchi depth, SD for this equation only), P concentration, rooted macrophyte abundance, chlorophyll a levels (Chl), and hypolimnetic oxygen levels. The TSI was calculated for three of these parameters as:

2.04 0.695 lnChl TSI (Chl) = 10 6 ln2 − 80.31 � − ) � ln ( TP TSI (TP) = 10 6 ln2 � − � 0.64 + lnSD TSI (SD) = 10 6 ln2 � − �

Lakes are considered eutrophic if the cluster of TSI values for these 3 parameters is greater than 50 (Carlson & Simpson, 1996).

The cluster of TSI values calculated for each parameter (Secchi depth, chlorophyll a, and TP) for Lake Moraine is around 45 which suggests it is somewhere between mesotrophic and eutrophic (Figure 10; Carlson & Simpson, 1996). All three parameters used in the calculation of this index seem to be in close agreement with one another, which strengthens the estimation of trophic state. A comparison between recent five-year measurements and 25-year averages for the parameters indicates relatively little change in trajectory.

100 95 90 85 Hyper-eutrophic 80 75 70 65 60 Eutrophic 55 50 45 40 35 Mesotrophic 30 25 20 15 10 Oligotrophic 5 0 5 Year 25 Year TSI (Secchi depth) Average Average TSI (Chlorophyll a) TSI (Total Phosphorus)

Figure 10 – Calculated trophic status index (TSI) for Lake Moraine, from 5- and 25-year average values. [Trophic state thresholds were modified from (Carlson & Simpson, 1996)].

If biologically available nutrients are present something will use them, and more nutrients typically result in greater plant and/or algal biomass. Shallow, freshwater lakes usually exist in one of two stable states in terms of productivity: plant dominated or algae dominated (Blindow et al.1993). Plant-dominated systems generally have more transparent water, dense plant beds and serve as excellent habitat for wildlife, fish and invertebrates including zooplankton – the primary grazers of aquatic algae. The plants keep the lake sediments stabilized and sequester available nutrients, thereby reducing algal production.

Algae-dominated systems can have very low transparency like “pea soup”, and oxygen poor bottoms with few plants due to lack of light penetration. In this situation zooplankton have no plant beds in which to take refuge and are quickly consumed by fish. In the absence of effective algal grazing by zooplankton, algae can become dominant, and perpetuate the cycle of turbid water and oxygen depletion from decomposition in the hypolimnion. Bloom-forming algae tend to be nutritionally poor and some produce harmful toxins. In most situations, algal-dominated systems are poor habitat for fish and wildlife.

There are a number of factors that influence alteration between these two stable states. Excessive harvesting or herbicide treatments that leave large areas of exposed sediment can promote nutrient suspension which favors algal production (DeNicola et al., 2006). To avoid these issues plant control strategies should seek to curb nuisance growth, not eliminate the plant community.

Summary

The current levels of pH and conductivity do not indicate cause for concern at this time. Dissolved oxygen should continue to be monitored to track changes in hypolimnetic oxygen concentrations throughout the year; particularly if management strategies are employed that seek to remedy summer anoxia. Reducing the duration and frequency of anoxia in the hypolimnion will reduce the associated potential for nutrient release from the lake sediments. The findings of this study regarding nutrient concentrations, coupled with chlorophyll a and Secchi depth data, indicate that Lake Moraine has an excess of available nutrients. If meaningful results are to be seen in terms of reduced plant and algal production, management efforts should focus on nutrient reduction at the watershed level. A nutrient budget should be established to help quantify nutrient contributions by amount and source. This information will allow managers to target the primary inputs, ensuring management funds are focused on reducing the same. Lake Moraine is a dynamic aquatic system. A thorough monitoring regime, management decisions based on high-quality scientific data, and LMA members committed to supporting ecosystem function, are imperative to meet the goals of the stakeholders. These three elements working in concert to maintain Lake Moraine from an ecological standpoint, will support sustainable recreational opportunities for years to come.

5.2 Fishery 5.2.1 Introduction

Angling was the 6th most popular recreational activity among stakeholders according to the 2014 survey, with 58% of respondents indicating they were involved in fishing. Lake Moraine has historically supported a moderately diverse warm-water fishery (Table 6). Warm-water species popular among anglers include largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), and chain pickerel (Esox niger). Currently, the lake is managed by NYSDEC primarily for species that offer angling opportunity.

In addition to the warm-water fishery in Lake Moraine, the system also supports a cool-water fishery for smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu). Tiger muskellunge (Esox masquinongy × lucius) have been stocked in Lake Moraine for several years to increase angling opportunity (NYSDEC 2014). Walleye have also been stocked during the past several years to support angling opportunity and to help reduce the abundance of young sunfishes (Lepomis spp.). These sunfishes are thought to feed on desirable milfoil grazers such as milfoil weevil (Euhrychiopsis lecontei) that could provide an inexpensive biological control for Eurasian milfoil in Lake Moraine.

A fishery survey was conducted by NYSDEC in summer 2014 to assess the current status of the fisheries in Lake Moraine for the first time in just over a decade (NYSDEC, 2014). The report that follows is a summary of those results, but also draws comparisons between the recent survey and a previous survey conducted in 2003.

5.2.2 Methods

Data collection

In June 2003 the SUNY Oneonta BFS (in collaboration with SUNY Cobleskill) conducted a boat electrofishing survey of both basins. All fish were collected, though the primary goal of this survey was to determine the relative abundance of bluegill and other small sunfish in Lake Moraine. In June 2014 another boat electrofishing survey of both basins was conducted, this time by the NYSDEC. The purpose of this survey was to evaluate age, growth, abundance, and predator/prey balance of the reservoir's sportfish community, and to determine if stocked tiger musky are surviving and recruiting to the fishery (Everard, 2014). This survey also collected all fish, with the exception of a few isolated “gamefish only” runs. Both surveys covered the entire shoreline of each basin, through a series of predetermined timed runs. This allowed surveyors to empty the livewell between runs, causing less stress on the fish.

Analysis

Catch per unit effort (CPUE), measured in number of fish per hour of electrofishing, was calculated for each species. CPUE was determined by taking the number of fish captured during a run, and dividing that by the number of seconds in the run. The resulting product was multiplied by 3600 to determine fish/hour. This unit standardization allowed comparisons to be made among fish species, as well as between surveys. Proportional stock density (PSD) and relative stock density (RSD) are numerical descriptors of length frequency data. These indices are based on the relative frequencies of fish of certain sizes (ages) in a given population, and thus are indicative of numerous ecological processes governing the status of a fishery including growth, competition, predation, habitat, and mortality (both natural and harvest related). Fisheries managers use these values to evaluate the status of individual fish populations or multiple components of a fish community. PSD and RSD are calculated as:

> = × 100

푁푁푁푁푁푁 표표 �푓푓ℎ 푞�푞푞�푞푞 𝑙푙푙�ℎ 푃푃푃 푁푁푁푁푁푁 표표 �푓푓 ℎ> ≥ 𝑠�푠푠 ��𝑛� ℎ = × 100

푁푁푁푁푁푁 표표 �푓푓ℎ 푝𝑝𝑝𝑝�푝 𝑙푙푙�ℎ 푅𝑅 Typically, length descriptors푁푁푁푁푁푁 are separated표표 �푓푓 intoℎ ≥ five𝑠� categories:푠푠 𝑙푙푙�ℎ stock, quality, preferred, memorable, and trophy. The lengths that define these categories vary by species, and are based on angler opinion. In general, for gamefish a PSD of 40-70 is considered to indicate balanced community. In this instance balance refers to the relationship between the number of fish and size of fish. PSDs in this range offer anglers the opportunity to catch good numbers of fish, while still having a chance to catch large fish. A PSD below 40 suggests the population is dominated by small fish, and above 70 suggests the population is primarily large fish.

5.2.3 Results

No tiger muskellunge were collected in the 2014 survey suggesting a low survival rate for these stocked fish. These fish have been (and continue to be) stocked to provide increased angling opportunities, though anecdotal reports from anglers indicate this species is encountered very infrequently. The apparent poor success of this fish can be attributed to one of two potential issues (or a combination thereof). First, it is possible that catch rates of muskellunge in electrofishing and angler reports is wholly due to the fact that the species is difficult to catch using either electrofishing or angling because of their morphology and their behavior. The shape and size of muskellunge allows them to detect electrical fields at a greater distance from electrofishing boats than most other fish species. This allows them to escape capture by electrofishing methods because they can swim away from the electrical field that otherwise sedates fish near the boat where the field is stronger. As a result, biologists might never even see tiger muskellunge when electrofishing, let alone catch them. Among anglers, muskellunge are known as the fish of 1,000 casts because they are difficult to entice, even when present in high densities, and equally as difficult to land once hooked. It is also possible that high numbers of chain pickerel (Esox niger) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) prey upon the young, newly stocked tiger muskellunge to such a degree that the species incurs a high post- stocking mortality rate and few fish ever reach large sizes. Very likely, the apparently low abundance of tiger muskellunge in Lake Moraine is due to some combination of these two phenomena.

When compared to the 2003 fishery survey, abundance (measured as catch per unit effort [CPUE]) of sunfishes has decreased (χ², p = < 0.01; Table 7). NYSDEC (2014) found that the PSD of largemouth bass was 87.2, indicating that fish in larger size classes were more abundant than smaller fish. Chain pickerel followed the same trend with a PSD of 84. Only 9 walleye were captured during the survey, and most individuals were small (PSD = 33).

Table 6 – Fish species documented in Lake Moraine in order of relative abundance (DEC 2014). Common Name Scientific Name Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Yellow perch Perca flavescens Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas Chain pickerel Esox niger Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Brown bullhead Ameirus nebulosis Walleye Sander vitreus Rock bass Ambloplities rupestris Yellow bullhead Ameirus natalis White sucker Catostomus commersoni Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus Tesselated darter Etheostoma olmstedi Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanous

Table 7 – Catch per unit effort (CPUE) in fish per hour captured by electrofishing 2003-2014 2003 2014 2003 → 2014 CPUE CPUE Species Fish/Hour Fish/Hour CPUE Change Chain pickerel 14.1 30.6 16.5 Golden shiner 9.8 8.0 -1.8 White sucker 20.7 4.0 -16.7 Creek chubsucker 0.0 2.0 2.0 Yellow bullhead 0.0 4.0 4.0 Brown bullhead 12.0 29.0 17.0 Rock bass 1.1 24.0 22.9 Redbreast sunfish 0.0 2.0 2.0 Pumpkinseed 216.3 157.0 -59.3 Bluegill 883.7 115.0 -768.7 Smallmouth bass 0.0 1.5 1.5 Largemouth bass 39.1 24.2 -14.9 Black crappie 1.1 6.0 4.9 Yellow perch 54.3 72.0 17.7 Walleye 0.0 2.2 2.2

5.2.4 Discussion

Many predatory fish are opportunistic feeders and a sudden influx of young vulnerable tiger muskellunge in a concentrated area certainly does not go unnoticed. In light of this, the NYSDEC has decided to try boat stocking (previous stocking efforts were done from shore) tiger muskellunge for a few years to see if survival rates improve. Another alternative that may improve survival is stocking pure strain muskellunge (Esox masquinongy), which are already present in the Susquehanna drainage. These pond- reared fish may have a better survival rate than the tank-reared tiger muskellunge (Everard, 2014).

The decrease in abundance of sunfishes in the fish community of Lake Moraine is the most notable change in the fishery during the past decade. One potential explanation for this change is the stocking of walleye in this system (NYSDEC 2014). While walleye stocking may have contributed to this decrease, the available data from infrequent surveys is not sufficient to substantiate this. The abundance of large predatory fish in Lake Moraine could be another possible explanation for the observed drop in sunfish CPUE. In addition to sunfishes, the forage fish community in Lake Moraine includes young perch and the lake’s only minnow species, the golden shiner.

Golden shiners were found in comparable abundance to the 2003 fisheries survey, though many of the individuals captured were large (7-8 inches). This finding suggests that the numerous gamefish in the lake are exerting strong predation pressure on the young shiners, and that the shiners experience relatively high mortality rates at small sizes.

NYSDEC (2014) indicated that at this time there exists no immediate need for regulation changes with regard to creel and size limits for gamefish. However, other fisheries goals as related to angler interests and biological considerations (e.g., sunfish control) need to be evaluated to determine if resources should continue to be allocated to fish stocking efforts in the future, and if any resources should be allocated to the general management of the fish community of Lake Moraine.

5.3 Aquatic Plant Community 5.3.1 Introduction Aquatic plants serve many important functions including oxygenation of water via photosynthesis, lake sediment stabilization, source of habitat and shelter for many aquatic organisms, sequestration of nutrients used for growth (preventing them from being used by undesirable algae), and they buffer wave action. Though they assist with these

functions, plants can also become a nuisance if they become too abundant. Excessive plant growth can limit access to the water for swimming, become entangled in boat propellers and cause other navigational issues. In the fall when plants naturally die back, large amounts of decaying plant material in the water can reduce dissolved oxygen levels. A balanced plant community capable of serving the beneficial ecological functions without becoming overpopulated is essential to support a diversity of recreational uses.

Work focused on the plant community of Lake Moraine has ranged from characterization to control. Annual surveys of the plant community in the lake have been conducted during summers since 1997 (Bennet et al. 1997). An overabundance of invasive - and to a lesser degree native plants - has been the primary management concern in recent decades (Allied Biological, 2006; Harman et al. 2007; Harman & Albright 2013). Invasive plants suppress native plant growth and often don’t serve many of the beneficial functions of the lake’s natural community. Primary among these concerns has been the management of Eurasian watermilfoil, whereas the distribution and recreational impacts of invasive species such as curly pondweed and starry stonewort in this system are lesser known.

5.3.2 Methods

Ongoing plant surveys in Lake Moraine (Harman et al. 2007; Harman & Albright, 2013; German & Albright, 2014) have utilized the Point Intercept Rake Toss Relative Abundance Method (PIRTRAM) (Lord & Johnson, 2006). To sample the plant community, two heads of garden rakes were welded together and connected to a 10m nylon cord that was thrown into the water randomly three times at each of five locations (Figure 11). The rake was allowed to settle to the bottom of the lake and slowly pulled into the boat. Once in the boat, species were separated and each was assigned an abundance category. The five abundance categories (Table 8) are “no plants” (denoted by “Z”), “fingerful” (“T”= trace), “handful” (“S” = sparse), rakeful (“M” =medium), and “can’t bring into the boat” (“D” = dense). Triplicate samples were used to estimate the midpoint of abundance categories for each species at each site. Species-specific midpoints were summed to estimate biomass at each site using methods adapted from German & Albright (2014). In addition to providing data on the status of the plant community, these surveys provided a pathway to examine effects of herbicide applications on aquatic plants, such as EWM, and on available phosphorus.

Table 8 - Categories, field measurements, midpoint of each category (g/m2) and dry weight ranges used to quantify rake toss collections (German & Albright, 2014) Total Dry Abundance Field Weight Categories Measure (g/m²) Mid Low High "Z" = no plants Nothing 0 0 0 0 "T" = trace .0001- plants Fingerful 2.000 1 0.0001 2 "S" = sparse 2.001- plants Handful 140.000 71 2.001 140 "M" = medium 140.001- plants Rakeful 230.000 185 140.001 230 Can't "D" = dense bring in 230.001- plants boat 450.000+ 340 230.001 450

Figure 11 – Map of Lake Moraine showing sampling locations of annual plant survey (German & Albright, 2014).

5.3.3 Results

Native Plants

Plant surveys have found Moraine supports 15 species of native plants and algae (Harman & Albright, 2013; German & Albright, 2014). This is a moderately diverse community for a lake of Moraine’s size. In recent years the abundance of these native plants appears to be declining (German & Albright, 2014), probably due to introduction of invasive species (Table 9) and aggressive plant control practices such as herbicide treatment and harvesting. Many of the native species, though known to occur in the lake, are not documented with regularity or in abundance when compared to the invasive species. One exception to this, according to aquatic plant community surveys, is sago pondweed (Stuckenia pectinata). It was documented in very high abundance on rake toss surveys, particularly at site 2 (Figure 11) since current plant survey efforts began in 1997.

Invasive Plants

Since the early 1990s EWM has been one of the most abundant species in the lake. The north basin typically supports the most extensive beds because it is shallow (mean depth 1.1 m). Due to its abundance and the resulting use impairments, EWM has been the primary focus of management efforts. These control efforts, while effective at reducing EWM abundance, can have unanticipated side effects. One such side effect was ® recently documented in the north basin. On July 18, 2014 Renovate 3 was applied at 1.25 ppm to 16 ha (40 acres) of the north basin. This treatment was particularly effective, killing much of the vegetation in the treated area. All of the EWM collected on a July 25, 2014 plant survey conducted by the SUNY Oneonta BFS was dead and decomposing (German & Albright, 2014). By the next plant survey on September 7, 2014 EWM was not detected in the north basin. Samples collected at the bottom of the north basin one week post application showed a notable increase in TP (Figure 12). In addition to releasing nutrients, this treatment appears to have catalyzed the expansion of starry stonewort in the north basin.

300

250 Renovate® 3 200 Treatment

150

100

TotalPhosphorus µg P/L 50

Figure 12 –Total phosphorus concentrations of samples from the bottom of the north basin in Lake Moraine, summer 2014

Starry stonewort was first documented in Lake Moraine in a 2007 plant survey (Harman et al. 2007). It was not abundant in the north basin in any of the 2013 or the June 4, 2014 plant surveys (Figure 13), after the herbicide application in July of 2014 starry stonewort established in the north basin, becoming the second most abundant plant in the treated area by the September 2014 (Harman & Albright, 2013; German & Albright, 2014). In addition to this north basin expansion starry stonewort is also abundant in the south basin and is dominant at sites 1 and 3 (Figure 11).

400

350

300 Renovate® 3 250 Treatment 200 Dead Plants

150

100 Mean Biomass g/m² Biomass Mean

EWM Site #4 EWM Site #5 SS Site #4 SS Site #5

® Figure 13 – Plant biomass changes pre- and post- Renovate 3 treatment north basin, Lake Moraine

5.3.4 Discussion

Native plants

Lake Moraine has historically supported a robust native plant community (Table 9). The introduction of invasive plants has reduced abundance and diversity of the beneficial native plants. Native fauna has evolved alongside these plants and relies on them for food and habitat. When an exotic invasive species (from another geographical location) is introduced, often times there are no natural controls (e.g. predators, parasites, diseases, etc.) in place to limit its growth. If nothing is done to manage invasive species, plants such as Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), can upset the equilibrium of the system causing problems beyond recreational impairment. Plant management activities in the lake targeted at nuisance species can also negatively impact native species. Lake managers need to be cognizant of the potential impacts on native plants, and the benefits of the native plant community, before employing any management strategy.

Sago pondweed is one of the few native species in Lake Moraine that causes recreational conflicts. Sago pondweed is capable of forming very dense beds that grow to the surface and form a thick canopy; this impedes swimming access and clogs propellers on boats that attempt to navigate through them.

Table 9 – Plant species documented from 1997-2015 during SUNY Oneonta BFS surveys of Lake Moraine. Boldfaced taxa are invasive non-native species. Common Name Scientific Name Notes Charophyceae (Macro-algae) Musk grass Chara vulgaris Submergent, free-floating Stonewort Nitella flexilis Submergent, free-floating Invasive, submergent, free- Nitellopsis obtusa Starry stonewort floating Dicotyledonae (Dicots) Ceratophyllum Coontail demersum Submergent, free-floating Uncommon, White water crowfoot Ranunculus aquatilis submergent/floating Ranunculus Uncommon, Threadleaf crowfoot trichophyllus submergent/floating Myriophyllum Eurasian water milfoil spicatum Invasive, submergent Submergent, emergent Water marigold Megalodonta beckii flowers Monocotyledonae (Monocots) Vallisneria Tapegrass, Wild celery americana Submergent Slender naiad Najas flexilis Submergent Waterweed Elodea canadensis Submergent Clasping-leaved Potamogeton pondweed richardsonii Uncommon, submergent Potamogeton Curly pondweed crispus Invasive, submergent Potamogeton Slender pondweed pusillus Submergent Flat stemmed Potamogeton pondweed zosteriformis Submergent Sago pondweed Stuckenia pectinata Native but can be a nuisance Water star-grass Zosterella dubia

Invasive Plants

Introduced species have historically caused the greatest number of reported problems related to recreational, aesthetic and ecological impairment in Lake Moraine. There are three aquatic invasive plant species currently known to occur in the lake; Eurasian watermilfoil, curly-leaf pondweed, and starry stonewort. Controlling the excessive growth and resulting expansion of these species has been the primary focus of management strategies on Lake Moraine during recent decades.

One of the major factors that can lead to excessive plant growth is an abundance of available nutrients in the lake. Nutrient management in conjunction with in-lake plant management strategies is necessary to help accomplish improved plant community function and balance. The observed rapid increase in TP following the application of ® Renovate 3 is presumably caused by the large amount of nutrients released by the decaying plants post treatment. While the herbicide was very effective at killing the nuisance plants it was applied to control, it also appears to have facilitated the establishment of starry stonewort in the north basin. The potential for unintended consequences such as these must be considered prior to employing any control strategy for aquatic plants.

The following discussion will focus on species-specific information concerning the invasive plants found in Lake Moraine.

Eurasian Watermilfoil (EWM)

Eurasian watermilfoil (Figure 14) is a perennial plant that was first introduced to North America during the late 19th century. It is now found throughout the United States and Canada (Smith & Barko, 1990). EWM grows very quickly after ice out in spring, shading out and out-competing many native aquatic plants. If unmanaged, milfoil is capable of forming dense canopies and filtering out available light. The plant has a long underwater stem that grows from its roots up to the surface where its whorled leaves branch extensively. The tough stems are capable of growing several meters in length (Smith & Barko, 1990). EWM is capable of reproducing both sexually via flowers and seed, and asexually through fragmentation and root crown expansion (Smith & Barko, 1990). The latter is the reproductive pathway EWM utilizes in Lake Moraine, where no native watermilfoil has been documented. In fall the leafy plants die back to the root crown until they re-sprout in the spring.

Many control strategies have been employed to reduce the abundance of EWM in Lake Moraine. Herbicides, insects, lake drawdown, hand-pulling and mechanical harvesting have all been employed in the attempt to control this nuisance plant, with varying degrees of success.

Figure 14 – Photograph of a Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) plant showing a close-up of leaves.

Curly-leaf pondweed

Native to Eurasia, Africa and Australia, curly-leaf pondweed (CLP) was first introduced to North America in the middle of the 19th century. Curly-leaf pondweed is a perennial plant and has a unique life history that has evolved to reduce competition with other aquatic plants. Starting in late May turions (a specialized bud, Figure 15) begin to sprout, reaching maturity as the superterranean portions of the plant die back in early summer (Xie et al. 2015). The turion sprouts continue to grow, slowly during the cooler months. By mid-winter the plants can reach several feet in height even under ice cover. In spring, when the ice melts, CLP grows very quickly until it reaches the surface, often before many plants have even come out of dormancy or begun to germinate. By early summer, as the turions begin to form, it can form dense canopies and shade out other plants. It then flowers and the plant quickly dies back dropping its turions, usually during early-to-mid July in New York. As a result, CLP often completes this cycle by the 4th of July as other plants are beginning to establish.

Figure 15 – Photograph of curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) showing a newly sprouted turion.

Curly-leaf pondweed was first noted in Lake Moraine during the late 20th century. The plant is an early season nuisance, growing in the shallow waters of the north basin, and around the bays and islands in the south basin. Often CLP dominates through early summer, giving way to EWM as it senesces. In this way, these two invasive species exhibit serial dominance of the littoral zone in Lake Moraine during much of the year. ® Herbicides such as Sonar A.S. applied to control EWM are effective on curly-leaf pondweed; however, CLP has typically senesced by the time they are applied for EWM control. Based on years of fall drawdown in Lake Moraine, CLP appears to be somewhat tolerant of water level fluctuation. As a result, drawdown may not be a sensible option for controlling this species.

Starry stonewort Starry stonewort (Figure 16) is the most recent invasive that has established in Lake Moraine. Starry stonewort is native to Europe, and is not a vascular plant, but rather a macro algae. In North America, where the algae was first noted in the late 1970s, this relatively recent invasive is becoming widespread (Pullman & Crawford, 2010). Starry stonewort is made up of a network of stem-like thalli (which are each made up of large, single cells) strung together forming dense mats. It can grow up to 2 m (7 ft) tall, and in Lake Moraine it has been found growing as deep as 7 m (22 ft). Starry stonewort is readily distinguished from native macro-algae by the star- shaped bulbil from which it gets its name (Figure 16). These bulbils are similar to tubers in vascular plants in that they store nutrients, however, the bulbils of starry stonewort do not attach to the lake bed. If conditions are favorable starry stonewort forms thick mats

on the bottom and may out-compete all other benthic plants. Stonewort does not form a canopy like the other invasive species in Lake Moraine. Instead it spreads laterally along the bottom, even under 5-8 m (15-25 ft) of water.

Figure 16 – Photograph of starry stonewort (Nitellopsis obtusa) showing the star-shaped bulbil.

Starry stonewort may cause more biological problems than recreational problems, but in the case of this macro-algae biological problems could lead to recreational impairment of some uses in this system. By shading out other aquatic plants and limiting access to sediment, the mats of starry stonewort effectively eliminate fish spawning and rearing habitat. This reduction in spawning and rearing habitat has the potential to negatively affect fish production in the system and create management issues related to the popular warm- and cool-water fisheries in Lake Moraine.

Treatment of starry stonewort, if pursued, should be given careful consideration. Although starry stonewort is sensitive to copper compounds and endothall, if the mats are thick the herbicide will penetrate only a few centimeters past the surface. Thus, the mat below this depth is capable of surviving herbicide application. Anecdotal evidence suggests a chelating compound such as Hydrothol 191 added to a copper treatment may be effective at penetrating the mat killing more of the stonewort (Pullman & Crawford, 2010). Continued monitoring of the starry stonewort population is essential for assessing future control strategies in this system.

6.0 Watershed Management

6.1 Watershed Characteristics

The watershed of Lake Moraine is approximately 2,065 hectares (5,102ac); land use is primarily agricultural (47%) with dairy-related production the leading use (Figure 17). Forest land (26%), shrub land (12%), developed areas (7%), water (6%), and wetlands (3%) are other cover types prevalent in the watershed (Welch & Thatcher, 1997). Lake Moraine’s principal outlet drains into the Chenango Creek, eventually making its way into the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay beyond.

Figure 17 – Lake Moraine watershed boundary and land use map (Madison Cnty. Plng. Dept. 2015).

There are six tributaries that contribute water to Lake Moraine, with the largest, Payne Brook, flowing into the lake through an inlet at the north end of the north basin. Some water from Payne Brook is diverted to a canal that terminates at Oriskany Creek, a tributary of the Erie Canal/Mohawk drainage. This artificially makes Lake Moraine part of two major drainage basins.

Little hydrological information exists for the watershed of Lake Moraine. Surface runoff and springs are presumably the primary water inputs to the lake, although groundwater seepage has not been estimated or measured at this time. Outflow is presumed to equal the inflow, although this also has not been formally measured. The average annual precipitation of the area is around 140 cm (55 in; NOAA Climatological Summary, Morrisville, NY Station). The elevation in the watershed ranges from 370 m

(1211 ft) at the surface of the lake to over 515 m (1700 ft) in the hills to the northeast. According to the 1:62500 general soils map, the major soil types are Lansing-Conesus, sloping (30%) and Bath, sloping with fragipan (29%). Both of the latter are glacial till derivatives (Welch & Thatcher, 1997). Other common soil types include Stockbridge, Lordstown, and Howard-Chittenango with a significant inclusion of Wayland silt loam (Welch & Thatcher, 1997).

6.2 Septic Systems

Previous septic system surveys conducted by the LMA have identified that many of the systems in the watershed and around the lake have a high potential to impact water quality. System age, proximity to surface water, time since last inspection, or size of system can all have water quality impacts. The LMA has implemented a program allocating funds to be used for cost sharing with homeowners who perform maintenance and/or replacement of their systems. The LMA has successfully acquired grants (including one from the NYS Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant Program) and should continue to pursue such funding in the coming years.

In addition to making improvements to the current septic infrastructure around the lake, a few alternate wastewater management ideas have been considered by the LMA in recent years. One such idea involves establishing a “sewer district” where strict rules would be put in place regulating acceptable system configurations and maintenance schedules. This “sewer district” could also potentially involve installing a municipal sewer to route waste water away from the lake to a treatment facility. These are conceptual plans and could serve as a useful starting point, though they may warrant further investigation and discussion. Although the severity of the impacts may vary, improperly treated sanitary waste negatively influences water quality, potentially increasing plant and algal productivity in the lake. This also may raise health concerns. Improved wastewater management will hopefully lead to improved ecological function and enjoyment of Lake Moraine.

6.3 Watershed Nutrient Management

Watershed nutrient management is a suite of techniques targeted at reducing inputs of nutrients to a lake. Many stakeholder concerns (including water transparency, excessive plant growth, algal blooms, fish kills, low oxygen, and even surface scum) can be attributed to excessive nutrients in the lake. Anecdotal evidence from Lake Moraine suggests issues related to nutrient loading from the surrounding watershed have been occurring for decades. The earliest available LMA meeting minutes (1970s) indicate

“weed” control was a primary concern of the lake managers, and it is highly likely that excessive plant growth, even at that time, is due to cultural eutrophication from the surrounding watershed.

The fact that excessive nutrients have plagued Lake Moraine for a long time does not mean input reduction efforts are futile. Goals for input reduction should, however, be realistically attainable. Most evidence indicates that Lake Moraine has always (on a contemporary time-scale) been a relatively productive system. It is unrealistic to think that this lake could be returned to an oligotrophic status, even with aggressive watershed nutrient management; however, actions can be implemented to return the system to a contemporary reference condition and maintain that trophic status. Reference conditions (Appendix B) are derived from 2003 data from Lake Moraine as well as nearby Hatch Lake. The latter has been subjected to comparatively few management efforts, and its current conditions offer a glimpse into what Lake Moraine might look like assuming a no-action alternative. An abundance of rooted plants and relatively high nutrient concentrations would likely still be found under the no management scenario, which is expected to serve as a reasonable baseline with which to compare success of future management strategies.

6.3.1 Watershed Nutrient Reduction Strategies

Nutrient control at the watershed level requires the cooperation of all who live and work in it. Increasing awareness among those living in the watershed is an important first step in reducing nutrient inputs. For example, simple changes such as not mowing up to the edge of tributary streams can help maintain a riparian buffer that sequesters nutrients before they can reach the water.

Agriculture is an important part of the upstate NY economy, and around Lake Moraine an estimated 47% of the watershed land use is agricultural (Madison County Soil & Water, 2015). While farmers who employ agricultural BMPs can have a positive impact on Lake Moraine, improper agricultural practices may degrade the lake ecosystem. The following are some potential sources of sediment and nutrients:

• Livestock allowed to enter/cross tributary streams • Improperly stored or disposed animal waste • Planting crops too close to tributary streams • Unmanaged runoff • Erosion from destabilized soils

• Degradation/removal of riparian buffer • Use of high phosphorus fertilizers (regulated by the “NYS Dishwasher Detergent and Nutrient Runoff Law”) • Improperly timed or located fertilizer application • Monoculture farming without crop rotation • Improper storage of silage or compost

Although these practices are damaging to the watershed, seldom are they employed maliciously. The vast majority of improper management can be attributed to lack of necessary information. It is critical not to criticize farmers who may have aspects of their operations that are mismanaged with regard to watershed nutrient management, as this can make them less likely to participate in BMP programs in the future. This can also degrade community relations, which can further impede participation and engagement in the management process. Instead, the LMA can help the farmers understand the value of good management to the whole watershed, empowering them with knowledge and available programs (including grants & financial assistance) to help them implement BMPs.

6.3.2 Watershed Programs

Currently Madison County Soil & Water Conservation District is working with farmers in the watershed to accomplish the steps in the NYS Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) Program. This tiered process involves the following steps:

• Tier 1 – Inventory current activities, future plans and potential environmental concerns • Tier 2 – Document current land stewardship; assess and prioritize areas of concern • Tier 3 – Develop conservation plans addressing concerns and opportunities tailored to meet farm goals • Tier 4 – Implement plans utilizing available financial, educational and technical assistance • Tier 5 – Evaluate to ensure the protection of the environment and farm viability

Twelve active farms currently operate in the Lake Moraine watershed; 4 dairy, 3 beef, 3 horse and 2 vegetable farms. Of these, 7 farms currently participate in the AEM Program, and 2 farms have completed Tier 2. Four farms also have

Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMP), which is separate from the AEM Program. This level of participation is good, but there is always room for improvement through cooperation and incentives associated with programs like AEM, Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), and several other similar programs. The Soil & Water Conservation District is an excellent resource to assist in the implementation of these programs that benefit the watershed as a whole, including farmers. The LMA should continue supporting efforts to inform and assist watershed residents with implementing best management practices.

7.0 In-Lake Management

7.1 Plant and Nutrient Control

7.1.1 Previously Implemented Management Strategies

Lake Moraine has been the subject of management activities for the better part of the last century. Plant and algae growth have been the primary focus of management, with the goal of improved aesthetics, recreational opportunity, and ecological function. The following is a brief history of documented treatments. It does not include all that has been done but it provides some background in this area: • Chemical treatments: o 1940s Copper sulfate o 1972 Diquat o 1974-5 Simazine ® o 1996 Sonar A.S. (fluridone) both basins o 1998 Weevils (Milfoil) north basin o 2000 Weevils (Milfoil) north basin o 2000 Copper sulfate both basins ® o 2001 Sonar A.S. (fluridone) both basins ® o 2004 Sonar A.S. (fluridone) north basin ® o 2006 Sonar A.S. (fluridone) south basin ® o 2010 Sonar A.S. (fluridone) north basin ® o 2011 Sonar A.S. (fluridone) south basin o 2012 Harvester - north basin (has been used on numerous other occasions) o 2014 Copper sulfate south basin ® o 2014 Renovate 3 (triclopyr) north basin o 2015 Copper Sulfate south basin

o Note: 1940-2015 Copper compounds were added at various concentrations and locations but records for these additions are incomplete or absent • Harvesting – intermittently for some of the above years (records incomplete) • Drawdown – Typically done in autumn to drop the lake level 3 ft. to subject plants in shallow areas to freezing. In recent years more water (up to 5-6 ft.) has been withdrawn. The drawdown also serves to protect infrastructure.

7.1.2 Considering Management Alternatives

Many strategies exist to help control growth of plants and algae (Table 10). Selecting the best management strategy is a dynamic process that must be based on high- quality data describing the current state of the system, and supported by scientific evidence. The criteria for what constitutes success must be defined prior to implementation of management strategies. This allows for proper evaluation of the effectiveness of management actions and will serve as a benchmark for success. The definition of success for each management goal should be realistic, keeping expectations within the bounds of what the lake is capable of supporting. If selected, each strategy presented here should be employed with monitoring protocols before, during and after treatment to quantify effectiveness and assess how the lake ecosystem responds. If strategies are employed without this monitoring regime, not only is success difficult to measure, but the impacts resulting from management activities and their effect on the lake could go unnoticed.

7.1.3 Aeration/Oxygenation/Circulation

In the south basin, aeration and oxygenation have the potential to alleviate summer anoxia. These processes both involve addition of gases to the water column, but there is a fundamental difference: whereas oxygenation is the addition of pure oxygen to the water column via compressed tanks on shore with lines running down into the water to a diffuser, aeration is the addition of atmospheric air via agitation or pumping air directly into the water column. Aeration requires mechanized pumps and requires more maintenance than oxygenation does. Aeration is also more likely to mix the thermal layers during stratification, though in Lake Moraine this may not be a major issue due to the apparent absence of truly cold-water dependent organisms (e.g., trout, salmon or whitefish). Monitoring the hypolimnetic water quality before, during and after treatment is essential with both of these strategies to gauge effectiveness and identify potential problems as they arise.

In the north basin circulation may be the most practical solution to the intermittent anoxia. It is shallow enough that a moderately sized water circulator may be effective. Circulation is best suited to shallow water where it can reduce surface buildup of algae and scum while adding oxygen to the water column by increased diffusion at the surface. Aeration and oxygenation are less effective in shallow water, because the gas bubbles have less time in contact with the water before being released into the atmosphere. If elimination of anoxia in the north basin is an objective the LMA wishes to pursue, circulation should be considered.

7.1.4 Bio-Control

Biological-control strategies have been used in Lake Moraine with limited success in the past. In the late 1990s Milfoil weevil (Euhrychiopsis lecontei), a small insect that feeds on the growing stems of Eurasian milfoil, was stocked in the lake to bolster existing weevil populations and to slow Eurasian milfoil expansion. This effort was ineffective due to several confounding factors. The density of weevils achieved by stocking was likely not sufficient to provide visible control of Eurasian milfoil. However, density alone may not fully explain the unsuccessful control; other factors besides density could also have contributed to ineffectiveness. Additionally, other management activities performed during the same time period, such as drawdown and herbicide application, seem to have contributed to poor weevil survival and minimal effectiveness.

The LMA may wish to investigate future opportunities for potential bio-controls. However, before putting anything in the lake, sound, documented scientific evidence of success in a similar system should be observed and the definition of a successful treatment in Lake Moraine established. Furthermore, interactions between the weevil and other management strategies that have the potential to affect the primary food of the weevil should be taken into consideration prior to an integrated approach that uses multiple management strategies.

7.1.5 Bottom Barriers

Benthic (bottom) barriers or mats physically block plant growth. The mats, typically constructed of metal, epoxy, plastic or rubber completely block light from reaching the lake bed, and this effectively shades out all plant growth in the covered area. Benthic mats must be placed after fish have spawned for the season to allow for successful recruitment. There are no chemicals involved with this treatment, and mats are reusable; however, they are only effective while in place. This means excessive growth

early in the season (e.g. curly-leaf pondweed) during fish spawning will not be controlled if deployment is delayed for fish spawning. Typically mats are cost/logistically prohibitive on a large scale (Table 10) and are most often used in swimming areas and around docks to keep high-traffic areas plant free.

7.1.6 Chemical Sediment Treatment/ Phosphorus Inactivation

There are many formulations of chemicals (typically containing alum, lanthanum, iron, calcium, lime, or polymers) designed to complex, absorb, and inactivate different forms of available phosphorus, depending on formulation. Alum for example, 3− 3+ 3- compounds phosphates (PO4 ) through the simplified reaction: Al + PO4 → Al(PO4). It is important to note that un-buffered alum reduces alkalinity in the form of bicarbonate - (HCO3 ) to perform this reaction. It will typically consume alkalinity at a rate of 0.5 mg/l for every 1 mg/l of aluminum that is added (Weaver, 2016). The precise chemical and formulation determines the mechanism of action and what forms of phosphorus will be inactivated. In most cases the chemicals are spread out on the water, and as they sink, dissolved or suspended nutrients are removed from the water column and settle on the bottom. As the chemicals settle, the phosphorus in the top layer of sediment is also bound, reducing internal recycling of nutrients from lake sediments. This tool can provide rapid and substantial reduction in available nutrients. Longevity of nutrient binding is dependent upon which chemical or formulation is applied. Depth of application is flexible with this method, but resuspension of nutrient-rich flocculate is possible in shallow waters due to wave action and boat traffic.

Some potential drawbacks of chemical nutrient inactivation are possible toxicity to wildlife (especially at low pH), potential for phosphorus release if anoxic conditions occur in treated area, and potential for water chemistry fluctuations during treatment (this can be mitigated by using buffers). Permits for some of these chemicals can be difficult to acquire in New York and should be investigated early in the planning process when considering this strategy. At the time of this writing, regulators are discussing the possibility of relaxing restrictions on the use of alum compounds for algae control and nutrient inactivation in New York. Alum is used widely in other states with satisfying results. As such, this may be a viable option for dealing with excess phosphorus in Lake Moraine in the near future.

7.1.7 Drawdown

Drawdown is currently used as an aquatic plant management technique in Lake Moraine. Seasonal drawdown exposes lake sediments in shallow water to freezing,

potentially killing plants and subterranean plant structures. The low water also allows property owners the opportunity to work on shoreline infrastructure with access that is not possible when the lake is full. Drawdown can be effective; however, there are a few issues that complicate management success. If heavy snow falls before there is a hard, ground-penetrating freeze, it can insulate the lake sediments protecting plant materials (root systems, turions, etc.). If drawdown is successful in reducing plant abundance, there are two unintended consequences that could result. First, if plant growth is too far reduced, and nutrient availability is high, the system can transition to algal dominance. The second possibility is that the large areas of shallow fertile lake sediments cleared of vegetation by desiccation become prime location for pioneer plant species, including new or already present invasive species. Drawdown is a useful, often inexpensive tool to reduce nuisance plant growth, but close monitoring is important to ensure undesirable effects are minimized and controlled. Note: Drawdown is not likely to have any impact on starry stonewort. As previously mentioned this macro-algae does not have roots and can “float” up and down with changing water levels.

7.1.8 Dredging

Physical removal of lake sediments can be a useful strategy to manage problems associated with internal loading, excess nutrients, seed and root banks, and excessive aquatic plants. It is, however, an environmentally disruptive process. When an area is dredged, much of the benthic community is removed, which includes decomposers and invertebrates that serve as food for other organisms. It can take quite a while for the benthic community to recover after dredging, and other components of the aquatic community can be impacted as well (e.g., plankton and fish). In addition to the environmental drawbacks, the process of dredging is often cost prohibitive (Table 10), and the disposal of dredged material (particularly if it contains toxins such as copper) can be problematic. The proponents of dredging suggest that positive effects such as nutrient reduction and nuisance plant removal can last for 15 years or more, which may justify the high initial cost over the long term. In Lake Moraine dredging may be a solution for very small, individually permitted projects such as clearing dock space, but without a significant funding source it is probably not feasible on a large scale at this time.

7.1.9 Harvesting

The LMA has employed mechanical harvesting for plant management several times over the past 20 years, though usage records of this technique are incomplete. In Lake Moraine it offers some short term relief in areas overridden by aquatic plants, but

the plants tend to grow back in a short time. As a result, harvesting is not a sustainable or effective method for long term aquatic plant control. In addition to being non-selective (non-target species are also removed), mechanical harvesting can leave small fragments of plants such as Eurasian watermilfoil, which can drift and colonize other areas - effectively spreading the problem (Madsen & Smith, 1997). Also all of the nutrient rich plant material must be disposed of properly. If the disposal site is within the watershed, as the plants decompose those nutrients can re-enter the lake, stimulating plant growth. Transportation cost for harvested material must also be taken into consideration. If plant growth can be controlled in the lake by reducing available nutrients, the need for large scale harvesting will be diminished. Note: Harvesting is impractical for starry stonewort; the algae tends to grow deeper than many other plants and is so bushy that the harvester is filled to capacity almost immediately. A large effort will be required to achieve any visible reduction in starry stonewort abundance.

7.1.10 Herbicides

Copper Compounds

For many years copper sulfate has been used in Lake Moraine to help control excessive plant and algae growth. Copper is toxic to plant cells and it disrupts membrane transport and can even cause complete cell destruction (lysing). It can be a fast-acting and effective plant and algal control, but as with other herbicides there are side effects. Copper used for lake applications comes in many formulations including granules, liquids and slurries. Most copper formulations include other additives that are designed to increase treatment effectiveness. These additives are diverse and their potential interactions with aquatic flora and fauna should be considered when evaluating potential side effects of a copper treatment. Copper on its own has been documented to be toxic to aquatic biota (Lauren & McDonald, 1986) and accumulation over time may need to be addressed, as it can cause ecological problems (Paul et al., 2001) and human health concerns. Because of the length of time that copper has been used in Lake Moraine, an analysis of lake sediments to determine current copper levels should be conducted before additional copper treatments are applied.

Non-Copper Herbicides

In addition to copper-based herbicides, the LMA has also applied some non- copper-based herbicides in the past. Targeted herbicide treatments are useful for quickly ® controlling plant growth in a defined area. Formulations such as Sonar A.S. (fluridone)

® and Renovate 3 (triclopyr) are designed to be more selective than copper compounds and have been used with some success in Lake Moraine. Nutrient release (discussed in section 5.3) is one of the side effects of herbicide treatment (Strange, 1976). The decomposition process also consumes oxygen; this creates the potential for anoxia and internal loading of nutrients from sediments. Future applications of herbicides to control nuisance plant growth may be justified when rapid control is needed. The LMA should continue to give careful consideration to herbicide and applicator selection to ensure unforeseen impacts of treatment are minimized.

7.1.11 Selective Withdrawal

Selective withdrawal is similar to drawdown, but the water is withdrawn from a specific depth or area. Water can be removed via control structures already in place or by siphoning from a desired depth. Targeted withdrawal can remove a particular water layer that is rich in nutrients or low in dissolved oxygen. The purpose of this technique is to flush undesirable water from the system. Withdrawing water according to water quality measurements allows lake managers to discharge a particular mass of water that is most harmful to the system without draining the lake. Typically the water is taken from near the bottom or in a particular problem area (like a deep algal bloom). The LMA may wish to consider utilizing this technique during fall drawdown to maximize its benefit by removing the poorest quality water. Given jurisdictional authorities, collaboration between the LMA and the Canal Authority is essential to properly manage lake levels for infrastructure protection, recreational uses, and plant control.

7.1.12 Management of Nutrient Inputs

See section 6.3.1 & Table 10

Table 10 – Summary of selected potential management alternatives to address excessive growth of plants and algae in Lake Moraine (adapted from Holdren, Jones, & Taggart, 2001).

Applicable Uses/ Permit Mode of Action Information Needs Potential Advantages Potential Disadvantages Cost Factors Required Algal control Areal hypolimnetic oxygen deficit Reduction in algal abundance Potential for resuspension of sediments $500-$1200/acre/year (oxygenation) Improved Fish habitat Sediment O demand Enhanced habitat for fish and Thermal impacts through mixing (warmer water Power supply (Aeration) invertebrates near the bottom) Aeration or Creates deeper zooplankton refuge Area and depth₂ of Reduction in internal loading Installation costs (Aeration) No O addition epilimnion & hypolimnion of phosphorus Reduction in phosphorus release from Annual P release from sediment Long-term operational ₂ sediments costs (Aeration) Longevity of effects

Introduction of or artificial Success must be defined i.e. is Can be an effective "natural" means Target plant species often Fish $50-$300/acre selection for biota that eat chewed up milfoil more desirable to reduce plant growth the last to be eaten (Carp) Bio-Control target nuisance species than healthy milfoil? In some cases Rooted plant control Morphology of target species and control Possible interactions not fully understood Timing of stocking potential for wasted resources if die-off occurs

Reduced sediment-water interactions Physical sediment features Reduction in plant and algal abundance Impacts on benthic community $40,000/acre installed Algal control Chemical sediment features Reduced nutrients in water column Safety concerns for recreation in barrier area Rooted plant control Area to be treated Improved Aesthetics Use Restrictions to protect barrier Yes Bottom Barriers Improved recreational appeal Water Depth Physical bottom barrier Material to be used for sealing Longevity of effects

Reduced sediment-water interactions Physical sediment features Reduction in algal abundance Impacts on benthic community Cost of chemicals Chemical sediment features Water use restrictions during treatment Cost of application Chemical Reduction in phosphorus release from Area to be treated Reduction in internal loading of Use restrictions to minimize resuspension/ burial Sediment sediments phosphorus of treated sediment Yes Treatment Reduced phosphorus in water column Water Depth Chemical to be applied/dose Longevity of effects

Plant cell toxin Has been used in Moraine for years Can rapidly control algae Possible toxicity to aquatic organisms $200-$400/acre Disrupts cell membrane transport Treatment area size/location Also can be effective for many plants Accumulation of copper in sediments More if chelating agent Copper Compounds is used (stonewort) Yes Can rapidly control algae Starry stonewort control with catalyst Lysing of cells releases nutrients and toxins May kill native beneficial plants

Lower lake level during fall Target organisms susceptibility Facilitates shoreline repairs Impacts non-target biota Generally inexpensive Controlled Duration/degree of exposure is important Potential impact on non-targets Nutrient reduction Impacts downstream flow regime Drawdown by NYS Can reduce nutrients Tributary capacity to refill lake May help with rooted plants Inadequate flushing can concentrate nutrients Canal Corp. Impacts winter recreation

Physical removal of sediment Benthic community Is an effective control when internal Often cost prohibitive $20,000-$90,000/acre depending Most often used when no Potential for contamination if dredged loading is the primary nutrient source wipes out bottom dwelling organisms on method utilized material gets loose Yes Dredging better alternative is available Disposal location increases water depth Must have suitable disposal site on an impacted system Transportation can reduce nutrient/pollutant reserves Can preclude recreation during process Harmful compounds in soil (copper?)

Table 10 (continued) – Summary of selected potential management alternatives to address excessive growth of plants and algae in Lake Moraine (adapted from Holdren, Jones, & Taggart, 2001).

Applicable Uses/ Permit Mode of Action Information Needs Potential Advantages Potential Disadvantages Cost Factors Required Physical removal of problem weeds Morphology of target species Mechanically removes plants and Can spread plants such as milfoil that are $200-$600 per acre associated nutrients from the system capable of reproducing via budding Note: Harvester must be cleaned potential for "bycatch" No chemicals native plants may be removed as well Yes Harvesting prior to use to minimize introducing aquatic invasive species disposal location/transportation

Systemic and contact herbicides are Controls rooted plants directly Can cause algal blooms by sudden release of Varies by product/size of treatment area available with different Moraine has used Sonar, nutrients sequestered by plants targets and effectiveness and more recently Herbicides Yes Renovate to curb weed growth Opens up water for recreation etc. Large amounts of plants decaying at once can Sonar $400-$800/acre cause anoxic condition on the bottom May kill beneficial native plants Renovate $600-$1200/acre

Chemical compounds such as alum salts Amount of phosphorus in water column Rapid major decrease in May cause pH instability- Phoslock will fix this $500-$1000/acre are used to bind and inactivate available phosphorus available phosphorus making it Determine if pH could be problematic minimize release from sediments may be toxic to some organisms $900+/surface acre for Phoslock Phosphorus Inactivation Yes unavailable to plants & algae (look at buffering capacity and current pH (fish, aquatic insects) particularly at low pH levels) can be applied to varied depths

Discharge of nutrient rich bottom water Retention time Removes water from selective depth Possible impacts of discharge downstream $100-$3000/acre depending on efficiently infrastructure and whether discharge will require treatment May be pumped or siphoned Potential downstream impacts May reduce anoxic conditions in deep May promote mixing of remaining water Yes Selective Withdrawal water Inflow May prevent phosphorus build up in Can cause drawdown if inflow is insufficient the same

Ag BMP's (e.g. Low P Fertilizer) Seasonal nutrient concentrations in lake Attacks nutrient problems Will take time to see results Extremely variable at the source depending on mechanism Land Use Historical levels Can be sustainable if May not be enough if used alone Most require Management of Nutrient Inputs (to see what level of reduction is feasible) managed properly (no in-lake strategies) no special Pollution Prevention Primary nutrient sources Can control delivery of other pollutants (Long term problem solutions) permit Individual Participation (rain garden, mowing strategy, Low P soaps, reduce wastewater etc.)

7.2 Management Alternatives for Navigation and Lake Use

Perhaps one of the most challenging aspects of lake management is user conflicts, yet few lakes are without them. People enjoy Lake Moraine in different ways and that is the beauty of freshwater lakes – they can support many different interests and activities. Unfortunately, in some cases, one activity of choice may impact enjoyment of the lake by others. Navigation is one area of potential discord, and even though existing regulations seek to mitigate some of this conflict enforcement can be difficult. Rare indeed is a lake use scenario where all parties are 100% satisfied, but through public education, sensible regulation/enforcement and compromise where necessary, sustainable social wellbeing can be achieved.

Figure 18 – Informational sign currently posted at the south basin boat launch, Lake Moraine.

7.2.1 User Conflicts

The 2014 stakeholder survey identified a few areas of common concern with regard to lake use (Figure 19). Relaxing at (their) residence was the most common activity among those surveyed, while PWC use had the lowest participation. In contrast, stakeholders

70 were also asked about activities of other lake users that impacted their own enjoyment of the lake (Figure 20).

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

Figure 19 – Self-identified participation in recreational activities by Lake Moraine stakeholders

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Greatest Concern 0% Moderate Concern

Figure 20 – Activities of other lake users that affect personal enjoyment of Lake Moraine.

One of the most striking results is the fact that, although only 8% of survey respondents indicated they use personal watercraft (PWC), more than 70% of respondents were negatively impacted by the use of PWC on Lake Moraine. PWC are perhaps the most prominent user conflict and the regulation of their use (or lack thereof) should be addressed. There are a few methods for this and other similar user conflicts:

1. Regulate, via town law, use of PWC by day of the week or hour of the day. For example, PWC could be allowed only between the hours of 11am-1pm, and those who wish to waterski or motor cruise without PWC interference could do so outside of those hours. 2. Regulate use of PWC by location. This technique, often used to divide a lake into “use sectors”, may be difficult to implement on a lake as small as Lake Moraine; however, PWC use could be restricted to open water (never behind/between islands) to reduce erosive wave action. 3. If opposition to PWC on Lake Moraine is strong enough, a ban could be imposed. Alternatively, to accommodate current owners, a ban on bringing new PWC on the lake could be enacted. In this scenario current PWC owners around the lake would be grandfathered in.

These general ideas are common to many use concerns, and most can be addressed in some capacity by regulating location, time, and (or) permissibility of use. Without proper enforcement, however, regulation can do little to abate user conflicts. The Madison County Sheriff’s department holds the primary responsibility for enforcing lake use regulations such as those found in the Town of Madison Local Law #1 (Appendix F). In summary, user conflicts will inevitably arise and should be handled through the proper

channels, such as state and local law enforcement, the NYSDEC permitting office, or the town planning board, depending on the nature of the concern.

7.2.2 Navigation & Safety

Concerns about navigation and safety around lakes are often closely tied to lake use conflicts. Lake Moraine currently has a regulatory document (Town of Madison Local Law #1 1986, 2012) that outlines rules for motor boat operation (Figure 21; Appendix F). The rules are designed to keep swimmers and boaters safe as they enjoy the lake. Motor boats pulling skiers must only operate in open water, proceeding in a counter clockwise direction, and are not to exceed 40 mph. No wakes are permitted in channels between island and shore or within 100 feet of any shore. Swimmers are only permitted within this 100 foot zone (unless accompanied by a boat) to protect them from fast moving boats and associated wakes. No wake zones around shores and islands have the added benefit of reducing erosion caused by turbulent water and boat propellers that scour the substrate.

Figure 21 - Lake Moraine swimming and boating permitted use area maps.

Dividing the lake into use regions is referred to as lake “zoning”. Zoning is a useful tool to provide opportunity for different types of (sometimes incompatible) recreational activities. Lake Moraine is perhaps a bit small to divide into zones for different types of watercraft; however, with updated and enforceable regulations conflicts should be reduced. For disagreements that do arise, strategies such as temporal segregation or compromise are advisable. Enforcement efforts should be focused on weekends, as they are the busiest time on Lake Moraine. Based on the 2014 survey, most residents are satisfied with the weekday traffic, and some are concerned with the weekend crowds (Figure 22).

90%

80% 70% 60% 50% weekends 40% weekdays 30% 20%

Percent of respondents Percent 10% 0% Overcrowded About right Underused

Figure 22 – Stakeholders perception of lake use by time of week, Lake Moraine

Boat wakes, speed, noise, and size all were high-priority concerns of stakeholders, with wakes being the top concern identified by the safety portion of the survey (Figure 23). Interestingly, lack of enforcement and adequate regulations were both important to stakeholders, with concerns over enforcement ranking 3rd among those who responded. The current regulatory document (Town of Madison Local Law #1 1986, 2012) requires some revision to include more robust definitions (e.g. high water conditions, adequate mufflers, and channel boundaries, etc.) as well as numeric values (decibels, MPH, etc.) that constitute a violation if exceeded. Specific phrasing should also be included regarding PWC use. These changes would give law enforcers a better defined and easily enforceable document that is difficult for violators to dispute on grounds of misinterpretation or lack of clarity.

Lakes and their watersheds are dynamic by nature, and managers need to take an adaptive approach to be successful at achieving stakeholder goals. Effective comprehensive management requires current information about the status of the numerous parameters discussed in this document. In addition to these, new concerns and data needs are likely to become evident in the future and will need to be addressed accordingly. Continued monitoring is essential to maintain actionable data. With dedication to responsible management from members of the LMA, Lake Moraine is poised for success. Lake Moraine is an excellent resource and with proper management should provide sustainable recreational and aesthetic opportunities, in addition to a well- functioning freshwater ecosystem, for years to come.

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%

30% 20% 10% 0% Great concern

Percent of respondents Moderate concern

Figure 23 – Safety concerns of Lake Moraine stakeholders

8.0 References

Allied Biological. (2006). 2006 Aquatic Plant Management Plan. Hackettstown, NJ: Allied Biological Inc.

Bennett, S., Albright, M. F., & Harman, W. N. (1997). An aquatic macrophyte survey of Lake Moraine, Madison County, summer 1997, as related to management efforts utilizing Sonar. SUNY Oneonta BFS annual report.

Blindow, I., Andersson, G., Hargeby, A., & Johansson, S. (1993). Long-term pattern of alternative stable states in two shallow eutrophic lakes. Freshwater Biology, 159-167.

Carlson, R. E. (1977). A trophic state index for lakes. Limnology and Oceanography, V. 22 (2): 361- 369.

Carlson, R., & Simpson, J. (1996). A coordinator's guide to volunteer lake monitoring methods. North American Lake Management Society.

Cooke, G., Welch, E. B., Peterson, S., & Newroth, P. (1993). Restoration and Management of Lakes and Reservoirs, Second Edition.

DeNicola, D. M., de Eyto, E., Wemaere, A., & Irvine, K. (2006). Periphyton response to nutrient addition in 3 lakes of different benthic productivity. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 25 (3):616-631.

Doudoroff, P., & Shumway, D. L. (1970). Dissolved oxygen requirements of freshwater fishes. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Ebina, J., Tsutsi, T., & Shirai, T. (1983). Simultaneous determination of total nitrogen and total phosphorus in water using peroxodisulfate oxidation. Water Resources, 7 (12): 1721-1726.

EPA. (2010). National Lakes Assessment a Collaborative Survey of the Nation's Lakes. Office of Water: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Everard, J. F. (2014). Lake Moraine Fisheries Survey 2014. Cortland, NY: NYSDEC.

Gachter, R., & Mares, A. (1985). Does settling seston release soluble reactive phosphorus in the hypolimnion of lakes? Limnology and Oceanography, V. 30 (2): 364-371.

German, B., & Albright, M. (2014). Aquatic macrophyte management plan facilitation, Lake Moraine, Madison County, NY 2014. SUNY Oneonta BFS annual report.

Graneli, W., & Solander, D. (1988). Influence of aquatic macrophytes on phosphorus cycling in lakes. Hydrobiologia, 170: 245-266.

Guildford, S. J., & Hecky, R. E. (2000). Total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and nutrient limitation in lakes and oceans: Is there a common relationship? Limnology and Oceanography, 45 (6): 1213-1223.

Harman, W., & Albright, M. (2013). Aquatic macrophyte management plan facilitation, Lake Moraine, Madison County, NY 2013. SUNY Oneonta BFS Annual Report.

Harman, W., Albright, M., & Snyder, C. (2007). Aquatic macrophyte management plan facilitation Lake Moraine, Madison County, NY 2007. SUNY Oneonta BFS annual report.

Harman, W., Hingula, L., & Macnamara, C. (2005). Does long-term macrophyte management in lakes affect biotic richness and diversity. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 43: 57-64.

Hohenstein, B. R., Gallinger, G., & Kishbaugh, S. A. (1997). New York citizens statewide lake assessment program (CSLAP) . Albany, NY: NYSDEC Division of Water.

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

Lauren, D. J., & McDonald, D. G. (1986). Influence of water hardness, pH, and alkalinity on the mechanisms of copper toxicity in juvenile rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 43 (8): 1488-1496.

Liao, N., & Marten, S. (2001). Determination of total phosphorus by flow injection analysis colorimetry (acid persulfate digestion method). Loveland, CO: QuickChem Method 10-115-01-1-F. Lachat Instruments.

Lord, P. A., & Johnson, R. L. (2006). Point intercept rake toss relative abundance method software and user guide. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Retrieved from http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/aquatic06.pdf

Madsen, J. (1999). Point Intercept and Line Intercept Methods for Aquatic Plant Management. Vicksburg, MS: Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.

Madsen, J. D., & Smith, D. H. (1997). Vegetative Spread of Eurasian Watermilfoil Colonies. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 35: 63-68.

NYSDEC. (2016). Lake parameter fact sheet. Retrieved from NYS Department of Environmental Conservation: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/cslaplkpara.pdf

NYSFOLA. (2009). Diet for a Small Lake: The Expanded Guide to New York State Lake and Watershed Management. New York State Federation of Lake Associations, Inc.

Osgood, R. A. (1988). Lake mixis and internal phosphorus dynamics. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, V. 113: 629-638.

Paul, E., Simonin, H., Symula, J., Neuderfer, G., & Bauer, R. (2001). Impacts of long term copper sulfate use on the sediment of treated lakes. Albany, NY: NYS DEC.

Pritzlaff, D. (2003). Determination of nitrate/nitrite in surface and wastewaters by flow injection analysis. Loveland, CO: QuikChem Method 10-107-04-1-C. Lachat Instruments.

Pullman, G. D., & Crawford, G. (2010, Summer). A decade of starry stonewort in Michigan. Lakeline, pp. 36-42.

Redfield, A. C. (1934). On the proportions of organic derivatives in sea water and their relation to the composition of plankton. Liverpool: University of Liverpool.

Scott, D. M., Lucas, M. C., & Wilson, R. W. (2005). The effect of high pH on ion balance, nitrogen excretion and behavior in freshwater fish from a eutrophic lake: A laboratory and field study. Aquatic Toxicology, V. 73 (1): 31-43.

Smith, C., & Barko, J. (1990). Ecology of Eurasian watermilfoil. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 28: 55-64.

Strange, R. J. (1976). Nutrient Release and Community Metabolism Following Application of Herbicide to Macrophytes in Microcosms. Journal of Applied Ecology, V. 13 (3): 889-897.

Weaver, G. (2016, May 31). Phosphorus Removal from Wastewater: Phosphorus Chemistry. Retrieved from http://www.cleanwaterops.com/: http://www.cleanwaterops.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/01/Clean-Water-Ops_Phosphorus-Removal-from- Wastewater_Phosphorus-Chemistry.pdf

Welch, L. M., & Thatcher, B. (1997). Lake Moraine Watershed Nonpoint Source Planning Program Report. Wampsville, NY: Madison County Planning Department.

Wetzel, R. (2001). Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems, Third Edition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Xie, D., Zhou, H., Ji, H., & An, S. (2015). The growth and establishment of floating turions of Potamogeton crispus are not favored by summer climate. Clean Soil Air Water, 43 (3): 336-340.

YSI. (2010, February 8). Calibration, Maintenance & Troubleshooting Tips. Retrieved from YSI Inc.: https://www.ysi.com/File%20Library/Documents/Tips/YSI-Calibration-Maintenance- Troubleshooting-Tips-6-Series-Sondes-2-8-10.pdf

9.0 Appendices

Appendix A: Stakeholder Survey

Public Opinion Survey Concerning the Recreational Utilization of Lake Moraine

I 1 Age 2 Family Size 3 Residence Yes No Do you reside in Madison County? In the town of Madison? In the town of Hamilton?

Are you a summer resident? Are you a permanent resident?

Do you own property on Lake Moraine?

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

Yes No 4 Do you own a boat? If more than one, how many______

Inboard Outboard

Inboard-Outboard Sailboat Rowboat/Canoe/Kayak Party Barge PWC (personal water craft) Other______

5 Are you a member of an organization active on or about the lake?

Yes No Lake Moraine Association? Local environmental organization? Local social organization? Local sportsman's organization? Other

6 What recreational activities on and around the lake are you involved in? Yes No Motor cruising Sailing Rowing/Canoeing

PWC (personal water craft) Water Skiing Fishing Ice Fishing Swimming Natural History (e.g. Bird watching) Visual Aesthetics Relaxing At Residence Other

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

Greatest use weekdays

No pattern of use

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

II To what extent are the below listed items of concern to you relative to Lake Moraine?

1 Environmental quality Great Moderate Little I don’t Concern Concern Concern know Strip development (home density)

Sanitary wastes from cottages

Other household wastes

Agricultural practices

Road salts

Acid rain

Motor boats

Eroding shorelines

Undesirable introductions of plants and animals

Algae and weed growth

Water clarity

Fecal pollution (geese, etc.)

Water levels

Loss of wildlife habitat (Fish) Aesthetics Other What do you perceive as the greatest environmental threat to the Lake?

2 Safety on the water Great Moderate Little I don’t Concern Concern Concern know Lack of navigational regulations Overregulation regarding navigation Increasing numbers of boats on the lake Lack of law enforcement on the lake Boat size Boat noise Boat wakes Navigational hazards (e.g. ______) Boat speeds Other

3 Recreational Facilities Yes No I don’t know Do you feel that public access to the lake is insufficient

Are launching facilities on the lake adequate? If no:

The physical size of the facilities is too small

The amount of parking is inadequate

There are too few access points

Is the lack of washing facilities for environmental control a concern?

Other

4 Are you most concerned about; environmental quality, safety on the water, or recreational facilities as defined above?

Environmental quality

Safety on the water Recreational facilities

5 What recreational activities of others have the greatest negative impact on your enjoyment of Lake Moraine?

Greatest Moderate Little Concern Concern Concern Motor cruising Sailing

Rowing/Canoeing PWC (personal water craft) Water Skiing Fishing Ice Fishing Swimming

Other

6 What do you think about the present numbers of boaters using Lake Moraine?

On summer weekends the lake is: Overcrowded About right Underused Don’t know On summer weekdays the lake is: Overcrowded About right Underused Don’t know

7 What type of septic system do you currently have in place

What would you estimate is the age of your system

Would you be interesting in becoming part of a sewer district Yes No

8 Your Personal Comments:

Appendix B: Reference Conditions

The limnological and watershed characteristics of Lake Moraine and Hatch Lake, Madison County, NY - modified from Harman et al. (2005). (Note: total nitrogen and soluble reactive phosphorus were not reported.) Lake Moraine Hatch Lake Lake Basin (29 May 2003) (28 May 2003)

42°50'47"N, 42°50'06"N, Location 75°31'39" W 75°40'67"W Surface area 106ha (263 ac) 58ha (133ac) Maximum depth 13.7m (45ft) 18m (60ft) Mean depth 5.4m (17.8ft) 10.4m (25.2ft) Thermal regimen Dimictic Dimictic Secchi transparency 3.5m¹ 4. m² Epilimnion - Epilimnion - Oxygen 12mg/l 11.9mg/l Hypolimnion - Hypolimnion - 0.2mg/l 1.3mg/l North basin – 25 Total phosphorus mg P /l 18µg P /l South basin - 38 mg P/l North basin - 0.230 Nitrite + nitrate mg N/l 0.083 mg N/l South basin - 0.740 mg N/l Calcium 25.7 mg Ca2+/l 28.1 mg Ca2+/l pH Epilimnion - 8.7 Epilimnion - 9.0 Hypolimnion - 7.2 Hypolimnion - 7.1 Epilimnion - Epilimnion - Conductivity 270µS/cm 213µS/cm Hypolimnion – Hypolimnion - 325µS/cm 215µS/cm Trophic status Eutrophic Eutrophic Watershed Area 2065ha (5102ac) 345ha (852ac) Panther Mt. Shales Panther Mt. Shales Bedrock and SS and SS Soils Glacial till, moraine Glacial till, moraine 1200-1720ft above 1480-1740ft above Elevation msl msl Annual phosphorus loading 6.5 kg P/ha/yr 2.3kg P/ha/yr

Appendix C: Physical & Chemical Water Quality Data Physical and chemical water quality parameters measured with YSI Sonde in the Lake Moraine south basin, 2013-2015. (Chlorophyll a data are for reference only; see annual CSLAP report for more accurate values) Temperature ( ⁰C ) 0 17.97 8.52 0.08 0.51 0.58 8.45 17.64 21.35 22.83 24.94 22.69 22.60 15.34 0.07 0.20 16.56 20.39 26.24 1 17.84 8.63 2.42 3.12 3.44 8.45 17.20 20.93 22.82 24.84 22.57 22.59 15.27 1.73 2.31 16.52 19.88 25.39 2 17.61 8.63 2.72 3.39 3.84 8.45 14.47 20.75 22.79 24.46 22.46 22.59 15.18 2.86 3.39 16.50 19.18 24.58 3 17.3 8.63 2.62 3.35 3.61 8.45 13.15 18.91 22.44 24.36 21.86 22.55 15.02 3.26 3.62 16.45 18.20 24.20 4 17.26 8.62 2.43 3.15 3.46 8.45 12.12 15.95 18.80 23.86 21.32 22.49 14.95 3.26 3.59 11.09 15.32 23.53 5 17.19 8.63 2.58 3.21 3.43 8.45 10.91 13.66 15.86 23.16 21.14 21.07 14.91 3.22 3.54 8.47 11.25 19.93 6 17.13 8.63 2.72 3.28 3.42 8.45 10.22 11.56 12.80 20.92 20.92 20.61 14.88 3.27 3.47 6.42 8.56 16.03 7 17.02 8.63 2.95 3.47 3.43 8.40 9.61 9.99 11.01 16.86 20.32 20.00 14.82 3.32 3.46 5.98 7.86 13.12

Depth (m) 8 16.95 8.62 3.23 3.58 3.51 7.56 9.09 9.36 10.33 14.31 18.07 18.91 14.73 3.50 3.54 5.29 6.79 10.44 9 16.78 8.61 3.40 3.53 3.75 6.54 8.07 8.51 9.07 11.76 14.63 16.56 14.66 3.57 3.73 4.89 6.23 8.73 10 15.27 8.61 3.60 3.64 3.88 6.01 7.34 7.38 8.03 9.33 9.74 11.80 14.25 3.63 3.77 4.39 5.53 6.41 11 11.03 8.61 - 3.99 4.10 5.26 6.54 6.76 7.18 8.25 8.42 8.42 13.01 3.75 3.66 4.09 5.13 5.76 12 - - - - 4.48 4.90 - 6.25 - 7.51 7.70 7.32 8.57 - 3.85 - 4.78 5.49 13 - - - - - 4.73 - - - 7.00 7.16 7.07 8.03 - - - 4.73 - 9/28/2013 11/9/2013 2/1/2014 3/1/2014 3/23/2014 4/27/2014 5/15/2014 6/4/2014 6/19/2014 7/25/2014 8/23/2014 9/7/2014 11/9/2014 2/22/2015 3/21/2015 5/23/2015 6/4/2015 7/28/2015

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 0 9.19 11.00 15.17 14.72 15.09 12.56 12.41 10.37 11.63 8.96 10.78 9.46 9.04 13.87 11.48 9.84 10.07 8.28 1 9.22 9.87 13.72 12.82 13.78 12.77 12.94 10.44 11.73 9.04 10.77 9.55 9.01 12.50 10.93 12.20 10.10 10.05 2 8.91 9.76 12.15 10.80 11.95 12.81 14.75 10.46 11.73 9.02 10.65 9.57 8.93 10.46 9.73 12.32 10.48 9.82 3 7.62 9.73 11.30 10.00 10.57 12.79 15.16 10.98 11.62 9.23 9.34 9.58 8.80 8.32 8.52 12.35 10.29 9.60 4 7.44 9.72 10.95 9.19 9.60 12.80 14.95 11.51 8.90 7.39 7.28 9.61 8.67 7.44 7.08 15.65 11.69 9.25 5 7.1 9.64 10.82 8.40 8.23 12.78 13.52 13.34 9.92 4.79 5.80 2.86 8.57 6.65 5.63 13.93 12.71 6.71 6 7.22 9.64 9.73 7.74 7.32 12.72 11.80 13.51 10.61 1.84 4.70 0.76 8.43 6.00 5.15 6.46 9.82 8.79 7 6.85 9.64 8.40 6.60 6.62 12.68 9.80 10.15 8.04 2.53 0.64 0.31 8.35 5.59 4.64 6.20 8.52 6.80

Depth (m) 8 6.42 9.52 6.65 5.40 5.91 11.73 7.90 6.45 5.45 2.39 0.30 0.26 8.19 4.74 4.23 2.92 2.58 4.11 9 5.62 9.49 5.72 4.97 4.55 9.87 4.95 3.53 3.82 0.71 0.28 0.22 8.07 4.47 3.53 0.90 1.32 0.72 10 0.46 9.39 3.68 4.17 3.95 8.72 3.54 1.20 0.56 0.28 0.16 0.23 7.44 4.31 2.99 0.59 0.86 0.33 11 0.23 9.03 - 2.03 1.85 5.91 1.51 0.62 0.31 0.17 0.13 0.14 2.08 3.86 3.01 0.59 0.30 0.21 12 - - - - 0.88 4.20 - 0.40 - 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.96 - 2.73 - 0.16 0.16 13 - - - - - 1.95 - - - 0.10 0.15 0.12 0.36 - - - 0.10 - 9/28/2013 11/9/2013 2/1/2014 3/1/2014 3/23/2014 4/27/2014 5/15/2014 6/4/2014 6/19/2014 7/25/2014 8/23/2014 9/7/2014 11/9/2014 2/22/2015 3/21/2015 5/23/2015 6/4/2015 7/28/2015

Conductivity (µS/cm) 0 274 162 332 353 354 342 322 301 274 267 248 219 254 324 407 312 309 283 1 273 301 325 340 351 342 321 301 274 268 249 219 255 334 368 312 310 277 2 274 301 328 348 357 341 323 301 274 268 249 218 255 335 377 312 309 281 3 275 301 338 361 373 341 323 310 275 266 254 219 256 347 392 312 321 286 4 275 300 350 378 387 341 327 321 307 284 257 218 256 358 401 332 334 310 5 276 301 356 386 393 341 335 323 334 292 261 238 256 367 410 343 342 360 6 276 301 362 397 403 342 342 328 341 321 267 245 256 375 420 369 357 370 7 277 301 372 409 417 342 344 337 346 350 287 252 256 385 432 375 374 380

Depth (m) 8 278 301 382 422 427 346 348 342 350 357 343 264 256 395 444 388 382 390 9 280 301 392 430 435 353 354 346 354 363 267 300 257 401 450 397 392 402 10 319 301 405 435 442 361 363 355 361 374 285 343 259 407 457 413 410 435 11 405 301 - 455 453 387 377 364 371 390 399 360 306 409 465 482 424 455 12 - - - - 500 399 - 372 - 400 412 375 420 - 472 - 437 474 13 - - - - - 406 - - - 416 438 380 453 - - - 445 - 9/28/2013 11/9/2013 2/1/2014 3/1/2014 3/23/2014 4/27/2014 5/15/2014 6/4/2014 6/19/2014 7/25/2014 8/23/2014 9/7/2014 11/9/2014 2/22/2015 3/21/2015 5/23/2015 6/4/2015 7/28/2015

pH 0 8.36 7.87 8.12 7.91 7.88 7.86 8.00 8.47 8.38 8.32 8.32 8.40 7.99 8.19 9.32 8.23 8.41 6.87 1 8.37 7.84 8.04 7.83 7.73 7.71 8.02 8.47 8.41 8.33 8.32 8.40 7.97 8.10 8.87 8.26 8.39 7.08 2 8.34 7.80 8.00 7.74 7.62 7.74 8.06 8.44 8.42 8.32 8.28 8.40 7.96 8.03 8.59 8.30 8.37 7.02 3 8.04 7.78 7.95 7.60 7.49 7.75 8.09 8.35 8.41 8.35 8.07 8.41 7.93 7.95 8.45 8.33 8.26 6.98 4 8.03 7.77 7.90 7.49 7.41 7.77 8.13 8.27 8.01 7.95 7.76 8.40 7.90 7.87 8.32 8.27 8.18 6.92 5 7.97 7.77 7.85 7.40 7.31 7.79 8.19 8.35 7.84 7.61 7.59 7.68 7.88 7.85 8.17 8.18 8.25 6.83 6 7.99 7.77 7.83 7.35 7.24 7.80 8.16 8.36 7.80 7.39 7.45 7.27 7.87 7.79 8.10 7.91 8.10 6.77 7 7.94 7.76 7.79 7.29 7.19 7.79 8.04 8.05 7.51 7.37 7.26 7.13 7.84 7.76 8.04 7.71 7.91 6.73

Depth (m) 8 7.89 7.76 7.75 7.22 7.16 7.70 7.95 7.84 7.39 7.33 7.17 7.00 7.81 7.73 7.99 7.58 7.79 6.68 9 7.82 7.74 7.70 7.19 7.12 7.54 7.90 7.71 7.26 7.24 7.16 6.95 7.80 7.71 7.94 7.18 7.64 6.64 10 7.48 7.73 7.66 7.14 7.09 7.41 7.82 7.58 7.14 7.27 7.16 6.98 7.75 7.69 7.87 7.11 7.54 6.60 11 7.34 7.74 - 7.08 7.02 7.29 7.72 7.53 7.04 7.29 7.10 6.89 7.41 7.67 7.84 7.28 7.48 6.57 12 - - - - 6.93 7.19 - 7.49 - 7.36 7.04 6.85 7.12 - 7.79 - 7.42 6.54 13 - - - - - 7.13 - - - 7.36 6.93 6.82 7.00 - - - 7.37 - 9/28/2013 11/9/2013 2/1/2014 3/1/2014 3/23/2014 4/27/2014 5/15/2014 6/4/2014 6/19/2014 7/25/2014 8/23/2014 9/7/2014 11/9/2014 2/22/2015 3/21/2015 5/23/2015 6/4/2015 7/28/2015

Chlorophyll a (µg/l) 0 5.1 3.3 4.8 6.2 2.1 8.5 0.6 2.7 7.8 0.0 1.9 14.1 2.8 4.7 1.4 0.5 1 8.3 4.1 1.5 3.3 1.7 11.2 0.2 6.1 12.8 0.0 3.2 2.6 5.8 4.3 3.0 0.7 2 8.5 5.2 1.1 3.7 2.9 12.5 1.3 7.0 8.6 1.6 3.9 1.3 3.5 6.0 3.3 0.5 3 5.1 3.3 0.0 3.5 4.4 11.6 2.3 7.4 6.3 2.4 3.2 1.0 3.5 7.2 4.2 0.6 4 4.2 4.6 0.4 3.3 6.6 12.5 2.7 2.9 4.0 2.7 2.4 0.8 3.0 11.6 4.7 0.6 5 3.4 4.1 0.7 2.2 6.0 12.7 3.3 0.9 2.0 3.2 1.7 0.8 1.8 21.2 5.3 1.4 6 3.3 3.7 1.0 2.0 3.7 13.0 2.8 0.8 1.4 6.3 1.6 1.5 1.3 9.6 11.0 11.0 7 3.1 3.1 0.0 1.2 2.7 12.6 2.3 1.7 14.4 2.3 1.5 0.8 1.2 6.5 17.3 4.5 Depth (m)

8 2.7 3.0 0.0 1.2 2.2 7.8 Error Meter 1.6 0.0 Error Meter 5.1 5.8 1.4 1.4 1.2 3.2 9.9 1.5 9 2.1 2.4 0.3 1.5 2.2 3.1 1.2 1.7 19.5 12.6 2.1 0.7 1.4 6.5 6.0 2.3 10 8.9 2.2 0.6 1.1 1.8 2.8 0.3 1.9 56.0 42.9 2.4 0.7 1.3 8.5 4.5 3.8 11 29.5 7.3 - 1.7 2.2 1.5 1.2 3.0 32.1 23.3 2.8 2.5 1.4 0.0 2.8 10.5 12 - - - - 1.6 1.4 0.8 - 20.4 15.3 24.9 - 2.0 - 2.1 11.8 13 - - - - - 2.8 - - 21.0 22.5 0.7 - - - 3.6 - 9/28/2013 11/9/2013 2/1/2014 3/1/2014 3/23/2014 4/27/2014 5/15/2014 6/4/2014 6/19/2014 7/25/2014 8/23/2014 9/7/2014 11/9/2014 2/22/2015 3/21/2015 5/23/2015 6/4/2015 7/28/2015

Appendix D: Nutrient Concentrations South Basin Lake Moraine Nitrate + Total Total Date Depth Nitrite Nitrogen Phosphorus (mg N/l) (mg N/l) (mg P/l) 0m bd 0.41 0.021 9/28/2013 12m bd 0.59 0.067 0m bd 0.37 0.009 11/9/2013 12m 0.12 0.91 0.895 0m 0.46 0.90 0.013 4m 0.44 0.76 0.008 2/1/2014 8m 0.84 1.21 0.017 12m 0.75 1.18 0.015 0m 1.65 1.94 0.031 4m 1.41 1.59 0.013 3/1/2014 8m 0.50 0.79 0.012 12m 0.68 0.51 0.037 0m 0.61 1.15 0.014 4m 0.76 1.01 0.013 3/23/2014 8m 1.17 1.29 0.008 12m 1.17 1.21 0.007 0m 0.73 1.00 0.013 4m 0.72 0.92 0.019 4/27/2014 8m 0.70 0.87 0.017 12m 0.70 0.92 0.015 0m 0.54 no data 0.016 4m 0.59 no data 0.022 5/15/2014 8m 0.70 no data 0.019 12m 0.68 no data 0.020 0m 0.39 no data 0.014 4m 0.46 no data 0.015 6/4/2014 8m 0.68 no data 0.010 12m 0.38 no data 0.023 0m 0.12 0.67 0.010 4m 0.12 0.48 0.010 6/19/2014 8m 0.39 0.83 0.012 12m 0.39 0.78 0.009

South Basin Lake Moraine Nitrate + Total Total Date Depth Nitrite Nitrogen Phosphorus (mg N/l) (mg N/l) (mg P/l) 0m bd no data 0.012 4m 0.27 no data 0.018 7/25/2014 8m bd no data 0.028 12m bd no data 0.051 0m bd 0.20 0.015 4m bd 0.35 0.024 8/23/2014 8m bd 0.20 0.014 12m bd 0.70 0.110 0m bd 0.32 0.016 4m bd 0.21 0.033 9/7/2014 8m bd 0.24 0.021 12m bd 1.43 0.615 0m bd 0.32 0.015 4m bd 0.30 0.023 10/16/2014 8m bd 0.25 0.017 12m bd 0.92 0.115 0m 0.51 0.93 0.011 4m 0.71 0.98 0.005 2/22/2015 8m 0.88 1.18 lab error 12m 0.90 1.25 0.038 0m 0.55 0.94 0.011 4m 0.67 0.93 0.014 3/21/2015 8m 0.87 1.21 0.012 12m 0.81 1.25 0.015 0m 0.35 no data 0.018 4m 0.46 no data 0.017 5/23/2015 8m 0.57 no data 0.018 12m 0.33 no data 0.023 0m 0.35 0.57 0.015 4m 0.42 0.82 0.021 6/4/2015 8m 0.70 1.08 0.029 12m 0.37 0.65 0.013 0m 0.02 0.20 bd 4m 0.03 0.21 bd 7/28/2015 8m 0.41 0.70 bd 12m 0.02 0.90 0.034

Appendix E: How to interpret isopleths

Isopleth figures are used to visually represent parametric and spatial data over time (or other “x” variable). This type of illustration displays data in a similar fashion to elevation contours on a topographical map. Individual data points are input and lines are drawn connecting like numbers. With data displayed in this manner one may choose a particular date and depth (in the example below) and see the temperature at that point in time and space. For example, if one wanted to determine the temperature at 5 meters in July of 2014, simply draw a straight line perpendicular to each axis starting at those values. The point where the lines intersect is the temperature - 22°C - at that depth and time (see below).

Appendix F: Lake Use Law

Town of Madison Local Law #1, 2012

There is a 5 MPH speed limit on the lake during high water conditions. Flags and signs will be posted when the water is high.

Town of Madison Local Law #1, 1986 Section 1. Definitions. (a) “motor boat” as used in this Law means any vessel propelled by any mechanical means other than by hand or sail. (b) “skier” as used in this Law means any person being pulled or carried behind a motor boat whether on water skis, discs, platforms, tubes or otherwise. Section 2. Restrictions on Use of Lake. (a) Swimmers: All swimmers are to stay within one hundred (100) feet of shoreline unless accompanied by a boat. (b) Motor boats: Every operator of a motor boat shall at all times operate his/her boat in a careful ad prudent manner so as not to endanger the property of another or the life or limb of any person, or to interfere with the free and proper use of the water of Lake Moraine. Section 3. Manner of Use. Motor boats shall NOT be operated: (a) At more than 25 miles per hour; (b) At more than 40 miles per hour when pulling a skier(s); (c) By a person less than 14 years of age, unless accompanied by an adult; (d) In any channel between an island and the mainland at more than 5 miles per hour at any time; (e) Within 50 feet of non-motorized crafts at more than 10 miles per hour; (f) Within 100 feet of shore at more than 10 miles per hour unless dropping off a skier(s); (g) Before sunrise or after sunset at more than 10 miles per hour, or without lights before sunrise or after sunset; (h) Without adequate muffler system. Section 4. Further General Restrictions - skiers and non-motorized craft. (a) There shall be no skiing in any channel between an island and the mainland. (b) Boats pulling skiers shall operate in a counterclockwise direction around the lake. (c) All non-motorized craft shall display a white light or carry a flashlight that may be used as a warning signal during hours of darkness. Section 5. Penalties Any operator of a motor boat who violates Sections 2(b) through 4(a) of this Law shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punishable upon conviction of a fine of not exceeding One Hundred Dollars ($100), or by imprisonment not exceeding thirty (30) days, or both. Upon failure to pay such fine, to be imprisoned in the County Jail until such fine is paid, not to exceed one day for each dollar of the fine imposed.

Madison County Sheriff and NY State Police are prepared to enforce these laws

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.

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