HUDSON LAKE DIAGNOSTIC STUDY

Transcription

1 HUDSON LAKE DIAGNOSTIC STUDY PROJECT SITE: HUDSON LAKE LAPORTE COUNTY, INDIANA PREPARED FOR: HUDSON LAKE CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION 7405 EAST LAKE SHORE DRIVE NEW CARLISLE, INDIANA FUNDING PROVIDED BY: INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES LAKES AND RIVER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM PREPARED BY: V3 COMPANIES 7325 JANES AVENUE WOODRIDGE, ILLINOIS JUNE 19, 2008

2 Executive Summary V3 Consultants, Ltd. performed a watershed diagnostic study for the Hudson Lake Conservation Association and the Indiana Department of Natural Resources on Hudson Lake in La Porte County, Indiana. This study was funded by the Hudson Lake Conservation Association and the Indiana Department of Natural Resource s Lake and River Enhancement Program. Hudson Lake occupies an area of approximately 432 acres at its legal level of The total watershed area tributary to Hudson Lake is approximately 5,170 acres. The primary tributary area to Hudson Lake includes several wetland areas and Saugany Lake, which overflow into Hudson Lake. Historically fluctuations in the lake levels have alternately been high enough to cause flood damage and low enough to limit access and recreational uses of the lake. In 1983, an outlet to the lake was installed in order to limit the high water levels and prevent further flood damages. During the course of this study (January 16, 2007) lake levels were recorded 3.3 feet below the legal level which corresponds to an area of approximately 366 acres. Water quality samples were collected from Hudson Lake and the Unnamed Tributary connecting Saugany Lake and Hudson Lake. The parameters analyzed during water quality sampling include total phosphorus, total nitrogen ammonia, dissolved oxygen, ph, alkalinity, transparency, turbidity, conductivity, oxidation-reduction potential, and temperature. Additionally, historical chemical data obtained from the IDEM were used to evaluate the chemical changes that occurred in the lake throughout the years. Water sample analysis from Hudson Lake and analysis of historic records suggest that Hudson Lake is consistently in an oligotrophic state. Oligotrophic lakes are relatively unusual compared to typical Indiana lakes and may present unique management strategies. This is partially due to the location of the lake in the upper portion of the watershed. In order to maintain the water quality of the lake, several lake management strategies should be employed such as limiting shoreline disturbance to control erosion and limiting pollutant inputs through best management practices. Water sample analysis from the intermittent unnamed tributary to Hudson Lake shows that it exceeds the state standard for E. coli, Total Phosphorus, and DO. All parameters measured are detectable. The lack of permanent flow can greatly affect levels such as temperature and DO. Other parameters, such as E. coli and Total Phosphorous are less dependant on water levels. While it is difficult to quantify the actual nutrient mass loading resulting from this inflow, this indicates that minimizing potential inflows from this water body may assist in attenuating nutrient loading impacts to Hudson Lake. The information gathered as part of this study were analyzed and interpreted so that recommendations could be made to improve the water quality within Hudson Lake and it s watershed. These watershed improvement recommendations include: 1. Watershed Best Management Practices for Agricultural Areas Many of the problems identified in the Diagnostic Study can be tied to non-point sources of pollution. To address these problems it is necessary to implement land use best management conservation practices. These Best Management Practices (BMPs) are behaviors, or ways of conducting business and using the land that are more environmentally friendly, and are often beneficial economically. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies Hudson Lake June 2008

3 Much of the agricultural land throughout the basin is located near the inflow ditches and wetland areas. Sheet flow over these areas and concentrated runoff can carry sediment and nutrients from farm fields into the adjacent streams and wetlands. There are many BMPs that address these non-point source issues, and many of them can be funded through programs offered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Subbasins W3, W4, and W5 (immediately to the south and west of Hudson Lake) were identified as the highest priority areas for watershed best management practices for agricultural areas. 2. Watershed Best Management Practices for Urban Areas As land uses change and become more urbanized, best management practices will become more important to control pollutants from these areas. Two subbasins, W6 and W7 (immediately north of Hudson Lake) were identified to implement watershed best management practices for urban areas. Several BMPs that individual homeowners and urban areas can employ to improve water quality have been identified in the diagnostic study. 3. High Capacity Well Feasibility Study It is recommended that a feasiblity study be conducted to evaluate the possibility of using high capacity wells to supplement lake levels. Based on this diagnostic study and conversations with watershed residents, the most significant watershed problem may be the declining water levels in Hudson Lake. This problem is not a result of water quality or ecology concerns, but rather is an aesthetic and recreational concern. Low lake levels can have an impact on recreational uses of the lake and may have impacts to the biological communites and chemical characteristics of the lake. Low lake levels may cause the disappearance of some typical vegetation. The water quality of the lake may also be affected by the lower levels with increased pollutant concentrations.. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies Hudson Lake June 2008

4 Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study Table of Contents 1.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS INTRODUCTION Project Purpose Objectives CURRENT WATERSHED CONDITIONS Location, Characteristics, and Size of the Hudson Lake Watershed Climate Soils and Geology Wetlands and Riparian Zones Regulatory Floodplain Regulated Drains Trends in Land Development Threatened and Endangered Species Significant Natural Areas and Unique Recreational Resources LAKE BIOASSESSMENT Chemical Analysis and Water Quality Macroinvertebrate Communities Physical Habitat Fish Communities Aquatic Plant Survey Nuisance Species WATER BUDGET LAKE SHORELINE SEDIMENTATION NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION WATERSHED MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS HUDSON LAKE DIAGNOSTIC STUDY PUBLIC MEETINGS REFERENCES 79 Diagnostic Study V3 Companies Hudson Lake June 2008

5 APPENDICES Appendix 1 Threatened and Endangered Species Correspondence Appendix 2 Sampling Station Photographs Appendix 3 Water Quality Data Sheets Appendix 4 Macroinvertebrate and Habitat Field Data Sheets and Photographs Appendix 5 Tier I Survey Data Sheets Appendix 6 Water Budget Calculations Appendix 7 Nonpoint Source Pollution Calculations Appendix 8 Lake Level, Ground Water and Climate Change Interaction LIST OF TABLES Table 1- Physical Characteristics of Hudson Lake Table 2 Historical Climate Data (NCDC Normals, LaPorte, Indiana, ) Table 3 Major Soil Associations in the Hudson Lake Watershed Table 4 Land Use in the Hudson Lake Watershed (NLCD 2001) Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species from the Hudson Lake Watershed Table 6 Water Quality Characteristics of Hudson Lake Table 7 Plankton Species and Abundance Table 8 Water Quality Characteristics of the Unnamed Tributary to Hudson Lake Table 9 Scoring Criteria for mibi Table 10 V3 Macroinvertebrate Species List Table 11 Results from Macroinvertebrate Sampling on Tributary to Hudson Lake Table 12 Habitat Results from Tributary to Hudson Lake Table 13 Advisory Groups of the Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Table 14 Fish Consumption Advisory Species List for Hudson Lake Watershed Table 15 - Bed 1 Composite Aquatic Plant Inventories Table 16 - Bed 2 Composite Aquatic Plant Inventories Table 17 - Bed 3 Composite Aquatic Plant Inventories Table 18 - Bed 4 Composite Aquatic Plant Inventories Table 19 - Bed 5 Composite Aquatic Plant Inventories Table 20 Lake Shoreline Survey at Hudson Lake, August 29, 2007 Table 21 Nonpoint Source Pollution Modeling Results Table 22 On-Farm Conservation Practices Supported by the USDA to Help Improve Water Quality Table 23 Potential Sources of Funding Table 24 Best Management Practices Pollutant Removal Efficiency Table 25 Best Management Practices for Urban Areas Diagnostic Study V3 Companies Hudson Lake June 2008

6 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Project Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 USGS Topographic Map Exhibit 3 Hydrologic Unit Code Map Exhibit 4 Annual Precipitation Schematic Exhibit 5 Cross-Section AA Exhibit 6 Cross-Section CC Exhibit 7 LaPorte County Soil Survey Exhibit 8 Highly Erodible Soils Exhibit 9 Hydric Soils Exhibit 10 Septic Suitability Map Exhibit 11 National Wetlands Inventory Map Exhibit 12 Floodplain Map Exhibit 13 LaPorte County Regulated Drains Exhibit 14 Trends in Land Development Exhibit 15 Landuse Map Exhibit 16 Significant Natural Areas Exhibit 17 Unique Recreational Resources Exhibit 18 Macroinvertebrate Sampling Station Location Exhibit 19 Aquatic Plant Beds 2007 Tier I Sampling Exhibit 20 Hudson Lake Water Balance Exhibit 21 Hudson Lake Shoreline Exhibit Exhibit 22 Total Suspended Solids Exhibit 23 Total Phosphorus Exhibit 24 Total Nitrogen Exhibit 25 Prioritization Map Diagnostic Study V3 Companies Hudson Lake June 2008

7 1.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to acknowledge Bill Companik and Steve Varela of the Hudson Lake Conservation Association for their assistance and involvement with the diagnostic study and public meetings. Public meetings were held on January 6, 2007 to introduce the project, and on May 24, 2008 to discuss the findings of the watershed diagnostic study. We would also like to acknowledge Gwen White and Jim Ray with IDNR s LARE program for guidance, review and comments. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 1 Hudson Lake June 2008

8 2.0 INTRODUCTION Hudson Lake is located in the Northeast section of LaPorte County and is the largest lake located in the county. Its 432 acres of surface water provide for a variety of recreational uses for area residents (approximately 1,762 in the immediate area according to the US Bureau of the Census 2000). The lake has a small residential beach that provides for sunbathing and swimming and commercial and public road access facilities provide boat launch services for lake fishing, water skiing, boating, windsurfing, sailing and jet skiing. Other uses include snorkeling and scuba diving. Winter recreation focuses mainly on ice fishing, snowmobiling, and ice-skating. The watersheds that feed the lake originate mainly in the west and the water flows easterly to a horizontal passive drain located at the deep end of the lake at the lakes legal level on the Eastern shore. The Western end of the lake also contains a 5+ acre island that serves as firm ground for five lake homes and cottages. Access to the island is limited to the summer season with sufficient water to enable embarkation and disembarkation by boat. Winter access is provided only during January/February when the ice is of sufficient depth to safely cross the lakes surface. An aerial photo taken by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1998 (below) provides an outline of the lake, it s island located Central-Central West and tributary wetlands and ponds that feed off the lake (five such bodies mainly to the North and East of Hudson Lake). Hudson Lake aerial, April 12, 1998 USGS More recent satellite images demonstrate the effects of changing weather patterns affecting the lakes water quality (quantity, fish and plant life), recreational use (access to lake & island and lake related activities), and future (below). Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 2 Hudson Lake June 2008

9 Hudson Lake aerial, Spring 2005 Google From the period between 1998 and 2004, approximately 40% of the surface area has been lost due to lack of water while plant growth increased significantly in all areas including the previously clear Eastern shore. From the Spring of 2004 to the present, the entire western half of the surface area has been eliminated resulting in a further 10-20% reduction In lake surface area. The focus of our Modified Lake Diagnostic and Engineering Study is to evaluate the lake s condition and trends in the lake and it s subwatersheds. We are particularly interested in learning what effect if any the water levels play in relation to maintaining a high quality lake capable of serving its historical recreational uses. 2.1 Project Purpose V3 Companies, Ltd. (V3) has provided technical services to the Hudson Lake Conservation Association (HLCA) in conducting a modified lake diagnostic study of Hudson Lake in La Porte County, Indiana. The purpose of the study is to describe the current condition and historical trends of the Hudson Lake Watershed and its subwatershed components, and to recommend remedial strategies for watershed improvements. In addition, the causes of low levels within Hudson Lake were evaluated and an initial evaluation of the suitability of using high capacity wells to moderate the lake level fluctuations within Hudson Lake has been completed. 2.2 Objectives The Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study follows the guidelines suggested by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Lake and River Enhancement Program (LARE). The main objectives of this diagnostic study are as follows: Describe the current conditions and historical trends within the Hudson Lake watershed, Identify potential nonpoint source water quality problems, Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 3 Hudson Lake June 2008

10 Propose specific direction for future implementation of best management conservation practices, and Predict and assess success factors for future implementation projects. The study was conducted in four different phases. First, V3 collected and reviewed available historical data and previous work, water chemistry data, precipitation and evaporation data in La Porte County, and aerial and topographic maps. This information was crucial in understanding the historical and current state of Hudson Lake and its watershed. Second, V3 conducted lake survey events during which lake sampling and tributary sampling activities were conducted. Additionally, lake shoreline and streambank erosion data were collected and an evaluation of the lake s biological community was conducted. Third, a field survey was conducted that assisted in the delineation of the Hudson Lake watershed for the purposes of this diagnostic study. Land use information was also compiled in order to construct a land use map for the Hudson Lake watershed. The fourth phase involved the analysis and interpretation of data collected in the previous three phases of the study. Based on this assessment, recommendations were developed for improvement of conditions within the Hudson Lake Watershed. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 4 Hudson Lake June 2008

11 3.0 CURRENT WATERSHED CONDITIONS 3.1 Location, Characteristics, and Size of the Hudson Lake Watershed Location and Physical Characteristics Hudson Lake is located near New Carlisle, in the northeast portion of La Porte County, Indiana (Section 28, Township 38 North, Range 1 West, New Carlisle Quadrangle, Exhibit 1 Project Vicinity Map, and Exhibit 2 USGS Topographic Map). The county boundary between La Porte and St. Joseph Counties runs between Hudson Lake and New Carlisle. Historically, the lake occupied an area of about 432 acres (0.68 square miles) with a maximum depth of 42 feet and an approximate volume of 5,060 ac-ft. Hudson Lake has been experiencing a decline in water levels over the past five years with the water level on January 16, 2007 measuring approximately 3.3 feet lower than the legal level of (based on field observations). At this elevation, the lake occupies an area of about 366 acres with a volume of approximately 4,280 ac-ft. The physical characteristics of Hudson Lake are summarized in Table 1. Table 1 Physical Characteristics of Hudson Lake Current Conditions Based on January 16, 2007 Historical Records Field Observations 3 Surface Area 432 acres acres Volume 5,060 ac-ft 1 4,280 ac-ft Maximum Depth 42 feet feet Total Hudson Lake Watershed Size 5,070 acres 1 5,170 acres 1 USGS Data Report Water Year Indiana Department of Environmental Management 3 Calculated values based on V3 data review and field observations Inflow/Outflow The primary tributary area to Hudson Lake includes several wetland areas and Saugany Lake, which overflow into Hudson Lake. In 1983, an outlet to the lake was installed. High water levels, resulting in property damage prompted the installation of the outlet. The USGS Topographic Map (Exhibit 2) illustrates that Hudson Lake drains to Taylor Ditch, which drains to Geyer Ditch, and eventually reaches the Kankakee River. However, the lake level has not reached this outlet for multiple years, leading to the conclusion that the lake system has an annual net loss to groundwater. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 5 Hudson Lake June 2008

12 ± V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: Project Vicinity Map N/A CLIENT: Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO. EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: N/A 04/04/ NTS E:\2006\06213\Reports\Natural Resources\Wetland\Exhibits\Exhibit I Project Vicinity Map.mxd

13 ± V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: USGS Topographic Map N/A Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle /04/08 1"=3000' E:\2006\06213\Reports\Natural Resources\Wetland\Exhibits\Exhibit 2 USGS Topo.mxd

14 Legend Hudson Lake Watershed USGS Hydologic Unit Code-14 Subwatersheds ± V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: Hydrologic Unit Code - 14 USGS Topographic Map Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle /04/08 1"=3000' E:\2006\06213\Reports\Natural Resources\Wetland\Exhibits\Exhibit 3 Hydrologic Unit Code.mxd

15 Chemical Characteristics The water sampling parameters and analytical methods used for understanding the chemical characteristics of Hudson Lake and its tributary were consistent with those used under the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) sampling s program. Those parameters include total phosphorus, total nitrogen ammonia, dissolved oxygen, ph, alkalinity, transparency, turbidity, conductivity, oxidation-reduction potential, and temperature. Additionally, historical chemical data obtained from IDEM was used to evaluate the chemical changes that occurred in the lake throughout the years. The results of the current sampling and review of historical chemical parameters are presented in Section 4.0 Lake Bioassessment. Watershed Size Hudson Lake is located within the 14-digit Hydrologic Unit Code watershed as shown in Exhibit 3 (Hydrologic Unit Code Map). The total watershed area tributary to Hudson Lake is approximately 5,170 acres. The Hudson Lake watershed is divided into three subwatersheds: Upstream Depressional, Saugany Lake, and Hudson Lake. The Upstream Depressional subwatershed area is approximately 870 acres; the Saugany Lake subwatershed area is approximately 715 acres; and the Hudson Lake subwatershed area is approximately 3,585 acres. 3.2 Climate The Hudson Lake watershed is characterized by a humid continental climate, which is somewhat modified by the Great Lakes. This modification or lake effect can manifest itself by a moderation of temperature and increased precipitation. This is due to winds blowing over the lake and being influenced by water temperature in the lake and evaporation from the lake. This can have a cooling effect in these areas in the summer compared to other parts of the country, and can result in warmer temperatures in the winter months. Precipitation within the Hudson Lake watershed is well distributed throughout the year, and is adequate for most crops. The average daily maximum temperature in July is 82.7ºF, and the average daily minimum in January is 15.8ºF. Typical relative humidity is about 65% in the midafternoon. Humidity is higher in the evening and is approximately 80% at dawn. Using climate data from La Porte, Indiana, from , the average temperature during winter is around 26.2ºF with the average daily minimum being approximately 19ºF. The lowest temperature on record occurred on February 2, 1951 and again on January 20, 1985 and was -23ºF. In summer, the average temperature is about 71.5ºF with the average daily maximum temperature being around 81ºF. The highest temperature on record occurred on September 1, 1953 and was 104ºF. Crop growth is slowed early in the growing season by the frequent cool winds blowing over Lake Michigan. This can be important for fruit crops that need to blossom after the spring freezes are past to insure a good yield. Fall winds warmed by the waters of Lake Michigan prolong the growing season for crops grown in the region. The average growing season, using 32ºF as a daily minimum temperature, is approximately days. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 9 Hudson Lake June 2008

16 Precipitation is generally well distributed throughout the year but is slightly lower in mid to late winter. Rainfall is moderately heavy and averages inches annually. The record rainfall based on data from occurred on August 28, 1978, and totaled 6.00 inches. Average annual snowfall is 63.4 inches. The record snowfall occurred on January 26, 1978, and totaled 19.5 inches. However, beginning in 1993 there has been a gradual decrease in the amount of precipitation falling in the area of La Porte occupied by the Hudson Lake Watershed. Exhibit 4 Annual Precipitation Schematic shows a graph of precipitation values with a 3-year moving average value line. The estimated precipitation range that is necessary to maintain water levels in the lake at or near the legal level is approximately 35.5 to 38 inches per year. Consecutive or closely spaced years of precipitation lower than this threshold range, historically show lake levels decreasing. Based on the analyzed precipitation data, the lack of precipitation appears to be the cause of the low lake levels within Hudson Lake. As shown in Exhibit 4, fluctuation in the lake s level over time has been extreme at times with the most significant drop in elevation since 1945 occurring in 1966 when lake levels dropped to approximately 760, and the most significant increase in elevation occurring in 1982 when lake levels reached approximately 766. An outlet from Hudson Lake was constructed in 1983 (prior to 1983 there was no defined outlet) in order to minimize damages caused by high water levels. Table 2 provides information on temperature and precipitation for the survey area as recorded at La Porte, Indiana for the period of 1971 to Table 2 Historical Climate Data (NCDC Normals, La Porte, Indiana, ) Maximum Temperature ( o F) Minimum Temperature ( o F) Mean Temperature ( o F) Mean Precipitation (in) Mean Snowfall (in) Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Monthly Mean N/A N/A Annual Total N/A N/A N/A Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 10 Hudson Lake June 2008

17

18 3.3 Soils and Geology The landscape within the Hudson Lake watershed is the product of the Lake Michigan Lobe and Eastern Lobe of the Wisconsinan glacial event. The unconsolidated deposits in this region are part of the Valparaiso Moraine and are characterized by a broad till-capped area of subdued topography (Beaty, 1990). The surficial deposits north and west of Hudson Lake consist of a clay loam to silt loam till. Southwest of the Lake are intensely pitted outwash deposits, and to the south and east of the lake, the surficial geology is made up of outwash-fan deposits. This outwash fan is part of the Valparaiso Moraine Aquifer System, which is known to yield from 100 to 600 gallons per minute. This consists of both shallow and deep aquifers. This may be a possible location for high capacity wells to supplement water levels within Hudson Lake. Upon investigating the geology and hydrogeology of the area around Hudson Lake, using the IDNR water well database records, it was determined that there are two aquifer systems at Hudson Lake. The first is a shallow sand and gravel aquifer that supplies local groundwater flow towards the lake and the second is a deeper more conductive sand and gravel aquifer beneath the lake bottom. The two aquifer systems are separated by a thin stratigraphic layer of clay and silt mixed with gravel and sand. The lower aquifer is a regional system, which naturally has a higher conductivity. Cross sections are provided in Exhibits 5 and 6. The higher conductivity aquifer beneath creates a system that attracts water flow from the lower conductivity unit above. This downward type flow is only found at the bottom depths of the upper aquifer, which happens to be where the lake bottom is located. The lake s net loss to the groundwater makes the water balance sensitive and dependent on surface water to maintain water levels. Indiana bedrock formations have been assigned ages that place them in the Paleozoic Era. Paleozoic Era literally means old life, meaning the creatures living in that time period were many, but were not considered very advanced (Clark, 1980). Because of the thickness of the glacial till, little is seen of the bedrock surface in northern Indiana except in a few scattered quarries. Within the Hudson Lake Watershed, the bedrock consists of Devonian and Mississippian Ellsworth Shale. This Shale has limestone or dolomite lenses in the upper part, and variable colored shale units in the lower regions. Ground water potential at this depth is not known since major aquifer systems are available in the unconsolidated glacial deposits overlying this shale bedrock system and it has not therefore been necessary to investigate water availability in the bedrock system. Parent materials are the unconsolidated mass in which a soil forms. In the Hudson Lake watershed, this material was deposited by glaciers or by meltwater as the glaciers retreated. The dominant parent materials in the basin were deposited as glacial till, outwash deposits, lacustrine deposits, alluvium, and organic material (Furr, 1982). Although these materials are of common origin, their properties may vary greatly from field to field. In addition, some of the material has been re-worked and re-deposited by the action of wind and water over time. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 12 Hudson Lake June 2008

19 Elevation (ft) Cross Section AA Vertical Exaggeration ± Distance (m) V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: Cross-Section AA N/A Hudson Lake Conservation Association 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: 1 OF: 1 QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle 04/04/08 NTS

20 Elevation (ft) Distance (m) V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: Cross Section CC Vertical Exaggeration Cross-Section CC N/A Hudson Lake Conservation Association 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: 6000 Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: 1 OF: 1 QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle 04/04/08 NTS ±

21 There are hundreds of different soil types throughout Indiana based on their unique characteristics. Each county arranges these soil types by like characteristics into groups, or major Soil Associations. These soil associations can provide a guide to the soils in the county for general uses; however the soils in any one map unit can differ in slope, depth, drainage, and other characteristics that affect management and may not be suitable for small scale projects (such as field management, construction projects, etc.) without further soils investigation. Of the nine major soil associations found in La Porte County, only two are found within the Hudson Lake watershed. These major soil associations are listed in Table 3 along with their general characteristics, the percentage located within the county, and their use. A comprehensive map of soil types throughout the Hudson Lake watershed may be found on Exhibit 7. Table 3 Soil Association Tracy- Chelsea Riddles Major Soil Associations in the Hudson Lake Watershed (NRCS Soil Survey, La Porte County) County Characteristics Coverage Nearly level to very steep, well drained and excessively drained soils that formed in loamy and sandy outwash and eolian material 31% Nearly level to very steep, well drained soils that formed in loamy glacial till 7% Use Mostly used for cultivated farm crops and specialty crops. Soils are suitable for trees and poorly suited to sanitary facilities Used mainly for woodland and pasture and some orchards. Suitable for cultivated crops, trees, and fairly well suited for sanitary facilities Highly Erodible Soils Exhibit 8 shows the soils within the Hudson Lake watershed that are considered highly erodible or potentially highly erodible. These soils are especially susceptible to the erosional forces of wind and water. Approximately 1,518 acres (33%) of the soils in the Hudson Lake watershed are considered to be in this category. Erosion increases not only sedimentation of the water but is also a source for nutrient impairments. Although erosion cannot be prevented, the effects can be moderated so that it does not diminish the productive capacity of the soil or result in excessive sedimentation in rivers, streams, and lakes throughout the watershed. In addition, the use of no-till or reduced till farming practices (conservation tillage) can be used to help reduce soil erosion. Based on the 2007 Indiana Cropland Tillage Transect Survey, no-till corn increased in the State of Indiana from 19% (2004) to 27% (2007) and soybeans went from 61% (2004) to 69% (2007). However, in La Porte County, no-till bean practices decreased from 53% (2004) to 37% (2007), while no-till corn practices increased from 7% (2004) to 18% (2007), based on percentage. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 15 Hudson Lake June 2008

22 ± RlF BaA Hh RlC2 Hh PeRlB2 RlC2 RlD2 RlC2 BaA RlF RlB2 RlB2 Ua BaAHh Hh Wh Ua Pe RlB2 BaA RlB2 Hh BaA Hh BaA RlC2RlD2 Wh BaA BaA RlB2 RlF RlC2 RlB2Hm W RlD2 Wh Hh Pe RlB2 RlC2 BaA RlB2 RlD2 RlD2 Pe Hh Hm RlA Pe BaA TcB RlD2 Hh BaA RlC2 RlD2 TcB WeBaA BaA Hh RlF RlC2 RlC2 RlC2 RlD2 RlC2 RlD2 Hh RlB2 RlC2 Hh Hh BaA MrB2 RlC2 Wh BaA RlC2 Hm RlC2 RlD2RlC2 BaA WhRlD2 RlA RlB2 RlC2 Hh Wh Wh RlB2 RlB2 Hm RlC2 RlC2 BaA RlB2 Pe Wh BaA TcC2 HaA BaA Pe Wh RlB2 TcB Hh BaA Wh RlA RlA Hm BaA Wh RlD2 Wh Wh W RlC2 Wh TcB Wh Pe WhRlB2 RlC2 RlC2 RlC2 RlB2 RlB2 RlB2 Hm RlB2 RlB2 RlB2 Hm Hh Wh Hk Wh HmRlC2 TcB Hm Hh TcB RlC2 RlB2 TcD2 Wh RlC2 Wh Hm BaA TcC2 TcB Wh W Wh TcA RlA Ua RlB2 TcC2 CoA RlA RlB2 TcC2 RlB2 Ua TcC2 Hm RlB2 RlA Hh HaA W RlB2 RlA Hm CoA Tr Hh TcB Wh TcB TcB BaA RlB2 BaA TcC2 Wh TcC2 RlB2 Wh Hh BaA RlB2 TcF TcB Pe RlC2 TcD2 TcC2 Wh TcC2 TcD2 RlB2 TcF TcD2 TcB TcF TcC2 TcC2 TcF RlB2 Wh TcC2 TcA TcB RlC2 TcB TcC2 TcD2 TcD2 Wh Hh TcA TcC2 Tr CoB TcB TcC2 Wh Br TcC2 TcD2 Hh TcB Wh Tr TcB TcC2 TcB TcB TcD2 Gf TcD2 Br TcC2 TcB Tr ChC TcA W TcD2 Wh TcD2 TcA Br Qu TcD2 Ph TcD2 TcA TcC2 CoB TcC2 TcC2 TcC2 TcB TcC2 TcB Hh TcB TcB TcA Hh Wh RlB2 Hh TcA TcB WhTcD2 RlC2 TcC2 TcC2 TcB TcFTcC2 TcD2 TcC2 TcD2 TcB TcA Hh TcB Wh Wh Tr TcB HhTcC2 Tr TcC2 TcB TcA TcA TcB Pa Tr Tr TcD2 Hh TcD2Tr Tr TcC2 TcBTr Tr RlA Legend RlB2 TcA Tr EsB Water ( acres) Soils (4, acres) V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: LaPorte County Soil Survey USGS Topographic Map Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle /04/08 1"=3000' E:\2006\06213\Reports\Natural Resources\Wetland\Exhibits\Exhibit 7 Soils.mxd

23 Legend Hudson Lake Watershed Water ( acres) HEL (1, acres) ± ChC - Chelsea fine sand MrB2 - Morley silt loam RlC2 - Riddles loam RlD2 - Riddles loam RlF - Riddles loam TcC2 - Tracy sandy loam TcD2 - Tracy sandy loam TcF - Tracy sandy loam V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: Highly Erodible Soils USGS Topographic Map Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle /04/08 1"=3000' E:\2006\06213\Reports\Natural Resources\Wetland\Exhibits\Exhibit 8 HELs.mxd

24 Hydric Soils Soils that remain saturated or inundated with water for a sufficient length of time become hydric through a series of chemical, physical, and biological processes. Once a soil takes on hydric characteristics, it retains those characteristics even after the soil is drained. Approximately 1,040 acres or 20% of the soils in the Hudson Lake watershed are considered hydric (Exhibit 9). However, a large majority of these soils have been drained for either agricultural production or urban development. This information can be used to consider locations for possible wetland creation or enhancement. Septic Tank Suitability In rural areas, households usually depend on septic tank absorption fields. These waste treatment systems require soil characteristics and geology that allow gradual seepage of wastewater into the surrounding soils. Seasonal high water tables, shallow compact till and coarse soils present limitations for septic systems. While system design can often overcome these limitations (i.e. perimeter drains, mound systems or pressure distribution), sometimes the soil characteristics prove to be unsuitable for any type of septic system. Heavy clay soils require larger (and therefore more expensive) absorption fields; while sandier, well-drained soils are often suitable for smaller, more affordable gravity-flow trench systems. The septic disposal system is considered failing when the system exhibits one or more of the following: The system refuses to accept sewage at the rate of design application, thereby interfering with the normal use of plumbing fixtures, Effluent discharges exceed the absorptive capacity of the soil, resulting in ponding, seepage, or other discharge of the effluent to the ground surface or to surface waters, or Effluent is discharged from the system causing contamination of a potable water supply, ground water, or surface water. In Indiana, prior to 1990, residential homes on ten acres or more of land, and at least 1,000 feet from a neighboring residence, did not have to comply with any septic system regulations. A new septic code in 1990 fixed this loophole, but many of these homes still do not have functioning septic systems. The septic effluent from many of these older homes discharges into field tiles and eventually flows to open ditches and waterways. Unfortunately, the high cost of septic repair (typically from $4,000 to $15,000) has been an impediment to modernization. Exhibit 10 is a map of soil classes related to septic suitability within the watershed. Soils labeled very limited indicate that the soil has at least one feature that is unfavorable for septic systems. There are approximately 3,319 acres (64%) of very limited soils within the Hudson Lake watershed. Soils labeled somewhat limited indicate that the soils have features that are moderately favorable for septic systems. There are approximately 1,330 acres (26%) of somewhat limited soils within the watershed. Approximately 524 acres (10%) of the soils within the watershed are not rated. These soils have not been assigned a rating class because it is not industry standard to install a septic system in these geographic locations. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 18 Hudson Lake June 2008

25 A failing septic system s effect on the environment can be difficult to measure. It is estimated that each failing septic system can discharge more than 76,650 gallons of untreated wastewater per year (Lee, Jones, and Peterson 2005). Untreated wastewater contains excessive nutrients that can impair surface water and groundwater. One of the most critical factors in septic system performance is the type of soils where the system is located. Since the majority of the soils in the Hudson Lake watershed (64%) are very limited, excessive nutrients in surface water and groundwater may indicate that failing septic systems are located within the watershed. There are no records available to pinpoint the location of specific failing septic systems in the Hudson Lake watershed. However, the LaPorte County Health Department On-Site Sewage System Section maintains records for new construction and repairs to older septic systems. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 19 Hudson Lake June 2008

26 Legend Water ( acres) Hydric Soils ( acres) Gf - Gilford fine sandy loam ± Hh - Histosols and Aquolls Hm - Houghton muck Pa - Palms muck Pe - Pewamo silty clay loam Ph - Pinhook loam Qu - Quinn loam We - Warners silt loam Wh - Washtenaw silt loam Hudson Lake Watershed V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: Hydric Soils USGS Topographic Map Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle /04/08 1"=3000' E:\2006\06213\Reports\Natural Resources\Wetland\Exhibits\Exhibit 9 Hydric Soils.mxd

27 ± Legend Very Limited (3, acres) Somewhat Limited (1, acres) Not Rated ( acres) V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: Septic Suitability Map USGS Topographic Map Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle /04/08 1"=3000' E:\2006\06213\Reports\Natural Resources\Wetland\Exhibits\Exhibit 10 Septic Suitability.mxd

28 3.4 Wetlands and Riparian Zones Of the total land area in the Hudson Lake Watershed, approximately 886 acres (17% of the total watershed area) are wetlands according to the National Wetland Inventory (NWI). Approximately 443 acres of the NWI identified wetlands are considered lacustrine and 443 acres are considered palustrine. The locations of the wetlands are shown in Exhibit 11. Wetlands provide numerous valuable functions that are necessary for the health of the Watershed. They play a critical role in protecting and moderating water quality. Water quality is improved through a combination of filtering and stabilizing processes. Wetland vegetation adjacent to waterways and lakes help to stabilize slopes and prevent mass wasting, thus reducing the sediment load within the river or lake system. An unprotected streambank or shoreline can easily erode, which results in an increase of sediment and nutrients entering the water. Additionally, wetland vegetation removes pollutants through the natural filtration that occurs, or by absorption and assimilation. This effective treatment of nutrients and physical stabilization leads to an increase in overall water quality to downstream reaches. In addition, wetlands have the ability to increase stormwater detention capacity, increase stormwater attenuation, and moderate low flows. These benefits help to reduce flooding and erosion. Wetlands also facilitate groundwater recharge by allowing water to seep slowly into the ground, thus replenishing underlying aquifers. This groundwater recharge is also valuable to wildlife during the summer months when precipitation is low and the base flow of the river draws on the surrounding groundwater table. Although wetlands occupy a small percentage of the surrounding landscape, these areas typically contain large percentages of wildlife and produce more flora and fauna per acre than other ecosystems. As a result of this high diversity, wetlands provide many recreational opportunities, such as fishing, hunting, boating, hiking, and bird watching. 3.5 Regulatory Floodplain Flooding is one of the most common hazards in the United States. Floods can occur on a local level, or can affect entire river basins. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for many parts of the country in order for individuals and governments to assess the risk of flooding in specific areas. These maps also indicate what insurance rates property owners may need to pay to develop property in these areas. The Hudson Lake watershed is located on FEMA FIRM Panel C (Revision Date: June 4, 1996). There are no special flood hazard areas on this panel. Currently, the IDNR Division of Water (DNR-DOW), in conjunction with FEMA, is in the process of updating the floodplain mapping throughout the State. The La Porte County study is in progress with preliminary maps scheduled to be released in In 2004, DNR-DOW created interim digital FIRMs for the State. Exhibit 12 shows the regulatory floodplain in the vicinity of Hudson Lake. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 22 Hudson Lake June 2008

29 Legend Palustrine Wetlands ± Lacustrine Wetlands Hudson Lake Watershed V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: National Wetlands Inventory Map USGS Topographic Map Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle /04/08 1"=3000' E:\2006\06213\Reports\Natural Resources\Wetland\Exhibits\Exhibit 11 NWI.mxd

30 ± Legend Hudson Lake Watershed Floodplains 1 PCT FUTURE CONDITIONS (0 acres) A (0 acres) AE (0 acres) AH (0 acres) AO (0 acres) X (0 acres) V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: Floodplain Map USGS Topographic Map Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle /04/08 1"=6000' E:\2006\06213\Reports\Natural Resources\Wetland\Exhibits\Exhibit 12 Floodplain_new.mxd

31 3.6 Regulated Drains Regulated drains consist of creeks, ditches, tiles (underground pipe systems), and other structures intended to move runoff water. There are three regulated drains within the Hudson Lake watershed. Exhibit 13 shows the approximate location of these regulated drains. Regulated drains are under the jurisdiction of the local county drainage board and the County Surveyor s office. Indiana statue IC contains the County Drainage Code, which authorizes this regulation of the drains to the county drainage board. The intent of the County Drainage Code is to provide hydraulic efficiency to control flooding and ponding through maintenance and construction activities within the regulated drains. Funding is available for maintenance and reconstruction of the regulated drains that are not functioning properly and/or have significant erosion and stabilization issues. If it is determined that modification of any of these regulated drains would be required for improvement of water quality within Hudson Lake, approval would be required from the county drainage board. Drainage areas that were not identified as regulated drains during this study may be regulated at the time of improvement activities, therefore the County Surveyor should be notified of any activities in drainage areas that are currently or could potentially become regulated drains. The regulated drain entering Hudson Lake from the west was the only intermittent tributary that possessed surface water and could be used for gathering water quality information. The adjacent photograph shown herein is from the regulated drain entering Hudson Lake from the north. This intermittent tributary did not possess surface water which could be sampled during the study, even during storm flow conditions. The drainage way did not have a defined bed or banks. Water is entering Hudson Lake from other subwatersheds predominantly through groundwater flow. Residents commented during the public meetings that springs had been present on the west side of Hudson Lake when the island had been surrounded by water. Now that the island is no longer surrounded by water, the locations of the springs are no longer providing water. It is assumed that the declining water level elevations in Hudson Lake are directly related to the elevations in the groundwater table, however, there is no recorded data set to support this conclusion. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 25 Hudson Lake June 2008

32 3.7 Trends in Land Development Many of the metropolitan areas across the country and in Indiana are experiencing extraordinary growth rates. Between 2000 and 2006, the average population increase for the State was approximately 3.8%. However, La Porte County only saw an increase of 0.3% in population during the same time period. Exhibit 14 shows the changes in population from 1990, 2000, and 2006 within the Hudson Lake watershed. The Hudson Lake watershed consists of approximately 5,170 acres of mixed landuse (Table 4, and Exhibit 15). The Hudson Lake watershed is divided into three subwatersheds: Upstream Depressional, Saugany Lake, and Hudson Lake. Landuse for each of these subwatersheds is also shown in Table 4, and will be referred to in discussions of water quality and pollutant loading analysis. Based on the National Land Cover Database 2001 (NCLD 2001), the three predominant land uses in the Hudson Lake watershed are cultivated crops (29.0%), forests (25.8%), and pasture/hay (10.7%). Developed area only accounts for 17.1% of the total watershed area. Land use in the Upstream Depressional subwatershed, like the overall watershed, is primarily farmland, forest, and pasture/hay use. Only 8.2% of the subwatershed is developed into residential use. Residential development makes up 25.9% of the Saugany Lake subwatershed land use, accounting for the largest percentage of developed area of the three subwatersheds. A large percentage of undeveloped land includes cultivated crops and forest land. Saugany Lake itself accounts for 10.1% of the subwatershed area. Land use within the Hudson Lake subwatershed consists of 17.4% developed area and approximately 54.7% forested and cultivated land. Hudson Lake accounts for 10.5% of the area. Summary Comparing an aerial photograph of the area immediately adjacent to Hudson Lake from 1996 (provided in Appendix 8) with aerial photographs from 2003 indicates that land use within the Hudson Lake watershed has not significantly changed within the last 10 years. However, slightly higher concentrations of development are apparent in the 2003 aerial. Land use data from the National Land Cover Database from 1999 also supports this finding. Between the 1999 data and the 2001 data, developed land increased approximately 11% (from 6.1% to 17.1%) and cultivated land increases approximately 4.5% (from 24.5% to 29.0%). To account for the increases in certain types of land use, decreases must be seen in others. The most significant decrease from the 1999 data to the 2001 data was pasture which decreased approximately 14.5% (from 25.2% to 10.7%). Some of these changes may be attributed to different methodology between the data sets; however overall the data and photographs support the general trend of a slowly changing watershed. As more areas are urbanized and cultivated areas decrease, a change in the type and amount of nonpoint source pollution may be seen. Section 7.0 describes the calculations involved with establishing expected pollutant loads based on land use. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 26 Hudson Lake June 2008

33 Legend Regulated Drains ± Hudson Lake Watershed V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: LaPorte County Regulated Drains USGS Topographic Map Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle /04/08 1"=3000' E:\2006\06213\Reports\Natural Resources\Wetland\Exhibits\Exhibit 13 Legal Drains.mxd

34 Legend 1990 Population 0-1,500 1,500-1,700 1,701-1, Population Estimate GALENA TOWNSHIP HUDSON TOWNSHIP 2006 Population Estimate GALENA TOWNSHIP HUDSON TOWNSHIP ± 1,901-2, Population Estimate GALENA TOWNSHIP HUDSON TOWNSHIP Legend Legend 2000 Population 0-1, Population 0-1, ,700 1,500-1,700 1,701-1,900 1,901-2,200 1,701-1,900 1,901-2,200 V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: Trends in Land Development N/A Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: 1 QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: N/A 04/04/08 NTS E:\2006\06213\Reports\Natural Resources\Wetland\Exhibits\Exhibit 14 Trends in Land Development.mxd

35 ± Legend Open Water Deciduous Forest, Evergreen Forest Pasture/Hay Woody Wetlands Developed: Open Space, Low Intensity and Medium Intensity Grassland/Herbaceous Cultivated Crops Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: Landuse Map N/A Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle /04/08 1"=3000'

36 Table 4 Land Use in the Hudson Lake Watershed (NLCD 2001) Overall Watershed Upstream Depressional Saugany Lake Hudson Lake Land Use Acres Percentage Acres Percentage Acres Percentage Acres Percentage Open Water % % % % Developed, Open Space % % % % Developed, Low Intensity % % % % Developed, Medium Intensity % % % % Deciduous Forest, Evergreen Forest % % % % Grassland/Herbaceous % % % % Pasture/Hay % % % % Cultivated Crops % % % % Woody Wetlands % % % % Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands % % % % Total % % % % NLCD 2001 Land Cover Class Definitions Open Water - All areas of open water, generally with less than 25% cover of vegetation or soil. Developed, Open Space - Includes areas with a mixture of some constructed materials, but mostly vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. Impervious surfaces account for less than 20% of total cover. These areas most commonly include large-lot single-family housing units, parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes. Developed, Low Intensity - Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 20-49% of total cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units. Developed, Medium Intensity - Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 50-79% of the total cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units. Diciduous Forest - Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater than 20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75% of the tree species shed foliage simultaneously in response to seasonal change. Evergreen Forest - Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater than 20% total vegetation cover. Canopy is never without green foliage. Grassland/Herbaceous - Areas dominated by grammanoid or herbaceous vegetation, generally greater than 80% of total vegetation. These areas are not subject to intensive management such as tilling, but can be utilized for grazing. Pasture/Hay - Areas of grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for livestock grazing or the production of seed or hay crops, typically on a perennial cycle. Pasture/hay vegetaion accounts for greater than 20% of the total vegetation. Cultivated Crops - Areas used for the production of annual crops, such as corn, soybeans, vegetables, tobacco, and cotton, and also perennial woody crops such as orchards and vineyards. Crop vegetation accounts for greater than 20% of total vegetation. This class also includes all land being actively tilled. Woody Wetlands - Areas where forest or shrubland vegetation accounts for greater than 20% of vegetatioce cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered with water. Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands - Areas where perennial herbaceous vegetation accounts for greater than 80% of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered with water. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 30 Hudson Lake June 2008

37 3.8 Threatened and Endangered Species The IDNR was contacted to provide any Indiana Natural Heritage Data or related records for any listed threatened, endangered, or rare species, high quality natural communities or natural areas documented within the Hudson Lake watershed. Their response indicated that the Hudson Lake watershed is home to three state endangered species, which includes one federal candidate species. The Tier II aquatic plant survey conducted in 2007, by Aquatic Restoration Systems, LLC. found Fries pondweed (Potamogeton freisii) which is also state-listed but was not identified in the letter from IDNR. The IDNR describes state endangered species as any animal species whose prospects for survival or recruitment within the state are in immediate jeopardy and are in danger of disappearing from the state. The state also lists species that are threatened, rare, significant, and of special concern. State threatened, rare, and significant species include three high quality natural communities, two mammal species, one reptile species, and eleven vascular plant species. The list of state endangered and threatened species is shown in Table 5. The presence of rare species can be explained several different ways. All of these species are remnant of high quality natural communities. There are three of these communities that are located within this watershed. These communities tend to possess rare species because they have had fewer land use disturbances. Several of the rare species are associated with a specific community, such as the greenkeeled cotton-grass and an acid bog. Other plants may have lost their high quality area and opportunistically occur in locations that suit their needs, in the case where Swink and Wilhelm (1994) found wild calla is growing in ditches in La Porte County. Hudson Lake is an oligotrophic lake which is high quality with respect to sediment and nutrient loading. This likely contributes to the presence of rare plant species. Water clarity allows plants to grow at deeper depths and allows for more diverse niches to be filled. There are several things that can be done to assist the survivorship of rare species occurring in the watershed. The areas that are considered high quality natural communities should be preserved. Residents should use less fertilizers or phosphorus free fertilizers and participate in BMP s in order decrease the amount of nutrient and sediment loading reaching the lake. The continued efforts of HLCA to control invasive species, such as Eurasian watermilfoil, will prevent the ability of invasive species to crowd-out rare species. Also, if a restoration is planned, restoring an area that will favor recruitment of the rare species that are in the area will help maintain the diversity within the watershed. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 31 Hudson Lake June 2008

38 Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species from the Hudson Lake Watershed Type Species Name Common Name Status High Quality Forest - upland mesic Mesic Upland Forest State Significant Natural Wetland - bog acid Acid Bog State Significant Communities Forest - swamp shrub Shrub Swamp State Significant Mammal Lynx rufus Bobcat No rank Taxidea taxus American Badger No rank Reptile State Endangered Sistrurus catenatus Eastern Massasauga Federal Candidate Vascular Plant Bidens beckii Beck Water-marigold State Threatened Calla palustris Wild Calla State Endangered Eriophorum Green-keeled Cottongrass viridicarinatum State Rare Geranium robertianum Herb-robert State Threatened Juncus balticus var. littoralis Baltic Rush State Rare Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine State Rare Potamogeton praelongus White-stem Pondweed State Threatened Potamogeton robbinsii Flatleaf Pondweed State Rare Potamogeton vaseyi Vasey's Pondweed State Endangered Utricularia minor Lesser Bladderwort State Threatened Utricularia purpurea Purple Bladderwort State Rare 3.9 Significant Natural Areas and Unique Recreational Resources The IDNR identified three high quality natural communities within the Hudson Lake watershed: the mesic upland forest, acid bog, and shrub swamp. These significant natural areas are not located on IDNR or conservation organization owned land and are therefore not shown on the Significant Natural Area Exhibit (Exhibit 16). The Nature Conservancy manages the approximately 40 acre Yellow Birch Wetland located north of the Hudson Lake watershed. Unique recreational resources within the Hudson Lake watershed include both Hudson Lake and Saugany Lake. Both of these lakes provide public access sites for motorboats and personal watercraft. Fishing, swimming, and picnicking are also available. A lakeside camping area is also available adjacent to Hudson Lake. The recreational value of Hudson Lake is largely dependent on the water level. When the water level declines, access to the lake becomes restricted and portions of the lake become completely inaccessible. For recreational purposes, the maintenance of the water level at the lakes legal level is desirable. The unique recreation resources within the Hudson Lake watershed are shown on Exhibit 17. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 32 Hudson Lake June 2008

39 ± kj ^_ Natural kj Legend Features Big Trees IDNR Public Recreational & Alt. Transportation Trails Lakes Managed Lands Local Park Board and Recreation Department Private - The Nature Conservancy Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish & Wildlife Hudson Lake Watershed V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: Significant Natural Areas N/A Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle /04/08 1"=4000' E:\2006\06213\Reports\Natural Resources\Wetland\Exhibits\Exhibit 16 Significant Natural Areas.mxd

40 ±!y!y!y Legend Public Access Site Camping or Trailer Park Hudson Lake Watershed V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: Unique Recreational Resources N/A Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle /04/08 1"=3000' E:\2006\06213\Reports\Natural Resources\Wetland\Exhibits\Exhibit 17 Unique Recreational Resources.mxd

41 4.0 LAKE BIOASSESSMENT 4.1 Chemical Analysis and Water Quality Several parameters were evaluated when looking at the overall water quality of Hudson Lake and its watershed. The following is a brief description of the major factors that determine or effect water quality during both lake and tributary sampling. Turbidity. The water s transparency can be affected by two primary factors: algae and suspended particulate matter. An increase in the density of the phytoplankton or total suspended solids (TSS) signifies an increase in the water s turbidity. Total Suspended Solids (TSS). Total suspended solids is a water quality measurement which refers to the portion of total solids retained by a filter, whereas total dissolved solids (TDS) refers to the portion that passes through the filter. The principal factors affecting separation of TSS and TDS are the type of filter holder, pore size, porosity, area, and thickness of the filter and the physical nature, particle size, and amount of material deposited on the filter. TSS measurements and modeling are frequently used to represent sediment loading. Flow. Measuring stream flow, or discharge rate, calculates the volume of water that is flowing in a stream. The rate is expressed in cubic feet per second, and is established by multiplying the average width, depth and velocity of the stream. While flow is not a measurement of water quality, knowing the flow rate of a stream provides information on the effect a tributary has on the main stem or a lake. Changes in flow rate can also reflect conditions in the watershed such as drought, storm events, or increased impervious surfaces. Secchi Disk Transparency. Secchi disk transparency refers to the depth to which the black and white disk can be seen in the lake water. Water clarity, as determined by a Secchi disk, is affected by two primary factors: algae and suspended particulate matter. Particulates (soil or dead leaves) may be introduced into the water by either runoff or sediments already on the bottom of the lake. Erosion from construction sites, agricultural lands, and riverbanks all lead to increased particulate content. Bottom sediments may be resuspended by bottom-feeding fish or by motorboats or strong winds in shallow areas of lakes. Temperature. Temperature affects overall water quality in the stream in several ways. Colder water holds more dissolved oxygen than warmer water. Higher temperatures can lead to increased photosynthesis and plant growth. Decomposition of greater quantities of organic matter causes increased biological oxygen demand. All aquatic life has a preferred temperature range and temperatures outside of those ranges are detrimental to aquatic life. Dissolved Oxygen (DO). DO is the gaseous form of oxygen and is essential for respiration of aquatic organisms (e.g., fish and plants). DO enters water by diffusion from the atmosphere through riffles, runs, and below dams. It also enters as a byproduct of photosynthesis by algae and other plants. During the day, DO levels increase as a byproduct of photosynthesis, but as plant respiration continues throughout the night, DO levels drop. DO is also consumed during bacterial decomposition of plant and animal matter. Low levels of DO in the water do not Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 35 Hudson Lake June 2008

42 provide adequate oxygen for aquatic organisms. High levels of DO in the water could be an indicator of excessive algae growth. Indiana s 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Methodology, 2005, designates water quality values for DO which support aquatic life as those values greater than 5.0 mg/l and no greater than 12.0 mg/l. Salinity. Salinity is a measure of the total salts that are dissolved in water, in parts per thousand (ppt). Salinity will be variable based on location and time of year. Plants are adversely affected by high salinity, which can cause stunted growth, leaf burn, and defoliation. The most commonly used road salt is sodium chloride (NaCl). NaCl dissociates in aquatic systems into chloride anions (Cl-) and sodium cations (Na+). This also results in a higher conductivity reading. Elevated sodium and chloride levels create osmotic imbalances in plants, which inhibit water absorption and reduce root growth. Various species of fish, amphibians, and aquatic macroinvertebrates are adversely impacted by increased levels of sodium and chloride. Conductivity. The conductivity of water is the reciprocal of its resistance to electrical flow. The resistance of a water solution to electrical current or electron flow is reduced with increasing content of ionized salt. Distilled water has a conductivity of zero. The purer the water is, the lower its conductivity. Specific Conductance. Specific Conductance is the conductance at 25ºC. This reading is important because conductivity readings are directly linked to temperature and can change up to 3% for a change of one degree Celsius. ph. The acidity or alkalinity of water is measured using the ph scale. Water contains both hydrogen ions (H + ) and hydroxide ions (OH - ) and the relative concentrations of these ions determine whether it is acidic, neutral, or alkaline. ph ia defined as log [H + ]. A low ph signifies an acidic medium, acids are defined as proton donors (lethal effects of most acids begin to appear at a ph of 4.5). A high ph signifies an alkaline medium, alkalis are defined as proton acceptors (lethal effects of most alkalis begin to appear at a ph of 9.5). Neutral ph is 7. The actual ph of a water sample indicates the buffering capacity of that waterbody. Indiana s 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Methodology, 2005, designates water quality values which support aquatic life for ph as values between 6 and 9. Escherichia coli. E. coli is a member of the fecal coliform group of bacteria. When this organism is detected within water samples, it is an indication of fecal contamination. E. coli is an indigenous fecal flora of warm-blooded animals. Contributions of detectable E. coli colonies may appear within water samples due to the input from human or animal waste. Human waste can enter a surface water system through combined sewer overflow events or failed septic systems. Common sources of animal waste are livestock operations (pigs, cattle, etc.), pet waste, or wildlife waste (such as deer, raccoons, Canada geese, or gulls). Rain storm events or snow melts frequently wash waste and the associated E. coli into surface water systems. The state standard in Indiana for E. coli is 235 colony forming units/100 ml (cfu/100ml). The measure of cfu per 100 ml refers to the count of colony forming units that exist in 100 milliliters of water. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 36 Hudson Lake June 2008

43 Nitrogen. Nitrogen is another major cellular component of organisms. Nitrogen can enter water bodies from the air and also through human and animal waste, decomposing organic matter, and runoff of fertilizer from lawns and crops. (Hoosier Riverwatch, 2005). Nitrogen in surface water is used by bacteria, algae and larger plants. The four common forms of nitrogen are: Nitrite (NO 2 ) is an intermediate oxidation state of nitrogen, both in the oxidation of ammonia to nitrate and in the reduction of nitrate. Nitrate (NO 3 ) generally occurs in trace quantities in surface water but may attain high levels in some groundwater. In excessive amounts, it contributes to the illness known as methemoglobinemia in infants. The current USEPA standard of 10 parts per million (ppm) for drinking water is specifically designated to protect infants from this disorder. Ammonia (NH 4 ) is present naturally in surface waters. Bacteria produce ammonia as they decompose dead plant and animal matter. The concentration of ammonia is generally low in groundwater because it adheres to soil particles and clays and does not leach readily from soils. Organic nitrogen (TKN) is defined functionally as organically bound nitrogen in the tri-negative oxidation state. Organic nitrogen includes nitrogen found in plants and animal materials, which includes such natural materials as proteins and peptides, nucleic acids and urea. In the analytical procedures, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) determines both organic nitrogen and ammonia. Raw sewage will typically contain more than 20 mg/l. Phosphorus. Phosphorus is a major cellular component of organisms. Phosphorus can be found in dissolved and sediment-bound forms. However, phosphorus is often locked up in living biota, primarily algae. In the watershed, phosphorus is found in fertilizers and in human and animal wastes. The availability of phosphorus determines the growth and production of algae and makes it the limiting nutrient in the system. Dissolved phosphorus is important because it is readily usable by algae and other plants. The two common forms of phosphorus are: Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) is dissolved phosphorus readily usable by algae. SRP is often found in very low concentrations in phosphorus-limited systems where the phosphorus is tied up in the algae and cycled very rapidly. Sources of SRP include fertilizers, animal wastes, and septic systems. Total phosphorus (TP) includes dissolved and particulate forms of phosphorus. According to Indiana s 305(b) Assessment, in order to classify a water body impaired by nutrients, measurements of Total Phosphate need to be >0.3 mg/l and it must be combined with another nutrient impairment such as ph, nitrogen, or dissolved oxygen. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). BOD provides a means of determining the relative oxygen requirements of aerobic bacteria in water. The test measures the molecular oxygen utilized during a five-day incubation period for the biochemical degradation of organic material (carbonaceous demand) and the oxygen used to oxidize inorganic material such as sulfides and ferrous iron. High levels of BOD are undesirable as they indicate the presence of large amounts of organic matter in the stream. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 37 Hudson Lake June 2008

44 Heavy Metals. Historical data included other parameters including heavy metals (arsenic, barium, and cadmium). Heavy metals influence and have the potential to degrade the health of the aquatic ecosystem. Many heavy metals bind to sediment. Lake Sampling The Indiana Clean Lakes Program was created as a program within the IDEM Office of Water Management. The program s lake quality assessment goals include: identifying water quality trends in individual lakes, identifying lakes that need special management, and tracking water quality improvements due to industrial discharge and runoff reduction programs. As part of the Indiana Clean Lakes Program, water quality samples of Hudson Lake were taken in 1991, 1995, 1999, and V3 also sampled several water quality parameters of Hudson Lake during the Tier I survey in Table 6 summarizes the chemical characteristics of Hudson Lake gathered by IDEM and V3. Table 7 summarizes the plankton species and blue-green abundance in Hudson Lake during the IDEM Clean Lakes Program sampling. Table 6 Water Quality Characteristics of Hudson Lake 1991 (IDEM) 1995 (IDEM) 1999 (IDEM) 2005 (IDEM) 2007 (V3) Parameters Max Depth (m) Secchi Disk Depth (m) Light at 3' (%) % Light Level (ft) DO at 5' (%) % Water Column Oxic ph - epi ph - hypo Cond - epi (umhos) Cond - hypo (umhos) Alk - epi Alk - hypo SRP - epi (mg/l) SRP - hypo (mg/l) TP - epi (mg/l) TP - hypo (mg/l) Chl a (mg/m 3 ) NO3 - epi (mg/l) NO3 - hypo (mg/l) NH3 - epi (mg/l) NH3 - hypo (mg/l) TKN - epi (mg/l) TKN - hypo (mg/l) Temp - epi ( o C) Plankton (#/L) ITSI TSI (Secchi) TSI (Chl a) TSI (TP - epi) Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 38 Hudson Lake June 2008

45 Table 7 Plankton Species and Abundance 1991 (IDEM) 1995 (IDEM) 1999 (IDEM) 2005 (IDEM) Parameters Total Plankton (#/L) Blue-Green Dominance (%) Blue-Greens (#/L) Greens (#/L) Diatoms (#/L) Other Algae (#/L) Rotifers (#/L) Zooplankton (#/L) The following summarizes a few of the basic water quality conditions and trends of Hudson Lake based on available historic water quality data and parameters collected during the current study. Historic phosphorus indicates that the total phosphorus concentrations fluctuate over time. In the short term they may appear to increase (0.018 mg/l in 1995 compared to mg/l in 1999), however over in the long term they appear to be decreasing (.026 mg/l in 1991 compared to mg/l in 2005). Additionally, a consistent pattern exists of lower concentrations in the surface waters and higher concentrations in the bottom waters. This suggests that there is phosphorus being released from sediments in the bottom of the lake. Like phosphorous, historic nitrogen concentrations fluctuate over time. Overall, there is a slight decrease in nitrogen levels (0.759 mg/l in 1991 compared to mg/l in 2005). Additionally, concentrations of nitrogen are consistently higher in the hypolimnion. Ammonium concentrations also follow the same trends (0.021 mg/l in 1991 versus mg/l in 2005). Since ammonium is a by-product of bacterial decomposition, this suggests an intense bacterial activity in the bottom of the lake. The DO profile of Hudson Lake shows that oxygen deficiency conditions (anoxic) start at a depth of approximately 5 meters. This upper section of the lake is also the section where there is enough light for photosynthesis or algae growth to occur. Below the 5 meter depth, dissolved oxygen concentrations rapidly decline, indicating that bacteria decompose algae as they settle down the water column. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 39 Hudson Lake June 2008

46 Dissolved Oxygen versus Depth in Hudson Lake Depth (m) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) The temperature profile of Hudson Lake shows the epilimnion area ranges from 0 to 4 meters the metalimnion ranges from 4 to 8 and the hypolimnion from 8 to 12.8 meters. Temperature versus Depth in Hudson Lake Depth (m) Temperature (Degrees C) Due to the complex nature and variability of water quality data, a trophic state index (TSI) is used to aid in the evaluation of water quality data. The concept of trophic status is based on the fact that changes in nutrient levels (measured by total phosphorus) causes changes in algal biomass (measured by chlorophyll a) which in turn causes changes in lake clarity (measured by Secchi disk transparency). Carlson s Trophic State Index (TSI Secchi, TSI Chl a, TSI TP-epi) is a common measurement used for classifying the trophic state of a lake (EPA, 2008). The Indiana State Trophic Index (ITSI) has been used to rank Indiana lakes since the mid 1970 s. The ITSI includes 10 metrics composed of biological, chemical, and Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 40 Hudson Lake June 2008

47 physical parameters, all of which must be evaluated in order to achieve an accurate score. In the ITSI, the total eutrophy points range from 0 to 75. A score of 0-15 represents oligotrophic conditions, mesotrophic conditions, eutrophic conditions, and 46 and greater represents hypereutrophic conditions. Carlson s TSI is valuable to quickly demonstrate the associations between total phosphorus, chlorophyll a and Secchi transparity, however it does not characterize the lake chemistry or algal communities as fully as the ITSI. Because many states have their own more complex indices, the Carlson s TSI is also useful for comparing lakes within other states. Historic ITSI trends of Hudson Lake indicate that the ITSI fluctuates over time. In the short term it appears to increase in some instances (8 in 1999 compared to 11 in 2005), however over in the long term it appears to be decreasing (13 in 1991 compared to 11 in 2005). It should also be noted that in all 4 historic records, Hudson Lake is consistently in an oligotrophic state. An oligotrophic lake is generally a lake with low nutrient content. These lakes tend to have low algal production and often have very clear waters. The bottom waters typically have ample oxygen, thus the ability to support may fish species. Oligotrophic lakes are relatively unusual compared to typical Indiana lakes and may present unique management strategies. Section 8.0 discusses the prioritization of management areas and appropriate best management practices. The graph below illustrates the changes in ITSI and Carlson s TSI over time. Trophic State Index TSI Value Year ITSI TSI (Secchi) TSI (Chl a) TSI (TP-epi) Tributary Sampling V3 sampled an unnamed intermittent tributary to Hudson Lake on September 21, Two other intermittent tributaries were investigated but not sampled as they did not have surface water present. Photos of the sampled tributary are located in Appendix 2. Exhibit 18 shows the sampling location for physical and chemical water quality, macroinvertebrates and habitat. Water samples were obtained from the surface water flow and were analyzed for several chemical parameters during base flow conditions. The results of this sample are included in Table 8. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 41 Hudson Lake June 2008

48 ± LEGEND Sampling Station Location V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: Macroinvertebrate Sampling Station Loction N/A Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle /04/08 1"=3000'

49 Table 8 Water Quality Characteristics of the Unnamed Tributary to Hudson Lake, September 21, 2008 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 4.5 ph 7.9 Conductivity (us/cm) 796 Total Phosphorus (mg/l) 0.32 Ortho Phosphate (mg/l) 0.23 Turbidity (NTU) 9.09 Nitrogen - Ammonia (mg/l) 0.27 Nitrogen - Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/l) 1.80 Nitrate/Nitrite (mg/l) 0.17 Temperature ( o C) 21.1 Salinity (ppt) 0.4 Escherichia Coli (cfu/100 ml) >2,419.6 The results show that the unnamed tributary to Hudson Lake exceeds the state standard for E. coli, Total Phosphorus, and DO. All parameters measured are detectable. Additionally, these concentrations are significantly higher than the concentrations within Hudson Lake. While it is difficult to quantify the actual nutrient mass loading resulting from this inflow (for reasons discussed further in Section 7.0), this indicates that minimizing potential inflows from this water body may assist in attenuating nutrient loading impacts to Hudson Lake. The lack of permanent flow can greatly affect levels such as temperature and DO. The less water there is, the more likely the temperature of the tributary will reach higher readings during the day and lower readings at night. Increased temperature can be a cause of algal blooms which can cause the DO to be at a very low level. DO is also affected more because there is less water to hold oxygen in, so the life in the stream can deplete the oxygen supply faster. Other parameters, such as E. coli and Total Phosphorous are less dependant on water levels. Best management practices (BMPs) should be implemented in order to decrease nutrient and E. coli loading in the stream (see Section 8.0 for more information). 4.2 Macroinvertebrate Communities One station, at a point in the unnamed tributary between Saugany and Hudson Lake just upstream of the inlet to Hudson, within the Hudson Lake watershed was evaluated for macroinvertebrate communities, habitat, and water chemistry. This station is shown in Exhibit 18 and described in Table 8. Macroinvertebrates and habitat were sampled on September 21, Data sheets from field sampling are located in Appendix 4. Macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity Macroinvertebrate monitoring followed IDEM s macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (mibi) for the single habitat approach. The single habitat approach involves sampling riffle/run areas within the sampling reach. A composite sample should be Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 43 Hudson Lake June 2008

50 made from two kick samples (2 m²). The sample is collected by using a one meter wide kick net with 500 µ opening mesh. One person stands downstream of the kick net while holding it, while another person disturbs a 1 m² area upstream of the net by using the heel or toe of the their boot to dislodge the material in the streambed. Larger substrate is picked up and rubbed by hand to dislodge the organisms that are attached to the rocks. All material and organisms that are caught in the net are collected for a later sub-sample. In the lab a 100 individual sub-sample is used in order to analyze the data. This is done by spreading the sample in a pan with 25 cm² squares. Each square is chosen randomly and all macroinvertebrates are removed from the square. Squares are chosen until the sub-sample reaches 100 individuals. After the collection of 100, there is a 15 minute random grabbing (with forceps) of individuals that are left in the tray to complete the sub-sample. The collected organisms in the sub-sample are identified to the family level using appropriate field guides. In addition, specimens are vouchered and sent to Purdue University to verify that all taxon identifications are correct. The collection procedure provides representative macroinvertebrate fauna from riffle/run substrate in the sampling reach. IDEM s mibi uses a multi-metric index to analyze each station and provide a complete assessment of a stream s biological integrity. The mibi uses ten metrics which evaluate a macroinvertebrate community s species richness, evenness, composition, and density within the stream. These metrics include the family-level HBI (Hilsenhoff Biotic Index), number of taxa, number of individuals, percent dominant taxa, EPT index, EPT count, EPT count to total number of individuals, EPT count to Chironomid count, Chironomid count, and number of individuals per number of squares sorted. (EPT stands for the Ephemeropteran, Plecopteran, and Trichopteran orders) These metrics are shown in Table 9. Each metric is scored from 0 8 where 8 is the highest quality. All metrics are added together and averaged to get a station score. A final score of 0 2 is a severely impaired stream, 2 4 is moderately impaired, 4 6 is slightly impaired and 6 8 is not impaired for biological quality. Table 9: Scoring criteria for mibi Scoring HBI > < 4.08 Number of Taxa < > 18 Number of Individuals < > 350 Percent Dominant Taxa > < 22.1 EPT Index < > 8 EPT Count < > 195 EPT To Total Number < > 0.69 EPT to Chironomid < > Chironomid Count > < 6 Number of Individuals/Number of Squares Sorted < > 410 Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 44 Hudson Lake June 2008

51 An explanation of key benthic macroinvertebrate evaluations is summarized below: Tolerance/Intolerance Measures. Tolerance/intolerance measures are intended to be representative of relative sensitivity to perturbation. Tolerance is generally nonspecific to the type of stressor. However, metrics such as the HBI are oriented toward the detection of organic pollution. The HBI was developed to detect organic pollution and is based on the family level index developed by William Hilsenhoff in Pollution tolerance values range from 0 to 10 and increase as water quality decreases. The lower the HBI, the greater the number of pollution intolerant species. A population of benthic macroinvertebrates that poses a lower HBI value is indicative of higher water quality. Richness Measures. Total number of taxa is a measure of the diversity within the sample. This value generally increases with increasing water quality, habitat diversity, and habitat suitability. EPT Index summarizes the richness of the benthic macroinvertebrate community within the taxa groups that are generally considered pollution sensitive and will generally increase with increasing water quality. This metric is the total number of distinct taxa within the groups Ephemeroptera (mayfly), Plecoptera (stonefly) and Tricoptera (caddisfly). Composition Measures. Percent Dominant Taxa uses the abundance of the numerically dominant taxa relative to the total number of organisms as an indication of community balance. This value will decrease as water quality, habitat diversity, and habitat suitability improve. The EPT to Chironomid metric reflects good biotic condition if the sensitive groups (EPT s) demonstrate a substantial representation. If the Chironomidae have a disproportionately large number of individuals in comparison to the sensitive groups then this situation is indicative of environmental stress. V3 identified all macroinvertebrate specimens to family level after collecting all of the field data and taking sub-samples. Table 10 shows how many of each family were found at each station. V3 sent 11 voucher specimens of macroinvertebrates to Purdue University, Department of Entomology to be verified. Representative photographs of the macroinvertebrates are located in Appendix 4. V3 used the mibi to analyze macroinvertebrates. The data and classification score are depicted on Table 11. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 45 Hudson Lake June 2008

52 Table 10 V3 Macroinvertebrate Species List ORDER FAMILY Station 1 Pelecypoda Sphaeriidae 2 Gastropoda Physidae 34 Annelida Oligochaeta 5 Isopoda 24 Coleoptera Dytiscidae 9 Haliplidae 6 Hydrophilidae 5 Hemiptera Corixidae 1 Diptera Blood-red Chironomidae 1 Other Chironomidae 44 Table 11 Results From Macroinvertebrate Sampling on Tributary to Hudson Lake mibi Field Results Scoring HBI Number of Taxa 10 2 Number of Individuals Percent Dominant Taxa EPT Index 0 0 EPT Count 0 0 EPT To Total Number 0 0 EPT to Chironomid 0 0 Chironomid Count 45 4 Number of Individuals/Number of Squares Sorted Average mibi Score 1.4 The overall score for the tributary to Hudson Lake is 1.4, which indicates that it is severely impaired. Most pollution sensitive macroinvertebrates were absent from this sample. These species are also more sensitive to stream intermittency and poor habitat. This sample was missing EPT s, Megalopterans (Dobsonflies), and Odonatans (dragonflies and damselflies). There are several reasons why these groups were missing. Many of these groups need water perennially to develop into adults. The intermittent nature of this tributary does not allow these species the timeframe to develop into adults. Also, this tributary lacks the habitat features necessary to satisfy the habitat requirements of some of these species. For instance, many caddisflies need to have a cobble and boulders in a riffle section of streams. With these limitations on habitat, the results were not unexpected. No recommendations should be made based on the biological community due to the intermittent nature and size of the tributary. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 46 Hudson Lake June 2008

53 4.3 Physical Habitat The habitat evaluation followed IDEM s Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) habitat assessment approach. Habitat incorporates all aspects of physical and chemical constituents along with the biotic interactions. Habitat includes all of the instream and riparian habitat that influences the structure and function of the aquatic community in a stream. The QHEI habitat assessment approach was developed to describe the overall quality of the physical habitat. An altered habitat structure is considered one of the major stressors of aquatic systems. The purpose for evaluating the physical habitat features of the selected locations within the Hudson Lake watershed is to quantify and qualify the condition and quality of the instream and riparian habitat. The maximum points possible for each of the habitat parameters are as follows: Substrate = 20, In-stream Cover = 20, Channel Morphology = 20, Riparian Zone and Bank Erosion = 10, Pool/Glide Quality = 12, Riffle/Run Quality = 8 and Gradient = 10. The highest score that can be obtained using IDEM s QHEI is a value of 100. A QHEI score of 51 or less indicates a poor habitat (IDEM, 2006). The physical habitat was evaluated at a point in the unnamed tributary between Saugany and Hudson Lake just upstream of the inlet to Hudson Lake. Habitat data was taken on September 21, 2007 and is shown in Table 12. The total QHEI score was 35.5 at the tributary. According to IDEM, this indicates that it is poor habitat. Many of the different parameters reflect the intermittent nature of the tributary. The tributary is also very narrow and shallow which limits the amount of types of habitat that are available. The macroinvertebrate community reflects these findings. No recommendations are being made based on habitat because of the small size of the tributary. QHEI was developed to relate habitat to fish populations, so a stream this size has very little chance to have a high score because the lack of available habitat and water to sustain a viable fish population. Table 12 Habitat Results from tributary to Hudson Lake. September 21, 2007 Station 1 Maximum Score Substrate Instream Cover 8 20 Channel Morphology Riparian Zone and Bank Erosion 6 10 Pool/Glide Quality 2 12 Riffle/Run Quality 0 8 Gradient 4 10 Total Score Fish Communities The IDNR has conducted fisheries surveys on Hudson Lake during 1972, 1978, 1981, and The results of the 1990 survey indicate that Hudson Lake has been able to support relatively stable populations of game fish. The survey collected 785 Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 47 Hudson Lake June 2008

54 fish that represented 15 different species. Of the fish collected, the three most abundant species by number were bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), and redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus). IDNR has not conducted fisheries surveys on Hudson Lake since IDNR fisheries management is funded primarily by fishing license fees; lakes that do not have free access for all anglers who purchase those licenses are a lower priority for management. Fish Consumption Advisory Each year the Indiana State Department of Health in conjunction with the IDNR and IDEM published a fish consumption advisory for Indiana. Advisories are based on actual fish tissue data collected from Indiana s rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Guidelines are then published so that the public can make informed decisions based on what type of fish they would like to eat, and the amount of fish that is safe to consume within a given time period. Advisories are based on specific contaminants that can bio-accumulate in fish tissue, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and heavy metals such as mercury. Criteria for these advisories were developed by the Great Lakes Sport Fish Advisory Task Force. Advisories fall in one of the five categories listed below (Table 13). Advisories are different for specific high risks groups such as pregnant women and women who are breastfeeding. Table 13 Advisory Groups of the Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Group Number Definition Unrestricted Consumption. One meal per week for women who are Group 1 pregnant or breast-feeding, women who plan to have children, and children under the age of 15. Group 2 Group 3 Limit to one meal per week (52 meals per year) for adult males and females. One meal per month for women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, women who plan to have children, and children under the age of 15. Limit to one meal per month (12 meals per year) for adult males and females. Women who are pregnant or breast-feeding, women who plan to have children, and children under the age of 15 do not eat. Group 4 Group 5 Limit to one meal every 2 months (6 meals per year) for adult males and females. Women who are pregnant or breast-feeding, women who plan to have children, and children under the age of 15 do not eat. No consumption (DO NOT EAT). Based on the 2007 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory, fish consumption advisories for the Hudson Lake watershed include the following (Table 14): Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 48 Hudson Lake June 2008

55 Table 14 Fish Consumption Advisory Species List for the Hudson Lake Watershed Species Size Class (in) Contaminant Advisory Waterbody Name Carp PCBs Group 3 All rivers and streams Carp PCBs Group 4 All rivers and streams Carp 25+ PCBs Group 5 All rivers and streams 4.5 Aquatic Plant Survey Tier I Survey V3 conducted a Tier I survey of Hudson Lake on August 29, Five plant beds were identified in this survey. The submersed plant community of Hudson Lake covers approximately acres of the lake (Exhibit 19). Herbicide applications were conducted on July 18 and August 24, 2007 on Hudson Lake, therefore the Tier I results are representative of post-treatment vegetative communities. The shallow beds (1,3,4,5) generally are located from 2-10 feet in depth and are typically well vegetated. Plant bed 2 represented a deeper ring of vegetation within Hudson Lake and was dominated by coontail. Each plant bed is described in detail below. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 49 Hudson Lake June 2008

56 ± «3 «4 Legend «5 «2 «1 Emergent Vegetation V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: Aquatic Plant Beds 2007 Tier I Sampling Indiana Spatial Data Service 2006 Orthophotography Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle 8/29/ " = 900'

57 Plant Bed 1 Size: 14.6 acres Substrate: silty/mucky Number of Species: 15 Description: This bed is relatively shallow with depths ranging from 2 to 10 feet is located in the eastern lobe of the lake. It contained a minimal amount of Eurasian watermilfoil (2-20%) and was dominated by eel grass (>60%). Chara was present in moderate abundance and accounted for 21-60% of the bed. Table 15 Bed 1 Composite Aquatic Plant Inventories Species Code Scientific Name Common Name Abundance VALAME Vallisneria americana Eel grass (tape grass) >60% CHARA Chara sp. A chara species 21-60% MYRSPI Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil 2-20% POTPEC Potamogeton pectinatus Sago pondweed 2-20% POTILL Potamogeton illinoensis Illinois pondweed 2-20% POTAMP Potamogeton amplifolius Largeleaf pondweed 2-20% NAJFLE Najas flexilis Slender naiad 2-20% POTGRA Potamogeton gramineus Variable pondweed 2-20% NYMTUB Nymphaea tuberosa White water lily <2% CERDEM Ceratophyllum demersum Coontail <2% POTNAT Potamogeton natans Floating pondweed <2% SCIACU Scirpus acutus Hardstem bulrush <2% PONCOR Pontederia cordata Pickerelweed <2% TYPANG Typha angustifolia Narrow-leaved cattail <2% MYRSIB Myriophyllum sibiricum Northern watermilfoil <2% Plant Bed 2 Size: 53 acres Substrate: silty/mucky Number of Species: 5 Description: This bed is representative of a deeper ring within Hudson Lake with depths ranging from 10 to 20 feet and is located in the eastern lobe of the lake. It contained a moderate amount of Eurasian watermilfoil (2-20%) and was dominated by Coontail (21-60%). Northern milfoil, eel grass, and flat stemmed pondweed were present in moderate abundance and accounted for 21-60% of the bed. Table 16 Bed 2 Composite Aquatic Plant Inventories Species Code Scientific Name Common Name Abundance CERDEM Ceratophyllum demersum Coontail 21-60% MYRSIB Myriophyllum sibiricum Northern watermilfoil 2-20% MYRSPI Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil 2-20% VALAME Vallisneria americana Eel grass (tape grass) 2-20% POTZOS Potamogeton zosteriformis Flat-stemmed pondweed 2-20% Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 51 Hudson Lake June 2008

58 Plant Bed 3 Size: 26.2 acres Substrate: silty/mucky Number of Species: 15 Description: This bed is relatively shallow with depths ranging from 2 to 10 feet and is located in the north-eastern portion of the lake. Plant bed 3 had a diverse assemblage of species and included the purple bladderwort which is state-listed. It contained a moderate amount of Eurasian watermilfoil (21-60%). Chara, eel grass, and variable pondweed accounted for 21-60% of the bed. Table 17 Bed 3 Composite Aquatic Plant Inventories Species Code Scientific Name Common Name Abundance MYRSPI Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil 21-60% CHARA Chara sp. A chara species 21-60% VALAME Vallisneria americana Eel grass (tape grass) 21-60% POTGRA Potamogeton gramineus Variable pondweed 21-60% ZOSDUB Zosterella dubia Water stargrass 2-20% POTILL Potamogeton illinoensis Illinois pondweed 2-20% MYRSIB Myriophyllum sibiricum Northern watermilfoil 2-20% NAJFLE Najas flexilis Slender naiad 2-20% CERDEM Ceratophyllum demersum Coontail 2-20% POTZOS Potamogeton zosteriformis Flat-stemmed pondweed 2-20% POTPEC Potamogeton pectinatus Sago pondweed 2-20% NYMTUB Nymphaea tuberosa White water lily <2% UTRPUR Utricularia purpurea Eastern purple <2% bladderwort POTNOD Potamogeton nodosus American pondweed <2% UTRVUL Utricularia vulgaris Common bladderwort <2% Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 52 Hudson Lake June 2008

59 Plant Bed 4 Size: 43.9 acres Substrate: silty/mucky Number of Species: 20 Description: This bed is relatively shallow with depths ranging from 2 to 10 feet and is located in the western lobe of the lake. Plant bed 4 had a diverse assemblage of species and more emergent species than the other beds. It contained a minimal amount of Eurasian watermilfoil (2-20%). Slender naiad, eel grass, and largeleaf pondweed accounted for 21-60% of the bed. Table 18 Bed 4 Composite Aquatic Plant Inventories Species Code Scientific Name Common Name Abundance VALAME Vallisneria americana Eel grass (tape grass) 21-60% NAJFLE Najas flexilis Slender naiad 21-60% POTAMP Potamogeton amplifolius Largeleaf pondweed 21-60% CERDEM Ceratophyllum demersum Coontail 2-20% POTGRA Potamogeton gramineus Variable pondweed 2-20% CHARA Chara sp. A chara species 2-20% POTPEC Potamogeton pectinatus Sago pondweed 2-20% NYMTUB Nymphaea tuberosa White water lily 2-20% RANLON Ranunculus longirostris White water-cup 2-20% MYRSPI Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil 2-20% ALGA Filamentous alga Algae <2% SCIACU Scirpus acutus Hardstem bulrush <2% NUPVAR Nuphar variegetum Yellow pond lily <2% ELOCAN Elodea canadensis Canada waterweed <2% TYPANG Typha angustifolia Narrow-leaved cattail <2% POTNOD Potamogeton nodosus American pondweed <2% ZOSDUB Zosterella dubia Water stargrass <2% NAJMAR Najas mariana Spiny naiad <2% POTILL Potamogeton illinoensis Illinois pondweed <2% PONCOR Pontederia cordata Pickerelweed <2% Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 53 Hudson Lake June 2008

60 Plant Bed 5 Size: 32.8 acres Substrate: silty/mucky Number of Species: 18 Description: This bed is relatively shallow with depths ranging from 2 to 10 feet and is located in the eastern lobe of the lake. Plant bed 5 was not as densely vegetated as the other beds but still maintained a diverse vegetative community. It contained a minimal amount of Eurasian watermilfoil (2-20%). Chara, eel grass, and Northern watermilfoil accounted for 21-60% of the bed. Table 19 Bed 5 Composite Aquatic Plant Inventories Species Code Scientific Name Common Name Abundance VALAME Vallisneria americana Eel grass (tape grass) 21-60% CHARA Chara sp. A chara species 21-60% MYRSIB Myriophyllum sibiricum Northern watermilfoil 21-60% MYRSPI Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil 2-20% POTPEC Potamogeton pectinatus Sago pondweed 2-20% CERDEM Ceratophyllum demersum Coontail 2-20% POTAMP Potamogeton amplifolius Largeleaf pondweed 2-20% POTGRA Potamogeton gramineus Variable pondweed 2-20% NAJFLE Najas flexilis Slender naiad 2-20% SCIACU Scirpus acutus Hardstem bulrush <2% TYPANG Typha angustifolia Narrow-leaved cattail <2% SPAEUR Sparganium eurycarpum Common bur-reed <2% NYMTUB Nymphaea tuberosa White water lily <2% ZOSDUB Zosterella dubia Water stargrass <2% POTILL Potamogeton illinoensis Illinois pondweed <2% NAJMAR Najas mariana Spiny naiad <2% NITELL Nitella sp. A nitella species <2% RANLON Ranunculus longirostris White water-cup <2% Tier II Survey A Tier II aquatic plant survey was conducted in 2007, by Aquatic Restoration Systems, LLC. Results of this study are outlined within the Draft Report of the Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan for Hudson Lake, La Porte County, Indiana, dated December Pre- and post-treatment floristic surveys designed to inventory and determine the frequency of occurrence, abundance, and plant dominance of aquatic macrophytes within Hudson Lake were conducted during the months of June and August 2007, respectively. Sampling methodology followed the Tier II aquatic vegetation survey protocol modified in May 2007 (IDNR, unpubl. manual). Results from the Tier II aquatic plant survey completed on June 21, 2007, identified a total of 17 species of aquatic plants, two of which are state-listed: 1) purple bladderwort (Utricularia purpurea); 2) Fries pondweed (Potamogeton freisii). Two non-native species, Eurasian water-milfoil and curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), were also Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 54 Hudson Lake June 2008

61 observed. Curly-leaf pondweed was located at 12 sites, but was not considered to be of concern. In contrast, five significant beds of Eurasian water-milfoil were identified. This species was found at a frequency of 40.5%. The results of the survey suggest high species diversity, indicating evenness in the abundance of species across the aquatic plant community. The mapping of Eurasian water-milfoil, supplemented with information from the Tier II survey, targeted 13.5 acres of this species for treatment with 2, 4-D. This area was treated on July 18, 2007 by Aquatic Weed Control, Syracuse, Indiana. A second Tier II survey and mapping was completed on August 17, An additional state-listed species, water-marigold (Bidens beckii), was observed during the reconnaissance mapping of Eurasian water-milfoil. Overall, species distributions and frequencies of occurrence were similar to those observed in the previous survey. However, based on these results and mapping, an additional 9.5 acres of Eurasian water-milfoil were targeted for a second treatment. Herbicide was applied on August 24, 2007 by the aforementioned company. Based on these results and prior herbicide activities, four alternate management options were presented: 1) annual herbicide treatment with 2, 4-D; 2) whole-lake treatment, using Sonar, with the installation of enclosures around the population of water-marigold; 3) initial treatment with 2, 4-D followed by the stocking of 10,000 milfoil weevils; 4) the stocking of 20,000 milfoil weevils. It was highly recommended that the Hudson Lake Conservation Association seek funding to explore these alternative management options. Aquatic Restoration Systems LLC. recommended that the HLCA pursue alternative 3 because it provides both a short- and long-term integrated solution to controlling Eurasian water-milfoil. 4.6 Nuisance Species The Hudson Lake watershed contains several nuisance species that are of concern and the most significant of these species are discussed within this section. At present the most problematic of these species appears to be the Eurasian watermilfoil, which has out competed native aquatic vegetation in portions of the lake. Eurasian water-milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), which is native to Europe, Asia and North Africa, was observed during the aquatic plant survey. Eurasian water-milfoil forms thick underwater tangles of stems with vast mats of vegetation breaking through the surface of the water. The stems become wrapped around boat propellers, and the vegetative mats are nearly impossible to swim through. The dense mats are so thick that it impairs the ability of predatory fish to catch smaller fish, often leading to an overpopulated and stunted fish community. Eurasian water-milfoil has the ability to grow from stem fragments and stolons (specialized stems that creep over the lake bottom). A fragment as small as one stem segment with leaves can take root and grow. Fortunately, this plant has difficulty becoming established in lakes with an undisturbed native plant community. However, it is able to quickly take advantage of any disturbed area, and its growth habitat allows it to rapidly dominate a lake and shade out native plants. It is very easy to transport Eurasian water-milfoil from lake to lake on boats, trailers, anchors, personal watercraft or any other equipment that moves from lake to lake (IEPA and NIPC, 1996). Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 55 Hudson Lake June 2008

62 In Section 4.5 above, there are several recommendations to treat Eurasian watermilfoil. Options 3 and 4 provide the opportunity for long term management with a smaller cost. The Eurasian water-milfoil should still be monitored after that to make sure that the beetles establish and are decreasing the Eurasian water-milfoil population. If the population does not become established, then the methods of Eurasian water-milfoil should be re-evaluated. Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), a fingernail-sized mussel native to the Caspian Sea area of Asia, were collected by V3 ecologists during a Tier I survey of Hudson Lake in August Zebra mussels cause economic damage by clogging intake pipes of water treatment and power plants as well as boat engine cooling systems. Ecologically, they have reduced and may eradicate native mussel species by colonizing upon them in huge numbers and essentially smothering them. Zebra mussels can become so dense (30,000 to 70,000 per square yard) that their filtering activity (up to a quart of water per day per mussel) can have a dramatic effect on the surrounding waterbody. By filtering plankton out of the water, they can significantly increase water clarity and change the ecological structure of the lake community. Zebra mussels were originally introduced to North America through the bilge water of an oceangoing vessel and have used similar means to travel to new lakes and rivers since their arrival. The adult mussels can survive out of water for several days. Zebra mussel larvae (called veligers) can be transported in engine cooling water, live wells, bilges, etc. (IEPA and NIPC, 1996). Currently, there are no management options to control zebra mussels. The only way to control zebra mussels is to prevent them from entering into a new water body. Care should be taken to prevent spreading zebra mussels into unaffected water bodies. Boats that move to different water bodies have the highest chance of transferring zebra mussels. Several steps should be followed in order to prevent their spread. Clean boat, trailer, and other possible infected equipment to remove plant and animal material before leaving the lake. Make sure that water in the boat is drained before leaving the lake; this includes live wells, bilge water, and any other water that may be in the boat. Don t dump the bait bucket water or left over bait into a body of water if it came from a different water body. Before entering a different water body, wash all material that has come in contact with the water with hot water and allow it to dry for several days before transporting the boat to the next lake. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), introduced to the United States as an ornamental plant, was observed by V3 ecologists during the aquatic plant survey. Purple loosestrife grows in very dense masses in wetland environments and along lake shorelines. It can take over a wetland or shoreline, becoming virtually the only plant growing in the area by literally shading out native species. Wildlife numbers also decline in a purple loosestrife dominated system due to the reduction in habitat diversity and the limited habitat and reduced food value purple loosestrife provides. Purple loosestrife spreads primarily from seed. Each plant can produce as many as 2,000,000 seeds each year, although plants also can grow from broken stems that root in moist soil. Seeds may lie dormant for several years waiting for appropriate conditions. Any area that has supported purple loosestrife in the past is likely to have a large bank of dormant seeds in the surrounding soil. The seeds are easily Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 56 Hudson Lake June 2008

63 carried by animals or flowing water. Most sunny wetlands or shorelines are suitable habitat for this plant. Chances of colonization are greatly enhanced by disturbances such as water drawdown, damaged vegetation, or exposed soils. Invasion by purple loosestrife usually begins with a few pioneering plants that build up a seedbank in the soil. When an appropriate disturbance comes along, the population explodes (IEPA and NIPC, 1996). When the population of purple loosestrife is small, keeping the population at a manageable level can be achieved through mechanical and chemical management. Manageable amounts of purple loosestrife can be hand pulled and bagged, as a physical means of control. If up-rooted plants are left lying on the ground, they are capable of re-sprouting. Also, it is important to re-visit where the purple loosestrife was removed to check for re-sprouts from any possible remaining roots. Purple loosestrife can also be herbicided using an appropriate aquatics approved herbicide, as a chemical means of control. If there are large populations of purple loosestrife, several different species of beetle can be used to control the plant, as a biological means of control. The insects Galerucella calmariensis, Galerucella pusilla are the most common beetles used to control purple loosestrife in large stands. Through feeding exclusively on purple loosestrife, the Galerucella leaf beetles can prevent production of seed and eventually can cause the plant to die. The Galerucella species are introduced into targeted areas in the late summer months (August to late September), so the beetles can burrow in the ground to overwinter. After the winter months the beetles will emerge as adults and begin to feed on the flower heads of purple loosestrife hindering the plants from producing seed (Illinois Natural History Survey 1998). The Galerucella species have been known to stunt the population of a purple loosestrife patch in approximately three years (Michigan Sea Grant 2006). After a period of three to four years, it can be expected that the beetles will spread from the original release points and provide a beneficial impact to other areas of loosestrife as well. Beetles should be released during mid-summer. Both types of beetles should be monitored over time to see how well they have established. Monitoring can be accomplished by looking at overall health of the purple loosestrife populations, looking at the health of individual plants, and looking for signs of the beetles on the plants. Canada goose (Branta canadensis), are a native water fowl that can become a nuisance when they stop their migratory lifestyle and become permanent residents. Canada geese were observed by V3 ecologists during visits to Hudson Lake. During their nesting season and while raising their young, Canada geese become extremely defensive of their territory and pose a potential hazard by creating unsafe situations for small children and unsuspecting adults. The geese can cause economic damage to an area by overgrazing. An adult Canada goose eats up to four pounds of grass daily. They can render the open park space and beach front unusable with an excessive amount of droppings. An adult Canada goose deposits two pounds of fecal matter daily. In addition to being unsightly, the excessive amount of fecal matter from geese can cause health concerns as well, as it has been linked to the spread of diseases and bacterial infections. One resident Canada goose produces 0.5 pound of phosphorus per year. This quantity of phosphorus multiplied by a large resident flock can pose a significant Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 57 Hudson Lake June 2008

64 phosphorus loading issue to water quality. This increase in nutrient load provides appropriate conditions for algae growth, and in turn can alter the entire ecosystem of the lake. Canada geese are difficult to deter away from lake and residential areas. Creating prairie buffers at the edge ponds, lake, and streams can cause geese to move elsewhere. Prairie is not their preferred habitat. The wider and taller the prairie buffer is, the more likely geese are move to a different area. By creating a prairie buffer, it also will filter water that is entering the waterway. There are many other options that can be used in order to try and make geese leave the area. A chemical can be added to lawns in order to make geese not want to eat it, visual deterrents can be used, loud noises, and dogs can be beneficial. Many of these options only work for a short period of time. As geese get used to them, the deterrents tend to lose effectiveness. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 58 Hudson Lake June 2008

65 5.0 WATER BUDGET Water budgets are very useful in determining significant water sources and hydrologic influences that may affect lake water quality. Water budgets are the basis for determining how much time water particles may spend in the lake, which assists interpretations regarding the capture and retention of nutrients and sediments within the lake. The principal parameter of interest in lake restoration is hydraulic residence time. Residence time is defined as the length of time required for the entire volume of the lake to be replaced with new water from runoff and direct precipitation, and defines how dynamic the lake is and how responsive it will be to changes in nutrients loading. The water budget for Hudson Lake is conceptually developed as follows: Inputs Water enters Hudson Lake from the following sources: Direct precipitation to the lake, Sheet runoff from land immediately adjacent to the lake, Overflow from the Upstream Depressional subwatershed and Saugany Lake subwatershed through the regulated drain to the west of the lake, and Groundwater. Outputs Water leaves Hudson Lake from: Evaporation, Outflow to the east into Taylor Ditch, and Groundwater. V3 created an annual and monthly water balance for Hudson Lake from (Appendix 6 includes the calculations completed for the water budget.) This was created in order to understand what influences the lake s inputs and outputs. The water balance shows that the lake system has an annual net loss to groundwater, in other words, the lake recharges the groundwater. Numerically evaluating groundwater behavior was not part of the diagnostic study; however, the water balance and hydrogeology both suggest this net loss. Exhibit 20 shows the annual net gain of water of the lake from 1996 to 2006, not including groundwater. Saugany Lake has the potential to overflow into Hudson Lake and since Saugany Lake and its watershed are not included, these net gains are underestimated, further supporting this finding. Saugany Lake and its watershed were not included in this analysis because hydrologic modeling suggests that Saugany Lake only overflows to Hudson Lake during extreme storm events (e.g. 100 year) however, more detailed topographic information and inlet/outlet information would be required to accurately predict the overflow frequency. Residents around Hudson Lake indicate that it is a rare occurrence, with the only time in recent memory being the spring of Since the lake had no outlet until the 1983 and the lake elevation has not reached the outlet for multiple years, groundwater loss is the obvious explanation. The lake s net loss to the groundwater makes the water balance sensitive and dependent on surface water to maintain water levels. Since numerically evaluating groundwater behavior was not part of this diagnostic study, residence time was calculated assuming groundwater inflows equal groundwater outflows. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 59 Hudson Lake June 2008

66 Assuming groundwater inflows equal groundwater outflows, the formula for calculating residence time is simply the volume of the lake divided by the total inflow (or the total outflow since in equilibrium the inflow equals the outflow). The volume of the lake at a level of (as measured on January 16, 2007) was estimated using the Hudson Lake bathymetry provided by the IDNR. The volume of the lake was estimated to be 4,280 acre-feet. The average annual inflow from 1996 to 2006 was calculated to be acre-feet. Using the hydraulic residence time equation, the calculated residence time for a particle originating from the direct tributary area to Hudson Lake is 2.51 years (916.2 days). In general, a long residence time indicates that the pollutant loadings will be lower. This can be attributed to the fact that more inflow which indicates a shorter residence time leads to more pollutants entering a lake. Hudson Lake s long residence time corresponds to the fact that the lake is oligotrophic as discussed in Section 4.1. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 60 Hudson Lake June 2008

67 ± V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: Hudson Lake Water Balance N/A Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle /04/08 N/A E:\2006\06213\Reports\Natural Resources\Wetland\Exhibits\Exhibit 20 Average Lake Elevation.mxd

68 6.0 LAKE SHORELINE During the Tier I Aquatic Plant survey on August 29, 2007, lake shoreline conditions were also inventoried. Exhibit 21 depicts the condition of Hudson Lake s shoreline. Table 20 lists the existing shoreline types and the linear measure of each. The shoreline surrounding Hudson Lake is not contributing a significant degradation to the water quality or habitat, as there was not stretches of severe erosion noted during the field effort. Table 20 Lake Shoreline Survey at Hudson Lake, August 29, 2007 Shoreline Type Linear Distance (feet) Natural Vegetation 3,147 Seawall 2,637 Sand 6,151 Emergent 3,339 Historically, the lake occupied an area of about 432 acres (0.68 square miles). Hudson Lake has been experiencing a decline in water levels over the past five years with the water level on January 16, 2007 measuring approximately 3.3 feet lower than the legal level of (based on field observations). At this elevation, the lake occupies an area of about 366 acres. Decreased water levels have resulted in the west portion of Hudson Lake becoming dominated by emergent vegetation (Exhibit 21). Seawalls are no longer functioning as a protective barrier and include a stretch of sandy area before reaching the lake, due to the lower lake levels (as shown below). Naturalized shoreline located along southern shoreline (left). Seawalls located on eastern shoreline (right). Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 62 Hudson Lake June 2008

69 ± Legend Historically Open Water - Dominated by Emergent Vegetation during Survey Natural Vegetation Sand Seawall V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: Hudson Lake Shoreline Exhibit 2005 Aerial Photograph Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: 1 QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle 04/04/08 1" = 1,000 E:\2006\06213\Reports\Natural Resources\Wetland\Exhibits\Exhibit 21 Shoreline.mxd

70 7.0 SEDIMENTATION The level of depositional sediment in Hudson Lake has increased throughout the years. Locations where boat launching occurs have increasingly become more obstructed by the accumulations of sediments, and recreational users of Hudson Lake have become increasingly impacted. The north and south passages around the island on the west side has also experienced increases in sediment accumulations. V3 discussed water skiing limitations in recent years with lake residents and lake users. This recreational use over time is the most significant means of monitoring the change of sediment levels as the ability to ski around the island has become impaired. HLCA has identified six locations that residents and lake users desire sediment removal for boat access and lake restoration. These areas include: The north passage around the island. The south passage around the island. The public boat launch along Emery Road. The public boat launch along East Lake Shore Drive across form the island. The public access site at Bluebird Beach. The public boat launch along Chicago Trail. In the event that HLCA moves forward with having sediments dredged, the Sediment Removal Plan requirements developed by LARE should be followed. Previous studies involved with sediment removal or sediment sampling were not identified. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 64 Hudson Lake June 2008

71 8.0 NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION Nonpoint source pollution is a type of the pollution generated from diffused sources in both: public and private domains. As defined by EPA, the pollution from nonpoint sources originates from urban runoff, construction activities, manmade modification of hydrologic regime of a watercourse (i.e. retention, detention, channelization, etc.), silviculture, mining, agriculture, irrigation return flows, solid waste disposal, atmospheric deposition, stream bank erosion, and individual or zonal sewage disposal. Therefore, nonpoint pollution sources have their origin in a wide spectrum of public and private activities and, when not known or properly controlled, could affect, in a large percentage, the water and quality of living in a certain area. Nonpoint source pollution management is highly dependent on hydrologic simulation models, and use of computer modeling is often the only viable means of providing useful input information for adopting the best management decisions. As previously mentioned, the nonpoint pollution sources are generated by activities that are spatially distributed on the analyzed watershed or study area. Due to this spatial distribution of nonpoint pollution sources, the computation models used to study pollutant transport and stream bank erosion require large amounts of data for analysis in even a small watershed. However, the development of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Database Management Systems (DBMS) and their use in hydrologic and water pollution modeling represented a milestone point in the development of efficient computer models that could provide useful information regarding pollution from nonpoint sources to the public and to decision-makers. Since runoff from the rainfall flows over or through the land and collects pollutants and nutrients prior to entering waterways, the overall characteristics and landuse types of a watershed greatly influences the water quality. Each landuse type includes the cumulative effects of various land covers, and natural and man-made activities. Therefore, each landuse type can have an adverse affect on water quality, by contributing different pollutant amounts and concentrations. The cumulative effect of this pollution throughout the watershed represents the contribution of nonpoint source pollution. For the Hudson Lake watershed, a GIS based pollution loading model was built to assess the nonpoint source pollution of three main pollutant parameters. Appendix 7 includes the calculations performed for the development of this model. Total Suspended Solids Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen A simple pollution loading methodology was used to calculate loading from all three parameters. The pollutant load calculation is a function of the runoff coefficient and other watershed hydrologic parameters as shown in the following relationship: Lp = U (P * P J * R VU * C U *A U * 2.72 / 12) Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 65 Hudson Lake June 2008

72 Where: Lp P P J = Pollutant load, lbs = Precipitation, inches/year = Ratio of storms producing runoff R VU = Runoff Coefficient for landuse type u, inches run /inches rain C U A U = Event mean concentration for landuse type u, milligrams/liter = Area of landuse type u, acres The three main subwatersheds were divided further into eight subbasins (Hudson Lake and Saugany Lake were not included in the analysis) in order to pinpoint the areas of concern. The computation model was then executed for each subbasin. The results are illustrated graphically in Exhibits 22 through 24 and in Table 21. It is important to note that all computation models have assumptions and limitations. Therefore, the provided analytical results may not represent the exact pollution loads, since the entire Hudson Lake watershed was modeled with the same input. In these conditions, even if the results are relative, they still can provide useful information for targeting and prioritizing Best Management Practices (BMPs). It is also important to note that the above presented nonpoint source modeling does not specifically include bank erosion and mass wasting, which can contribute with additional pollutant loads of sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus. However, certain landuses within the model have input values that incorporate some bank erosion that is typical for that land practice. Table 21 shows the results of the Total Suspended Solids, Total Phosphorus, and Total Nitrogen modeling. Table 21 Nonpoint Source Pollution Modeling Results Total Suspended Total Solids Phosphorus Area (ac) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) Hudson Lake - excluded from NPS calculations Saugany Lake - excluded from NPS calculations Watershed ID W1 W2 W W W W W W W W Total Nitrogen (lbs/ac/yr) Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 66 Hudson Lake June 2008

73 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) As shown in Exhibit 22, the sediment model results range from 740 to over 1500 lbs/acre/year for the ten subwatersheds. It is important to note that this modeling does not directly incorporate bank erosion and mass wasting. In the Midwestern United States, bank erosion and mass wasting can make up between 5 and 25 percent of the annual sediment loads. The average suspended sediment loading for the entire watershed is 1190 lbs/acre/year and the lowest loading occurs in the northeast corner of the Hudson Lake watershed (744 lbs/acre/year) corresponding to the highly forested and more urbanized areas. Total Phosphorus The phosphorus load model results are shown in Exhibit 23. The average phosphorus loading in the Hudson Lake watershed is approximately 4.5 lbs/acre/year. The lowest phosphorus loading, as was apparent in the TSS loadings, occurs in northeast corner of the Hudson Lake watershed (1.6 lbs/acre/year) corresponding to the highly forested and more urbanized areas. Total phosphorus loading for subwatersheds can also be expressed in pounds per year. The total phosphorus loading for the Hudson Lake watershed is 22,135 lbs/year and the average for all 8 subwatersheds is 2,767 lbs/year. Total Nitrogen The nitrogen load model results are shown spatially in Exhibit 24. The pollution load results show a very similar trend to that of phosphorus and total suspended solids. The average nitrogen loading in the Hudson Lake watershed is approximately 21.7 lbs/acre/year. The lowest nitrogen loading exists in the northeast corner of the watershed (7.05 lbs/acre/year) corresponding to the highly forested and more urbanized areas. Overall Summary The modeling results indicate that the three subbasins yielding the highest loadings for total suspended solids, total phosphorus, and total nitrogen are W5, W3, and W9. The land use of these subbasins is 67%, 71%, and 73% agricultural (including cropland and pasture), respectively. This indicates that the primary contributor to expectant pollutant yields in the Hudson Lake watershed is primarily the agricultural use of the land. Section 8.0 prioritizes the subbasins and recommends best management practices to improve water quality. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 67 Hudson Lake June 2008

74 Legend TSS (lbs/acre/yr) ± > 1500 W8 W6 W4 W7 W9 W5 W10 W3 V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: Total Suspended Solids USGS Topographic Map Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle /04/08 1"=3000' E:\2006\06213\Reports\Natural Resources\Wetland\Exhibits\Exhibit 22 TSS Pollutant Loads.mxd

75 Legend TP (lbs/acre/yr) ± > 5.5 W8 W6 W4 W7 W9 W5 W10 W3 V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: Total Phosphorus USGS Topographic Map Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle /04/08 1"=3000' E:\2006\06213\Reports\Natural Resources\Wetland\Exhibits\Exhibit 23 TP Pollutant Loads.mxd

76 Legend TN (lbs/acre/yr) ± > 27 W8 W6 W4 W7 W9 W5 W10 W3 V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: Total Nitrogen USGS Topographic Map Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle /04/08 1"=3000' E:\2006\06213\Reports\Natural Resources\Wetland\Exhibits\Exhibit 24 TN Pollutant Loads.mxd

77 9.0 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Best Management Practices This diagnostic study of Hudson Lake revealed several problems throughout the watershed. The unnamed tributary had impaired biotic communities, degraded habitat and high bacteria counts (E. coli). Several of the subbasins also had heavier sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus loads compared to the other subbasins. Many of these problems can be tied to non-point sources of pollution. Failing septic systems, that have been considered to be point sources or non-point sources of pollution depending on how they are evaluated, may also be problematic in the watershed. To address these problems it is necessary to implement land use best management conservation practices. These Best Management Practices (BMPs) are behaviors, or ways of conducting business and using the land that are more environmentally friendly, and are often beneficial economically. Much of the agricultural land throughout the basin is located near the inflow ditches and wetland areas. Sheet flow over these areas and concentrated runoff can carry sediment and nutrients from farm fields into the adjacent streams and wetlands. There are many BMPs that address these non-point source issues, and many of them can be funded through programs offered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Table 22 below lists a number of practices; the programs that can help fund these practices, and the resulting positive effects of the practice. The majority of the watershed land area is in agricultural use; therefore this list is targeted at agricultural BMPs. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 71 Hudson Lake June 2008

78 Table 22 On-Farm Conservation Practices Supported by the USDA to Help Improve Water Quality* Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Security Program (CSP), Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP), Grassland Reserve Program (GRP), Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) Desired Effect Practices USDA Programs Reduced Soil Erosion Grassed waterways Terraces Grassed conservation buffers CRP, EQIP, CSP Field boarders Contour buffer strips Reduced Wind Damage Residue management Shelterbelts CRP, EQIP, CSP Windbreaks Field stripcropping Nutrient management Pest management Conservation of soil and water Cover crops resources Efficient water management CRP, EQIP, CSP Riparian buffers Conservation tillage Stream Stabilization Forested riparian buffers Grass filterstrips Livestock exclusion Streambank protection CRP, EQIP, CSP, WHIP, FLEP Watering facilities Manure Management Grassland Management Wildlife Habitat Waste storage structures and lagoons Nutrient management Compost facilities Manure spreading Prescribed grazing Pest management Prescribed fire Fencing Brush Management Rotational grazing Wetland restoration Grassland restoration Conservation buffers Stream habitat improvement Tree planting Forest stand improvement and Forest Management thinning Prescribed burning Invasive plant control *Information provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. EQIP, CSP EQIP, CRP, WHIP, GRP WHIP, CRP, WRP, GRP, EQIP, CSP, FLEP FLEP, WHIP, CRP, EQIP, Forest Stewardship Program, Forest Legacy Program Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 72 Hudson Lake June 2008

79 As land is cleared for farming, industry, or other such practices, the amount of run-off, or water flowing off the land and into the lake, increases. This increased flow can cause detrimental changes in the watershed such as increased erosion, destruction of aquatic habitat, excessive siltation, and altered stream geomorphology. Practices to slow down this runoff such as filter strips and restored or created wetlands, can be very beneficial in alleviating the problem in addition to providing benefits such as wildlife habitat. It is important to note that over time, Hudson Lake has been in a consistently oligotrophic state as discussed in Section 4.1. In order to maintain the water quality of the lake, several lake management strategies should be employed such as limiting shoreline disturbance to control erosion and limiting pollutant inputs. The best management practices identified in this section are used to slow down the storm water runoff to help reduce erosive forces and filter out pollutants. Prioritization of the subbasins within the Hudson Lake watershed was based on pollutant loads, location of the subwatershed in relation to Hudson Lake, and the potential for improvement with the use of best management practices. The nonpoint source pollution calculations were performed based on land use. There is a potential for some of the expected pollutants, especially in the upstream subbasins, to be filtered out prior to entering Hudson Lake by passing through existing wetlands and Saugany Lake. Therefore, these subbasins were prioritized as low for the Hudson Lake watershed. The highest priorities for implementation of land use best management conservation practices within the Hudson Lake watershed are shown on Exhibit 25 and include the following: The area delineated as Subbasin W3. This area was consistently ranked in the top three subbasins contributing total suspended solids, total phosphorus and total nitrogen. This subbasin is largely agricultural in use, and BMPs such as filter strips, conservation tillage practices, etc. will reduce the amount of expected pollutant loads from this subbasin. The area delineated as Subbasin W4. This area includes the biologically impaired unnamed tributary. Improvements to water quality will have a gradual effect on improving the biological community, however, habitat enhancements have the potential to have a more immediate and measureable effect. Implementation of streambank stabilization, riparian buffers, riffle creation or instream cover projects would improve the degraded habitat conditions at this location. This subbasin also includes substantial wetland area with potential for restoration and enhancement for improved water quality. The area delineated as Subbasin W5. As with Subbasin W3, this area was consistently ranked in the top three subbasins contributing total suspended solids, total phosphorus and total nitrogen. This subbasin is largely agricultural in use, and BMPs such as filter strips, conservation tillage practices, etc. will reduce the amount of expected pollutant loads from this subbasin. Many of these BMPs can be expensive, however there are many programs, such as those listed in Table 23 below, and many grant opportunities that are available to help defray the costs associated with these practices. Some potential sources of funding are listed below. Table 24 lists the expected nutrient and total suspended solids removal efficiency of specific best management practices. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 73 Hudson Lake June 2008

80 Legend PRIORITY High Medium Low ± W8 W6 W2 W4 W7 W1 W9 W1 W5 W10 W3 V3 Companies 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL phone fax TITLE: BASE LAYER: CLIENT: Prioritization Map 2003 Aerial Photograph Hudson Lake Conservation Agency 7405 East Lake Shore Drive New Carlisle, IN PROJECT: Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study PROJECT NO.: EXHIBIT: SHEET: OF: QUADRANGLE: DATE: SCALE: Lydick & New Carlisle /11/08 1"=3000' E:\2006\06213\Reports\Natural Resources\Wetland\Exhibits\Exhibit 25 Prioritization Map.mxd

81 Table 23 Program Indiana Department of Environmental Management, 319 Program Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Lake and River Enhancement Program (LARE) Indiana Department of Agriculture, Clean Water Indiana Grants Program Pheasants Forever Quail Forever Ducks Unlimited US Fish and Wildlife Many other opportunities may be found at Potential Sources of Funding Emphasis Non-point Source Pollution Planning and Implementation Funds Non-point Source Pollution Planning and Implementation Funds Help Fund County Soil and Water Conservation Districts Initiatives Grassland Establishment/Restoration Grassland Establishment/Restoration Wetland Restoration and Creation North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants Table 24 Best Management Practices Pollutant Removal Efficiency TSS Removal Efficiency Nitrogen Removal Efficiency Phosphorus Removal Efficiency Efficiency Source BMP Buffers/Filter Strips STEPL Grassed Waterways USEPA Grade-Stabilization Structures USEPA Cover Crops USEPA/STEPL No-till/Reduced Till STEPL Rotational Grazing USEPA/STEPL Manure Management Plan USEPA Nutrient Management Plan N/A 1.35 N/A USEPA/STEPL Wetland Restoration USEPA Subbasins W6 and W7 include the more urbanized areas of the watershed. As the land use changes and becomes more urbanized in the future, best management practices will become more important to control pollutants from these areas, therefore a medium priority was given to these subbasins. There are several BMPs that individual homeowners and urban areas can employ to improve water quality. Table 25 lists several BMPs, where they are used and how they help improve water quality. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 75 Hudson Lake June 2008

82 Table 25 Best Management Practices for Urban Areas BMP Common Use Improves Water Quality Through Rain Garden To manage storm water runoff from impervious surfaces Absorbing runoff and promoting infiltration Permeable Pavers To reduce impervious surfaces, creating less storm water runoff Promotes infiltration and reduces the rate and volume of runoff from the site Bio-Swale Conveyance system to facilitate infiltration and native vegetation Allows the frequent, low intensity rains to infiltrate Constructed Wetland Treatment mechanism for runoff from agricultural fields and roadways Removes sediments and pollutants from storm water runoff Rain Barrels Attached to gutter systems to collect rain water Reducing the amount of runoff from individual lots by collection and reuse of storm water Public education and outreach must continue for the success in providing motivating factors to encourage voluntary land user participation, as monetary reward as a motivational tool is limited. Hudson Lake Water Level Based on this diagnostic study and conversations with watershed residents, the most significant watershed problem may be the declining water levels in Hudson Lake. This problem is not a result of water quality or ecology concerns, but rather is an aesthetic and recreational concern. Low lake levels can have an impact on recreational uses of the lake and may have impacts to the biological communites and chemical characteristics of the lake. Low lake levels may cause the disappearance of some typical vegetation. The water quality of the lake may also be affected by the lower levels with increased pollutant concentrations. As discussed in Section 5.0, V3 created an annual and monthly water balance for Hudson Lake from The water balance shows that the lake system has an annual net loss to groundwater. The diagnostic study has revealed that these low lake levels are the result of reduced precipitation volumes over the past five years combined with the nature of the lake and ground-water interactions. One solution that has been discussed by the residents within the watershed is groundwater pumping to restore the lake to its legal level. This diagnostic study took an initial look at the potential for ground water wells within the Hudson Lake watershed. Based on the information gathered, the regional aquifer identified in the hydrogeology investigation is believed to have high yields and sufficient separation from the lake system, making it a possible source for supplementing the lake with water. In addition, the lake water balance indicates that standard high yield wells would effectively supplement the water needed to keep the lake stable during periods of low precipitation. However, there are several additional concerns that need to be addressed before a recommendation to install wells can be made. Appendix 8 includes additional information from various sources on lake-level, ground water and climate change interaction in areas experiencing Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 76 Hudson Lake June 2008

83 similar fluctuations in lake levels. More information and research will be necessary to determine the feasibility of using high capacity wells to supplement the lake levels. Generally the chemistry of groundwater is substantially different than that of natural lake water. In some conditions, the addition of groundwater into the lake can cause changes in flora, fauna, and lake sediment composition. Groundwater withdrawals through pumping could also enhance the formation of sinkholes near the lake. Also, for residential areas around the lake that have water supply from groundwater, the consequences of using groundwater to restore lake levels should be carefully considered. V3 recommends that a feasiblity study be conducted to evaluate the possibility of using high capacity wells to supplement lake levels. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 77 Hudson Lake June 2008

84 10.0 HUDSON LAKE DIAGNSOTIC STUDY PUBLIC MEETINGS The Hudson Lake community has formed the Hudson Lake Conservation Association (HLCA) for the betterment and preservation of Hudson Lake. The association is project driven and was awarded several grants from the Indiana DNR s Lake And River Enhancement (LARE) program to accomplish their project goals. The HLCA also seeks funds from local corporations and businesses, as well as the La Porte County Council. The municipality of New Carlisle, as the closest local government, has demonstrated interest although there has been some obstructions as New Carlisle is located in St. Joseph County and Hudson Lake is within La Porte County. Public meetings were held on January 6, 2007 to introduce the project, and on May 24, 2008 to discuss the findings of the Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study. These public meetings, along with the other public project meetings range in attendance from 25 to 75 attendees. The underlining issue within the comments and discussion during the public meetings is that residents are concerned with the instability of the lake level. The lake historically fluctuates from full functionality at its full water capacity (the legal level) to 40% functionality at 5 feet below that level, over a 20-year cycle. In many locations, residents are not able to access the lake from their property which had been adjacent to the shoreline. The following photographs depict these conditions. A lake resident s seawall and proximity to the lake is shown (on the left). The island condition as it is inaccessible by boat or car is shown (center photo). A lake resident s pontoon boat and pier have been unusable for several years (on the right). The results of the study and recommendations for implementation of Hudson Lake upgrade projects were provided on Saturday, May 24, 2008 at the New Carlisle Library. HLCA conducts public project meetings when appropriate, at the New Carlisle Library. Two public meetings were also held for the study of Hudson Lake s aquatic plant population and the development of a 5-year plan ( ) to manage the plants, including the treatment of invasive exotic plants. It is recommended that the open meetings continue in order to keep the public informed regarding projects related to the upgrading of Hudson Lake to be the best it can be. The continued use of media of newspapers, television and radio is also recommended. The HLCA website: is also important to continue to provide the public with an up-to-date status on all the Hudson Lake upgrade projects. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 78 Hudson Lake June 2008

85 11.0 REFERENCES American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Nineteenth Edition. Applied Biochemists How to Identify and Control Water Weeds and Algae. Fifth Edition. La Porte Water Technologies and Biochem, Inc. Aquatic Restoration Systems, LLC Draft Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan for Hudson Lake, La Porte County, Indiana. Bednarik, A.F. and W.P. McCafferty Biosystematic Revision of the Genus Stenonema (Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae). Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Bulletin 201. Bergman E.A. and W.L. Hilsenhoff Baetis (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae) of Wisconsin. The Great Lakes Entomologist. Volume 11. Chin, D.A Water Resources Engineering. Chow, Ven Te, Open-Channel Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill Book Company. Clark, G.D. and D. Larrison The Indiana Water Resource, Availability, Uses, and Needs. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer Field Guide to Freshwater Mussels of the Midwest. Illinois Natural History Survey. Manual 5. December Fassett, N.C A Manual of Aquatic Plants. The University of Wisconsin Press. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, La Porte County, Indiana and Incorporated Areas, Panel C, Revision Date June 4, Hall, Robert D Geology of Indiana, Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis, Center for Earth and Environmental Science and Department of Geology. Second Edition. Harza Engineering Company Hudson Lake Enhancement Feasibility Study. Hilsenhoff, W.L Using a Biotic Index to Evaluate Water Quality in Streams. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Technical Bulletin No Hilsenhoff, W.L Rapid Field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index. The North American Benthological Society 7(1): Hilsenhoff, W.L Aquatic Insects of Wisconsin. Keys to Wisconsin Genera and Notes on Biology, Habitat, Distribution and Species. Publication Number 3 of the Natural History Museums Council, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 79 Hudson Lake June 2008

86 Illinois Natural History Survey Lyrthrum salicaria, Illinois Natural History Survey: Biological Control of Purple Loosestrife Program. On the internet at: Indiana Clean Lakes Program Indiana Water Quality Assessment Summary Data. Indiana Department of Environmental Management Indiana Trophic State Index. Correspondence with Carol Newhouse, IDEM Office of Water Quality, Lakes Program. Indiana State Department of Health, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Indiana Department of Natural Resources Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory. Jackson, M.T The Natural Heritage of Indiana. Indiana University Press. Karr, J.R., K.D. Faush, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser Assessing biological integrity in running waters: A method and its rationale. Special publication 5. Illinois Natural History Survey. Lal, R Integrated Watershed Management in the Global Ecosystem. Lee B., D. Jones and H. Peterson Septic System Failure. Purdue University, Purdue Extension HENV-1-W. Revised September MacGowan B. and B. Kingsbury Snakes of Indiana. Purdue University, Indiana University-Purdue, Fort Wayne, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife. June McCafferty, W.P. and R.D. Waltz revisionary Synopsis of the Baetidae (Ephemeroptera) of North and Middle America. Department of Entomology, Purdue University. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 116(4): Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. Third Edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Michigan Sea Grant, 2006 Aquatic Invasive Species: Purple Loosestrife Project. On the internet at: Midwest Aquatic Plant Management Society Characteristics and Invasion of Eurasian Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum). Information compiled by Norm Zion. March Midwestern Regional Climate Center Historical Climate Data. Station La Porte, Indiana. Ryging, S.O. and W. Rast The Control of Eutrophication of Lakes and Reservoirs. Schuster, G.A. and D.A. Etnier A Manual for the Identification of the Larvae of the Caddisfly Genera Hydropsyche Pictet and Symphitopsyche Ulmer in Eastern and Central North America (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae). Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory. Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 80 Hudson Lake June 2008

87 Shuler, S. and J. Hoffmann Procedure Manual for Aquatic Vegetation Reconnaissance Surveying. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of La Porte County, Indiana. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station. Swink, Floyd and Gerould Wilhelm Plants of the Chicago Region. 4 th Indianapolis: Indiana Academy of Science. ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Taxonomy and Ecology of Stenonema Mayflies (Heptageniidae: Ephemeroptera). National Environmental Research Center, Office of Research and Development. December U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers. Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA/440/4-89/001. May U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Decentralized Systems Technology Fact Sheet. Septic Tank Soil Absorption Systems. September U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers. Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. Second Edition. EPA 841-B July U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Accessed June 11, Aquatic Biodiversity: Carlson s Trophic State Index. On the internet at: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Data Indiana. Wetzel, R.G Limnology. Wetzel, R.G. and G.E. Likens Limnological Analysis. Diagnostic Study V3 Companies 81 Hudson Lake June 2008

88 APPENDIX 1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES CORRESPONDENCE

89 9/12/2007 Endangered, Threatened and Rare Species, and High Quality Natural Communities from the Hudson Lake Watershed ( ), Indiana TYPE SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME FED STATE TRS LASTOBS COMMENTS High Quality Natural Community High Quality Natural Community High Quality Natural Community Forest - upland mesic Mesic Upland Forest SG 038N002W 35 NEQ Wetland - bog acid Acid Bog SG 038N002W 35 NEQ Wetland - swamp shrub Shrub Swamp SG 038N002W 35 NEQ Mammal Lynx rufus Bobcat 037N002W Mammal Taxidea taxus American Badger 038N001W Mammal Taxidea taxus American Badger 038N001E Reptile Sistrurus catenatus Eastern Massasauga C SE 038N001W NEW catenatus CARLISLE Vascular Plant Bidens beckii Beck Water-marigold ST 038N001W Vascular Plant Calla palustris Wild Calla SE 038N002W SEQ SEQ Vascular Plant Eriophorum Green-keeled SR 038N002W viridicarinatum Cotton-grass NWQ Vascular Plant Geranium robertianum Herb-robert ST 038N001W NEQ NWQ NWQ Vascular Plant Juncus balticus var. Baltic Rush SR 038N001W littoralis SEQ SEQ Vascular Plant Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine SR 038N002W SEQ SEQ Vascular Plant Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine SR 038N001W HUDSON LAKE Vascular Plant Potamogeton White-stem Pondweed ST 038N002W praelongus Vascular Plant Potamogeton robbinsii Flatleaf Pondweed SR 038N002W Vascular Plant Potamogeton vaseyi Vasey's Pondweed SE 038N002W Vascular Plant Utricularia minor Lesser Bladderwort ST 038N001W SEQ SEQ Vascular Plant Utricularia purpurea Purple Bladderwort SR 038N001W Fed: State: Grank: Srank: LE = listed federal endangered; C = federal candidate species SE = state endangered; ST = state threatened; SR = state rare; SSC = state species of special concern; SG = state significant; WL = watch list; no rank = not ranked but tracked to monitor status Heritage Global Rank: G1 = critically imperiled; G2 = imperiled; G3 = rare or uncommon; G4 = widespread but with long term concerns; G5 = widespread and secure; GU = unranked State Heritage Rank: S1 = critically imperiled; S2 = imperiled; S3 = rare or uncommon; S4 = widespread but with long term concerns SNR = not ranked; B = breeding rank; SNA = not resident in state in non-breeding season 1

90 APPENDIX 2 SAMPLING STATION PHOTOGRAPHS

91 PHOTO 1 Upstream photograph of Station 1. PHOTO 2 Downstream photograph of Station 1.

92 APPENDIX 3 WATER QUALITY DATA SHEETS

93

94

95

96 APPENDIX 4 MACROINVERTEBRATE AND HABITAT FIELD DATA SHEETS AND PHOTOGRAPHS

97

98

99

100

101

102 Hudson Lake Tributary Macroinvertebrates Vial 1 March 13, 2008 Order: Isopoda Station 1 Hudson Lake Tributary Macroinvertebrates Vial 2 March 13, 2008 Class: Oligochaeta Station 1 Hudson Lake Tributary Macroinvertebrates Vial 3 March 13, 2008 Family: Corbiculidae Station 1

103 Hudson Lake Tributary Macroinvertebrates Vial 4 March 13, 2008 Family: Physidae Station 1 Hudson Lake Tributary Macroinvertebrates Vial 5 March 13, 2008 Family: Dytiscidae Station 1 Hudson Lake Tributary Macroinvertebrates Vial 6 March 13, 2008 Family: Chironomidae Station 1

104 Hudson Lake Tributary Macroinvertebrates Vial 7 March 13, 2008 Family: Corixidae Station 1 Hudson Lake Tributary Macroinvertebrates Vial 8 March 13, 2008 Family: Haliplidae Station 1 Hudson Lake Tributary Macroinvertebrates Vial 9 March 13, 2008 Family: Dytiscidae Station 1

105 Hudson Lake Tributary Macroinvertebrates Vial 10 March 13, 2008 Family: Red Chironomidae Station 1 Hudson Lake Tributary Macroinvertebrates Vial 11 March 13, 2008 Family: Haliplidae Station 1

106 April 10, 2008 Mr. Arwin Provonsha Department of Entomology 901 W. State Street West Lafayette, IN Re: Invertebrate Voucher Specimens Hudson Lake, LaPorte County Indiana Dear Mr. Provonsha: Enclosed you will find eleven (11) representative macroinvertebrate specimens in individually labeled vials. The accompanying photo-documentation of each provides location and taxonomic identification. Also enclosed is a station location map. This voucher collection is being submitted to Purdue University Department of Entomology as part of the Hudson Lake Diagnostic Study. It would be greatly appreciated if our identification of these specimens could be verified. Please contact me at if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you very much. Sincerely, V3 COMPANIES, LTD. Walter Levernier Ecologist WGL/ Attachments cc: Bill Companik, Hudson Lake Conservation Association V3 File V3 COMPANIES OF ILLINOIS LTD JANES AVENUE, WOODRIDGE, IL PH: FX: V3CO.COM CHICAGO DENVER PHOENIX

107

108 APPENDIX 5 TIER I SURVEY DATA SHEETS

109

110

111

112

113

114 APPENDIX 6 WATER BUDGET CALCULATIONS

115 Appendix 6 Water Budget V3 created an annual and monthly water balance for Hudson Lake from This was created in order to understand what influences the lake s inputs and outputs. The water balance shows that the lake system has an annual net loss to groundwater. Numerically evaluating groundwater behavior was not part of the diagnostic study; however, the water balance and hydrogeology both suggest this net loss. Figure 1 shows the annual net gain of water of the lake from 1996 to 2006, not including groundwater. Saugany Lake overflows into Hudson Lake and since Saugany Lake and its watershed are not included these net gains are underestimated further supporting this finding. Since the lake had no outlet until 1983 and the lake elevation has not reached the outlet for multiple years, groundwater loss is the obvious explanation. Input Values for Water Balance: Precipitation (P) Precipitation data for Hudson Lake from was obtained for the NOAA - LaPorte, Indiana Rain Gage. Runoff (R) Runoff from the direct tributary area to Hudson Lake was calculated using HSPF. HSPF simulates for extended periods of time the hydrologic and associated water quality, processes on pervious and impervious land surfaces and in streams and well-mixed impoundments. Evaporation (E) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) obtained evaporation rates for six sites of which Valparaiso was the closest to Hudson Lake. The annual pan evaporation rate in Valparaiso was inches. Pan evaporation overestimates lake evaporation by 40% (Chow, 1964). It was also assumed that 75% of the evaporation occurs between May and October.

116 Figure 1 Hudson Lake Water Balance Annual Net Gain/Loss, uncorrected for groundwater or Saugany Lake Watershed Lake Level Reportedly Starts Lowering 45 Volume (acre-feet) Average Precipitation Precipitation Threshold Range for Lake Balance Annual Precipitation (inches) Total 1997 Total 1998 Total 1999 Total 2000 Total 2001 Total 2002 Total 2003 Total 2004 Total 2005 Total 20 Annual Gain to Lake (acre-feet) Annual Precipitation at LaPorte, IN (in) Page 1

117 ppt to lake basin Runoff from HSPF Runoff from HSPF Sum -in Evap+evapotrans Sum-out Difference Year Month ppt (in) Acre-feet Acre-feet cfs-month Acre-Feet Acre-Feet Acre-Feet Acre-Feet Year Total Total Total Total

118 ppt to lake basin Runoff from HSPF Runoff from HSPF Sum -in Evap+evapotrans Sum-out Difference Year Month ppt (in) Acre-feet Acre-feet cfs-month Acre-Feet Acre-Feet Acre-Feet Acre-Feet Total Total Total

119 ppt to lake basin Runoff from HSPF Runoff from HSPF Sum -in Evap+evapotrans Sum-out Difference Year Month ppt (in) Acre-feet Acre-feet cfs-month Acre-Feet Acre-Feet Acre-Feet Acre-Feet 2002 Total Total Total Total Total Grand Total

120 APPENDIX 7 NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CALCULATIONS

121 Appendix 7 - Pollution Load Model Documentation For the Hudson Lake watershed, a GIS based pollution loading model was built to assess the nonpoint source pollution of three main pollutant parameters. Total Suspended Solids Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen A simple pollution loading methodology was used to calculate loading from all three parameters. The pollutant load calculation is a function of the runoff coefficient and other watershed hydrologic parameters as shown in the following relationship: Where: Lp = U (P * P J * R VU * C U *A U * 2.72 / 12) Lp = Pollutant load, lbs P = Precipitation, inches/year P J = Ratio of storms producing runoff R VU = Runoff Coefficient for landuse type u, inches run /inches rain C U = Event mean concentration for landuse type u, milligrams/liter A U = Area of landuse type u, acres Model Input Values: Hydrology assumptions: inches of rain per year and 90% of rain events create runoff. Event Mean Concentrations (EMC) LANDUSE IMPERVIOUS % TSS (mg/l) TN (mg/l) TP (mg/l) Water Open Water Low Intensity Res High Intensity Res Commercial/Ind/Transportation Barren Bare Rock Quarries/Mines Transitional Lands Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Pasture/Hay Row Crops Small Grains Bare Soil Other Grass Areas Woody Wet Emergent

122 References Areawide Water Quality management Plan. Northeast Illinois Planning Commission, Quenzer, Ann Marie. A GIS Assessment of the Total Loads and Water Quality in the Corpus Christi Bay System. University of Texas at Austin, Metcalf and Eddy. Wastewater Engineering Treatment, Disposal and Reuse. Third Edition, Mc Graw Hill, New York, National Urban Runoff Program (NURP). United States Environmental Protection Agency, Quenzer, Ann Marie. A GIS Assessment of the Total Loads and Water Quality in the Corpus Christi Bay System. University of Texas at Austin, Urban Targeting and BMP Selection. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Lin, Jeff P. Review of Published Export Coefficient and Event Mean Concentration Data. Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program, September XP-SWMM Manual, Appendix IV.

123 APPENDIX 8 LAKE LEVEL, GROUND WATER, AND CLIMATE CHANGE INTERACTION

124 LAKE HUDSON RESTORATION PROJECT LAKE LEVEL, GROUND WATER AND CLIMATE CHANGE INTERACTION Summary of Consulted Related Documents

125 LAKE LEVEL, GROUND WATER AND CLIMATE CHANGE INTERACTION Summary of Consulted Related Documents 1. A low lake level phenomenon is not an isolated issue. It is happening in many areas across U.S. even in zones where draught is not a common natural phenomenon. In addition, in some states (as for example Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc) lake level dropping is happening constantly for several decades in some areas, while some other areas of the state have a continuous increase of lake levels and excess water. Anvil Lake Stage Record ( ) Anvil Lake, Vilas County, WI Stage, in feet /1/30 1/1/40 1/1/50 1/1/60 1/1/70 1/1/80 1/1/90 1/1/00 1/1/10 Source: USGS Some lakes are dropping over the long term Source: USGS Shell Lake Stage Record ( ) /1/30 1/1/40 1/1/50 1/1/60 1/1/70 1/1/80 1/1/90 1/1/00 1/1/10 Source: USGS Some other lakes in the same state are gaining water and increased water level over the same periods of time

126 2. Even if annual mean air temperatures have had an increase tendency after ~ 1972, the annual total precipitations had also an increase over the sate of Wisconsin. Wisconsin Air Temperatures Annual Mean Air Temperature (F) Annual Air Temperature (F) Increase 0.04 F/decade increase = 0.04F/decade Notice Change Increase 0.7 F/decade increase = 0.7F/decade Magnuson: Data from State Climatology Office V3 Note: In the above graphics, the blue line is the average value for along period of time from 1895 to If some other periods are considered, the temperature evolution is cyclic (see the red dashed lines). Note that the slope of rising and lowering periods is quite the same. So, the last increase period is part of the previous natural cyclic evolution. What happened to precipitation in Wisconsin? Annual Total (inches) Median = 30.2 in. Fall 50% Summer 30% Winter 17% Spring 3% Median = 33.2 in Magnuson 2006: Data from Wisconsin State Climatology Office

127 3. So, WHY some lakes have dropping levels? One explanation could be found in the interaction between precipitations, surface water (runoff), evapotranspiration, infiltration, groundwater and lakes or streams levels. Changes in the Hydrologic Cycle Krohelski 2003 In addition: Factors affecting lake water levels ulake morphology and hydrology ulandscape position unatural variability (weather) ushort term drought (and wet) cycles uclimate change uhuman water use (i.e. pumping)

128 4. Some implications of low lake levels: Implications of low water levels Source: USGS Circular 1186 Disappearance of some typical vegetation Change of water quality in the lake that could adversely affect the biota. Increase of pollutant concentrations in the lake Decrease of living conditions quality in the communities around the lake 5. A lake or an open water body is, and always was, an attractive location for residential developments (see photo). Generally, the water supply of residential communities around lakes is from the groundwater or the adjacent lake, if the water quality is corresponding to the health requirements. Similar situation is for Hudson Lake as shown in the photo below. Official Hudson Lake level is Hudson Lake LaPorte Legal level, ft, msl

129 6. Groundwater pumping, to accomplish the increased demand in water supply due to expansion of residential, industrial and commercial developments, could also have a great contribution in lowering of the lake levels, in some areas. As shown in the below figures, in some pumping conditions and well locations relative to the lake, the groundwater supply to the lake can be stopped or diverted away with evident adverse effects on the lake level and water quality. Since groundwater pumping is a wide used practice for water supply of residential, commercial or industrial developments, the increase in groundwater pumping could be a cause of lake level dropping. Natural Source: Ken Bradbury Affected By Pumping 7. Lakes located at higher landscape elevations could loose water through ground infiltration to lakes located at lower landscape elevations. Therefore, the analysis of the lake level evolution and the comparison with other lakes in the surrounding areas could offer valuable information regarding possible causes of lake level lowering.

130 8. In addition, changes in flow patterns to lakes as a result of pumping may alter the natural fluxes to lakes of key constituents such as nutrients and dissolved oxygen, in turn altering lake biota, their environment, and the interaction of both. 9. Possible effects of ground water pumping for lake level restoration or other purposes are shown in figures A, B and C below: Case A represents the natural conditions when the ground water naturally feeds the lake from the recharge area. Case B. represents the situation when the ground water pumping does not affect the ground water divide, and some ground water still naturally supplies the lake. Case C. represents the situation when the ground water pumping adversely affects the natural lake-groundwater interaction and water from the lake is pumped away.

131 10. Changes in flow patterns to lakes, as a result of pumping, may alter the natural fluxes to lakes of key water quality constituents such as nutrients and dissolved oxygen, in turn altering lake biota, their environment, and the interaction of both. In addition, the increase in water demands due to the new developments in the area could be the main cause of lowering of ground water table and lake level There is generally no extra water in an aquifer. Water captured by a pumping well will result in some combination of a loss in discharge to surface water at some other location, an increase in recharge from surface water, or a loss of storage in the aquifer. Ground water and surface water is a single interconnected resource in a constant flux. Because it is impossible to use a natural resource without having some effect on it, zero impact is neither a possible nor a desirable goal. However, understanding the linkages between ground water and other water-dependent natural resources can help taking informed decisions. 12. The additional water supply through groundwater pumping is one option widely used in the current lake restoration practice. However, as it was shown above, it is possible that in some conditions - the lake supply through ground water pumping could adversely affect the lake and surrounding areas. In these conditions the information regarding the ground water table and its inter-relation with the lake level must be known with sufficient accuracy around the lake, before adopting ground water supply through pumping to increase the lake level. In addition, information regarding the quality and chemistry of the ground water, as compared to the lake water, is an essential data in order to decide if the restoration of lake level through groundwater pumping is a valid and recommended solution that will not affect the aquatic flora and fauna. 13. Additional concerns related to restoration of lake level using ground water pumping include the following issues: a. Generally, the chemistry of ground water is substantially different from that of natural lake water. In some conditions, addition of ground water into the lake can cause changes in flora, fauna, and lake sediment composition. b. The chemistry of ground water and the direction and magnitude of exchange with surface water could significantly affect the input of dissolved chemicals to lakes. In fact, ground water can be the principal source of dissolved chemicals to a lake, even in cases where ground-water discharge is a small component of a lake's water budget. c. Ground water withdrawals through pumping could enhance the formation of sinkholes near the lake. The area affected by withdrawals could extend on several miles around 14. Some other alternatives for lake level restoration could include: Use Sources of Water Other Than Local Ground Water. Using other sources than local ground water (i.e. recycled water, stormwater, etc), switching or supplementing local ground water with other available surface water supplies may be a viable option to limit or stop lake level dropping, and to restore the lake level in some areas. Change Rates or Spatial Patterns of Ground Water Pumping used for Various Other Water Supplies. As previously mentioned, withdrawing large amounts of ground water from centralized locations may overstress the system. Centralized water withdrawals, especially from confined aquifers where low-permeability geologic layers between the land surface and aquifer restrict rainwater from reaching the aquifer, can cause drying of the aquifer (i.e. using more water than is naturally replenished). Land subsidence can also result if the confining geologic layer and aquifer materials compact

132 when the water is pumped out but not replaced. Decreasing pumping rates may help. Additionally, increasing the number and spatial distribution of the withdrawal points may allow the same quantity of ground water to be extracted with a minimization of the adverse effects. Increase Recharge to the Ground Water System One method to increase ground water recharge to aquifers, during periods of excess surface water, is through well injection systems. The water used for injection may come from treated wastewater or other return flows. The water is treated to meet necessary regulatory standards and then injected below ground for storage and future use. In some areas of the United States where ground water resources have been strained by urban sprawl or agricultural uses (i.e. such as central Florida), the infiltration of treated wastewater into aquifers is already a standard method of groundwater recharge. Use Aquifers as Reservoirs Ground water may be withdrawn from underground storage and used during dry periods. This will result in a short-term reduction in ground water levels. If this short term reduction is balanced in the long term with replenishment, ground water can be used much like an above-ground reservoir to store water for use when other sources are in short supply. 15. Determining which method or combination of methods to employ in a particular situation to promote a sustainable ground water supply generally should: Be made at a local level, whether that is a state, some government subunit, or an aquifer or ground water basin level. Local decision making provides the necessary flexibility to tailor the strategies to the specific situation. Local water management plans can incorporate site-specific information and input from all potentially affected parties. Implementation tools, such as land use planning or conservation measures at the local level, must also be known. Provide meaningful community involvement. Ground water sustainability affects the country on an individual, local, state, and national scale, which requires the identification of current and future beneficial uses and a determination as to what consequences are acceptable. This determination is a value judgment balancing many factors for a given situation. These factors vary from location to location due to differences in climate, geology, hydrogeology and solution choices. Respect of state or local water laws must be viewed as a current statement of community values and judgment. Comply with federal environmental and public health goals is required to provide consistent levels of environmental quality and public health protection and should work to prevent local management districts from unexpected and unplanned costs. Be based on sound scientific data and research, which may include information related to the hydraulic properties of aquifers, ground water levels, accurate ground water use and consumptive use data, aquifer water quality, ground water recharge rates, and aquifer maps. CONCLUSIONS As shown above, it is possible that in some conditions - the lake supply through ground water pumping could adversely affect the lake and surrounding areas. In these conditions the information regarding the ground water table and its inter-relation with the lake level must be known with sufficient accuracy around the lake, before adopting ground water supply through pumping to increase the lake level. In addition, information regarding the quality and chemistry of the ground water, as compared to the lake water, is an essential data in order to decide if the restoration of lake level through groundwater pumping is a valid and recommended solution that will not affect the aquatic flora and fauna.

133 ATTACHMENTS

134 LAKE LEVEL, GROUND WATER AND CLIMATE CHANGE INTERACTION Correspondence regarding the presentation Climate Change and Potential Impacts on Wisconsin s Lakes, Streams and Groundwater by Tim Asplund (WDNR) at the Conference Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region (2007) Excerpts from this presentation are attached RE: The following from Gwen White From: White, Gwen Sent: Tuesday, December 11, :49 AM Subject: Tim Asplund, WDNR lake level & climate change presentation Tim Asplund, Wisconsin DNR, just gave a presentation at the Midwest F&W Conf on extreme high and low lake levels in Wisconsin. The climate change presentations this morning have predicted both of these extremes. This may explain why we have drought-level lakes in NW Indiana and lakes closed for flooding in NE Indiana. Several photos looked just like Hudson and his explanation of why this happens fits Hudson perfectly. WDNR gave a permit for groundwater pumping to attempt to maintain one of them. He didn't say if this worked or not. Other notes follow: Drainage vs. seepage-fed lakes (relative contribution of groundwater recharge vs. land runoff) - groundwater flow-through lakes tend to have highest variation (up to 10 ft elevation difference vs. 2.5 for drainage-fed lakes) - lakes in small geographic area responded to drought very differently depending on surface or groundwater source - large water withdrawal users tend to be groundwater rather than surface water, implications of regulating high-capacity wells near lakes, which can move the groundwater divide so that the underground flow is reversed away from a lake Projected climate changes - temperature (more variation in lake water temp than in air temp) - more extreme precipitation events, including flooding/thunderstorms (more 100 yr events) or drought depending on location - reduced evaporation due to higher dew points in northern states [Mark Seeley, an earlier speaker noted that 80 degree dewpoints are unprecedented in WI & MN and more typical of tropical climates. He said lake heating increases due to tropical dew points. A lake can't release heat to air that is already full of water vapor, so they continue to heat up rapidly.] - soil moisture curve changes (generally drier) Effects on lakes - Upward long-term trend in lake stage and baseflow in some areas - Shorter duration of ice cover increases evaporation rates in winter - Lower precipitation and higher heat in summer decreases soil moisture in some areas - High drought in northern Minnesota lakes with extreme flooding in southeast MN lakes - Groundwater fed lakes on divide between Mississippi and Great Lakes divide have dramatic decline in lake levels [just like Hudson] - These continental divide locations also have high groundwater pumping for irrigation, etc. - Lake higher in the landscape likely to drop (drought) due to sensitivity to changes in evaporation and groundwater - Lakes lower in landscape may rise (flood) due to buffering from short-term drought - This difference can apply both within a small watershed as well as across larger landscape - Impacts on shoreline vegetation dynamics, invasive species, fish habitat use, shoreline protection & human use Global climate change and impacts on lakes may be a good topic for the ILMWG at some point too. (Gwen)

135 EXCERPTS FROM TIM ASPLUND S PRESENTATION Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region Starting a Public Discussion Tonight: Climate Change and Potential Impacts on Wisconsin s Lakes, Streams and Groundwater

136 Changes in the Hydrologic Cycle Lake Hydrology Krohelski 2003 Fig 2.3 Magnuson et al. 2006

137 Factors affecting lake water levels ulake morphology and hydrology ulandscape position unatural variability (weather) ushort term drought (and wet) cycles uclimate change uhuman water use (i.e. pumping) Groundwater Discharge u Natural Lake u Water Source Groundwater Precipitation Limited Runoff u May have springs u Has Stream Outlet

138 Natural Source: Ken Bradbury Affected By Pumping Anvil Lake Stage Record ( ) Anvil Lake, Vilas County, WI Stage, in feet /1/30 1/1/40 1/1/50 1/1/60 1/1/70 1/1/80 1/1/90 1/1/00 1/1/10 Source: USGS Some lakes are dropping over the long term Source: USGS

139 Shell Lake Stage Record ( ) /1/30 1/1/40 1/1/50 1/1/60 1/1/70 1/1/80 1/1/90 1/1/00 1/1/10 Source: USGS However, some lakes in the same areas are gaining water and increased water level Wisconsin Air Temperatures Annual Mean Air Temperature (F) Annual Air Temperature (F) Increase 0.04 F/decade increase = 0.04F/decade Notice Change Increase 0.7 F/decade increase = 0.7F/decade Magnuson: Data from State Climatology Office

140 What happened to precipitation in Wisconsin? 45 Annual Total (inches) Median = 30.2 in. Fall 50% Summer 30% Winter 17% Spring 3% Median = 33.2 in Magnuson 2006: Data from Wisconsin State Climatology Office Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Atmospheric Concentrations Radiative Forcing (Wper m 2 ) IPCC 2007

141 Implications of low water levels Source: USGS Circular 1186 Low lake level over long periods of time could adversely influence the type of vegetation in the surrounding areas and the water quality in the lake with negative effects on flora and fauna. Worst Impacts Are Not Inevitable No-regrets solutions available now A three-pronged approach to deal with climate change: 1. Reducing our emissions 2. Minimizing pressure on the environment Source: Claude Grondin 3. Planning and preparing to manage the impacts of a changing climate UCS/ESA 2003

142 Source: D. Peck, Ramsar UCS/ESA 2003 Reducing Our Emissions Energy Solutions Transportation Solutions Agricultural Solutions Forestry Solutions Integrated Strategies Source: NREL Source: Warren Source: GW Wind Energy Minimizing Pressure on Our Environment Air Quality Improvements Water Resource Protection Habitat Protection Urban and Land Use Planning Source: NRCS UCS/ESA 2003

143 Projected Climate Changes in the Great Lakes Region by 2100 Temperature Winter 5-12 F (3-7 C) Summer 5-20 F (3-11 C) Extreme heat more common Growing season several weeks longer Precipitation Winter, spring increasing Summer, fall decreasing Drier soils, more droughts More extreme events storms, floods Could be % more frequent than now Ice cover decline will continue Source: Bob Allan, NREL UCS/ESA 2003 Managing Climate Impacts Emergency Preparedness Agricultural and Forestry Adaptations Public Health Improvements Source: US Army Corps of Engineers Infrastructure Adjustments Education UCS/ESA 2003 Source: John Pastor

144 Which one is the future? Maybe both! END OF TIM ASPLUND S PRESENTATION

145 EXCERPTS FROM ANOTHER PAPER OF TIM ASPLUND & OTHERS REGARDING GROUNDWATER AS A WATER SUPPLY 1 : Wisconsin Natural Resources Magazine, June 2004 A growing thirst for groundwater Where water demand outpaces supply, times warrant a fresh look at a resource considered unfathomable and unending. By Lisa Gaumnitz, Tim Asplund and Megan R. Matthews Lisa Gaumnitz is public affairs manager for DNR s water programs. Tim Asplund is a DNR water resources specialist. Megan R. Matthews writes for DNR resource and environmental programs. I s hard to conceive that Wisconsin groundwater, long viewed as a bottomless well, could run dry in some places. With 1.2 million billion gallons of groundwater, as well as the Mississippi River and two Great Lakes, there isn t any other state that has anything like it says Jill Jonas, who directs the state s drinking water and groundwater program. It s not that we don t have enough water, but in a growing number of places, we re pumping groundwater faster than it can recharge. There are areas in the state where streams aren t running and where springs aren t flowing because the groundwater that feeds them is being drawn dry by people. Humans have interrupted the water cycle. It s creating a vicious circle in some parts of the state and a cautionary tale in other places that still have a favorable water balance. In the last century, pumping has reduced groundwater levels by 450 feet around Milwaukee and Waukesha, by more than 300 feet in the Green Bay area, and by about 60 feet in Dane County. These long-term drops in groundwater levels affect the quantity and quality of water available to communities, private well users, and in some cases to the lakes, rivers, wetlands and springs that depend on them for year-round flow. The search for new water supplies and technological fixes is compounding these problems, revealing weaknesses in state laws that govern the sitting and operation of wells. It s also pitting communities and residents against one another and the natural resources they adore. For example, in southeastern Wisconsin, Waukesha County is pumping 25 percent more groundwater than in 1979, contributing to a dropping water table and drawing water from rock layers that liberate naturally-occurring radium into drinking water, which must be treated. New Berlin has limited future planned industrial, commercial and residential growth to stay within the capacity of its existing shallow water wells. And the Village of Mukwonago, despite an exhaustive search for a new source of drinking water, is siphoning water away from a rare Wisconsin wetland that harbors endangered plant species dependent on a constant supply of high quality groundwater. But there are signs that Wisconsinites are starting to see the connection between groundwater, surface water and the need to better manage water uses: 1

146 Legislation passed in late March (2004) for the first time addresses groundwater quantity issues and seeks to control well location and pumping rates to prevent harm to trout streams and other nearby sensitive surface waters. A regional effort to assess, coordinate and manage drinking water supplies is underway in southeastern Wisconsin, where the state s deepest drawdowns have occurred. This year the Great Lakes governors and their Canadian counterparts are expected to update the agreement that protects Great Lakes waters and seeks to limit exports of waters to communities outside the basin. "The fact is that there are places where obtaining a ready supply of water are already a challenge. Matters will only worsen unless we make changes. We need to make a conscious choice to deal with these issues says DNR Water Administrator Todd Ambs. A legacy of protecting groundwater quality now addresses quantity Wisconsin led the nation in crafting laws to protect groundwater quality and provide safe drinking water. State regulations from the 1930s governed well construction, pump installation and set the nation s standard for providing safe, sanitary drinking water. Laws to limit groundwater contamination and require corrective cleanups were crafted 20 years ago as Wisconsin faced concerns from potato pesticides, spills and potential mining wastes, but a regulatory framework to protect groundwater quantity did not receive much public attention until recently. Public interest and policymakers attention bubbled to the surface in when a proposed water bottling plant in Adams County showed that state laws didn t address whether nearby springs, wetlands or trout streams might be harmed if the wells were constructed to provide the water. The case served to make people much more aware of the connections between groundwater withdrawal, surface water and human activities. A property owner is only entitled to reasonable use of groundwater, and is potentially liable for impacts on other users. However, damages could only be prevented or recovered after-the-fact through civil lawsuits, and what was considered reasonable use might vary. Laws passed in the post-war building boom of 1945 tested whether communities could protect drinking water supplies by requiring approvals before sinking high capacity wells near any municipal well. These private high cap wells -- capable of withdrawing more than 70 gallons a minute or more than 100,000 gallons a day -- were seen as potential threats to the public drinking water supplies serving growing cities. There was clear intent to ensure a safe drinking water supply and to separate subdivisions from enterprises like vegetable canneries, papermakers and breweries that might vie for the same water. Today, more than 9,500 high capacity wells are in service statewide providing water for agricultural irrigation, municipal drinking water, industries, schools, institutions and mobile home parks. Some other states Florida, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington have modernized their statutes to recognize that surface water and groundwater are hydraulically connected and ought to be legally linked for their mutual protection. The Groundwater Protection Act passed last March (2004) expands DNR authority over groundwater wells by requiring advance notice before any wells are constructed. The law directs DNR to review environmental consequences of proposed high capacity wells in certain situations:

147 within 1,200 feet of any surface water identified as an Outstanding Resource Water (like a pristine lake), an Exceptional Resource Water (like a wild river) or trout stream; a well that has a water loss of more than 95 percent of the water withdrawn (like a beverage bottler); any well that may significantly affect a spring that has a minimum flow of one cubic foot per second for at least 80 percent of the time. This gives the Department of Natural Resources the authority to deny well applications, yet flexibility to allow wells in whole or part if the environment is not threatened. Importantly, the law also creates a committee that will recommend what ought to be done in larger drawdown areas by the end of 2006, and will review how the law is working by the end of If the group doesn't provide substantive recommendations, the law gives DNR authority to write rules making needed changes, Ambs says. The law doesn't protect all of the water resources that need protection, "but it's a start," Ambs says, and it's one that enjoyed broad, bipartisan support: the bill passed 99-0 in the Assembly and 31-1 in the Senate. "The Governor and legislative leaders recognized the importance of protecting our groundwater supplies with this legislation," Ambs says. "It was a significant first step, but much more work needs to be done." Concerns rise as the water table drops The strains of meeting growing water demand from a sprawling population are starting to show. Statewide water use has increased 33 percent in the last 15 years and water tables are plummeting in many urban areas as our thirst for more water outstrips our ability to provide it. Perhaps no region faces this wellspring of challenges like southeast Wisconsin, where populations grew by 212 percent, 181 percent and 255 percent respectively in Ozaukee, Washington and Waukesha counties from In these suburban areas, groundwater use rose 29 percent from 72 to 93 million gallons a day. Milwaukee draws its water from Lake Michigan, but the bulk of the communities and industries farther inland from the coast tap into a shallow aquifer, a deep sandstone aquifer or both. Both aquifers are being pumped heavily, but the deep aquifer is being depleted far faster than percolating rain or snowmelt can replace it. There are quantity issues from declining water levels and over pumping says Steve Schultz, a water supply department head at Ruekert & Mielke Inc., a consulting engineering firm in Waukesha. That forces communities to look at other sources of supply, including shallow aquifers and surface water from Lake Michigan. Many communities in southeastern Wisconsin also use deep wells that have a problem with radionuclides. It s very costly to treat this contamination, and in many cases it s cheaper to look for alternative sources Schultz said. We hope to have a regional approach to managing groundwater to avoid fights in adjoining communities for limited supplies says Chad Czarkowski, DNR drinking water and groundwater expert in southeastern Wisconsin. States have to plan rather than react when regulating groundwater use, Schultz says. Many Western states buy and sell water rights. Those rights become a commodity to be

148 traded rather than a shared resource for public betterment. We hope Wisconsin won t go down that path Schultz says. Protecting Great Lakes waters from overuse The Great Lakes shoreline remains another frontier for defining collective rights to water. As growing communities look for new sources of water, it s only natural that those near the coast view tapping those massive waters as a solution. Drawing water from the lakes brings its own environmental and engineering challenges. Near shore waters on the Great Lakes are susceptible to contaminants in runoff, untreated stormwater, atmospheric pollutants and the byproducts of wastewater treatment. Treating Great Lakes water to make it potable is expensive. Keeping the intakes free of zebra mussels and other organisms is surmountable, but requires constant maintenance. Moreover, despite the vastness of the Great Lakes, water demands are increasing from every community on its borders in the United States and Canada. To better manage the lakes collectively, governors from the eight states and premiers from the two Canadian provinces bordering the Great Lakes signed a Great Lakes Charter in 1985 setting guidelines and principles for managing Great Lakes water. The Charter sets a communal pledge to protect, conserve and restore the waters and the natural resources that depend on the Great Lakes. A key provision of the Charter aimed to regulate large water withdrawals and diversions from metropolitan centers bordering the lakes. A supplementary agreement, called Annex 2001 includes proposed provisions clarifying how, where and when water can be removed or diverted from the lakes, or from groundwater that feeds them. Those provisions are scheduled for public review this summer. In spite of their vast size, both water quality and water levels can change quickly and unpredictably on the Great Lakes. Natural weather variations and long-term water level cycles compound water diversions by shore land cities. Low lake levels the last few years left bluffs, shorelines, docks, piers and harbors high and dry. Inland wells are taking their toll too. A recent study by the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey shows that in the last 60 years well water withdrawals throughout southeastern Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan were substantial enough to slow and reverse groundwater flow in some areas. In the region between Milwaukee and Waukesha County, groundwater models show that pumping water from the deep aquifers has begun to alter groundwater flow patterns extending to Lake Michigan, the Illinois border and western Waukesha County. Indeed, about 7.5 percent of the groundwater that used to flow toward Lake Michigan never reaches the coast; it s drawn into wells. Most of that water eventually reaches Lake Michigan through storm sewers and as treated wastewater, but the location, timing and quality of the return flow is different than what it was under natural conditions the USGS report concludes. In an era when human demands can change the flow of groundwater from the Great Lakes toward inland communities, each state and Canadian province bordering the Great Lakes must consider what sorts of water diversions should be allowed to provide water for drinking water, agricultural and industrial uses.

149 Costs drive community searches for options Some communities are looking to technology to reduce costs of providing water. One method public water utilities are considering is a system called ASR (Aquifer Storage and Recovery). The communities of Green Bay and Oak Creek have both tested ASR as a response to increased demand for water and dropping water tables. Essentially, ASR occurs in cycles Rather than storing water in reservoirs or towers, drinkable water is injected into underground wells, stored until needed and then drawn from the aquifer for public use in each cycle. Costs to construct an ASR well can be about half the traditional costs to build water reservoirs or elevated water towers, but they are still substantial -- $200,000 - $800,000 for each million gallons per day of storage capacity. Costs are less to convert existing unused wells than to drill new storage wells. Until now, Wisconsin s policy has been that groundwater should remain untouched the idea of injecting water, wastes or any other substances (including the chlorine in treated drinking water) into an aquifer was not an option. As a consequence, state drinking water regulators took a go-slow approach to such proposals. By state statute, no new chemicals can be introduced into Wisconsin s groundwater. Results are mixed. Both communities successfully stored and recovered water; however, monitoring showed elevated levels of substances that may eventually violate drinking water standards. Jonas sympathizes with communities facing the considerable expense of treating drinking water, but she doesn t think cost should trump all other concerns. We have to start asking ourselves, is it that important to have green lawns when we re pumping water so hard that it s getting contaminated with radium and arsenic? If we want to have quality springs, streams and drinking water, we have to start using water responsibly rather than hoping there s some technological fix. We re wasting water and we have to have greater respect for it. These are precious resources that we should hang onto, she says. People in the future deserve a chance to see and experience these same plentiful resources. V3 Note: As shown above, lake level is cyclic, with dry and wet periods. For example, in the 60 s, Lake Michigan level was one of the lowest.

150 Excerpts from Other Related Sources LAKE MERCED RESTORATION San Francisco History & Key Issues Pilot Storm Water Enhancement Project (December 2003) 2 Lake Merced has historically served a number of functions for the City of San Francisco, and water levels in the lake have responded dramatically. Lake Levels: Lake water levels rise and fall between two to three feet seasonally due to rainfall, evaporation and groundwater seepage, evaporation and seepage, with highest lake levels typically occurring in late winter and early spring and lowest levels occurring in early fall. Lake levels also respond to groundwater, with lake levels increasing and decreasing as groundwater levels increase and decrease (SFPUC, 1996). Local groundwater pumping by municipalities, cemeteries and golf courses, as well as surface flow diversion and lack of natural recharge due to urbanization in the basin has led to declining water levels in the lake. Efforts to further understand groundwater conditions and their interaction with Lake Merced have led to ongoing groundwater studies. Restoring Lake Levels: A wide range of alternative water sources was initially evaluated in 1998 by the SFPUC (Feasibility Evaluation of Alternatives to Raise Lake Merced, CH2MHILL, 1998). Based on that initial evaluation and direction from the Commission, the four alternative sources of make-up water currently being investigated by the SFPUC are Recycled Water (from either Daly City or the SFPUC Oceanside Plant), SFPUC System Supply Water, Vista Grande Canal Stormwater from Daly City, and Westside Basin Groundwater. For each source, physical and chemical water quality parameters are being evaluated in order that future environmental assessments can be made. Operational issues that may affect the feasibility of using the alternative water sources include water delivery infrastructure requirements, long-term availability, and treatment requirements. All of the four sources have advantages and disadvantages. Recycled Water. Recycled water from either the City of Daly City or the SFPUC s Oceanside Plant could provide a nearby abundant source. Recycled water from the City of Daly City would be available in the winter months, beginning in late 2004, when it is not needed for golf course irrigation. The SFPUC s Recycled Water Master Plan is currently in the initial stages of development and use for Lake Merced is a potential option that will be included in that Plan. In either case, recycled water may need to meet significant permitting and treatment requirements to address the fact that Lake Merced is currently listed as a potential source of drinking water by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, elevated nutrients in the recycled water would need further treatment regardless of this designation to maintain and/or improve water quality. Stormwater. Stormwater from Daly City is another nearby abundant source of water for Lake Merced. Indeed, this water historically flowed into Lake Merced but has been diverted to the Vista Grande Canal over the years. Stormwater samples show elevated levels of nutrients and coliform that will require treatment 2

151 or source control. To date, the City of Daly City has been unable to locate the source of coliform, even after aggressive sanitary sewer investigations, which are continuing. A separate pilot project is underway to evaluate coliform die off and nutrient removal associated with aeration and bio filtering by diverting up to 10% of the Vista Grande flow through vegetation and wetlands prior to discharge to the lake. SFPUC System water. Dechlorinated SFPUC System water has been used for several years to periodically raise lake levels. The water quality is very good and existing infrastructure allows easy discharge to the lake when water is available from the system. However, chloramine treatment of system supply water commences in fall 2003, after which some form of additional re-treatment will be required prior to discharge to the lake, as water will not be of suitable quality for direct discharge to the lake. It is likely that a typical dechloramination processes will be cost and space prohibitive for this project. However, an investigation is underway, as part of this evaluation, to identify other potential treatment options. In addition, there are concerns associated with using city drinking water for lake filling/make-up water. Lastly, the availability of the supply in the event of a drought is uncertain. Groundwater. Groundwater pumped from a nearby existing or new well could be an easy-to-implement option. While nitrogen tends to be higher in groundwater than in Lake Merced, treatment of groundwater prior to discharge to the lake is not likely to be required because Lake Merced is phosphorous limited. Other possible sources of ground water are existing dewatering wells located in the basin. As with any groundwater source unless located adjacent to Lake Merced, conveyance issues could be costly and would need to be addressed. In addition, the broader effects of groundwater extraction on the lake-aquifer system will need to be reviewed in greater detail especially in regards to wells in close proximity to Lake Merced prior to considering this as a viable alternative. Groundwater could potentially be used as a limited, short-term source for maintaining lake levels while other options are being developed

152 Excerpts from: Initiative to Raise Lake Merced Level & Improve Water Quality (EDAW, September 2004a, b) Task 3 and 4 Technical Memorandums 3 These technical memoranda (TMs) were completed as part of a series of TMs to gain understanding on the lake ecosystem, lake and groundwater interactions, and to provide information in support of maintaining and augmenting water levels and water quality improvement in Lake Merced. Four water augmentation sources for Lake Merced SFPUC System Supply Water, Vista Grande Stormwater, Recycled Water from SFPUC or Daly City, and Westside Basin Groundwater - were evaluated for impacts to existing beneficial uses, water quality, infrastructure, vegetation, and fisheries and wildlife. The volume of water needed to raise and maintain lake levels is discussed in detail in recent years. Two water augmentation alternatives were developed a seasonal input with fluctuating lake levels, and a year-round supply maintaining a constant lake level. Assuming seasonal water supply additions, it is estimated that in a year of average hydrologic conditions, about 500 AF will be needed to maintain the lake in a range between 3 and 5 feet (SF city datum) after the initial water requirement to bring the lake level to this level is met. Under average hydrologic conditions, a multiple year hydrograph of managed lake levels could be expected to be as illustrated in Figure 3-1. This figure is based on 1960/1961 through 1962/1963 hydrologic condition (average precipitation of inch), in which the initial supplemental water to raise the lake level would vary depending on the desired level increase. For example, assuming an existing lake level of 0 feet (SF city datum), the initial supplemental water requirement to raise the lake level by +4 feet would be about 1,400 AF. After reaching the +4 feet increase, the lake would decline about 2 feet through the spring, summer and early fall as a result of seepage and evaporation. Seasonal additions of precipitation and supplemental water would then restore the desired lake level through the winter followed by repeat cycle of decline and subsequent seasonal addition. As illustrated in Figure 3-2, after the initial water requirement to raise Lake Merced is met, the volume of water required to maintain the lake level in the following water year (1961/1962) is only about 600 AF. In water year 1962/1963, which was only slightly wetter than average, the volume of water to maintain lake level is close to 250 AF. Therefore, between 250 AFY and about 600 AFY of additional supply is required to maintain the lake at the desired interim lake level range average between 3 to 5 feet (SF city datum), during average hydrologic conditions. It is important to note that water requirements to sustain a target lake level will be impacted by hydrologic conditions, and will be more significant during dry year conditions. The TMs stated that existing lake water quality was determined to be eutrophic for a majority of the year with high nutrient levels and that these conditions may or may not be attributed to natural physical parameters of the lake, and can also be hastened by nutrients in other inputs, such as stormwater. 3 Vista Grande Watershed Study Chapter 3 Previous Studies, August

153 REFERENCES CH2M Hill, Vista Grande Canal Lake Merced Pilot Stormwater Treatment Project (Draft) prepared for the NSMCSD, City of San Francisco, County of San Mateo, August 30, CH2M Hill, Feasibility Evaluation of Alternatives to Raise Lake Merced, Lake Merced Technical memorandum No.1 (Draft), prepared for the SFPUC, October 19, CASQA BMP Handbook, New Development and Redevelopment EDAW Initiative to Raise and Maintain Lake Level and Improve Water Quality, Lake Merced Task 3 Technical Memorandum, prepared for the SFPUC, August GRC (Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc.), Lake Merced Water Resource Planning Study, prepared for the San Francisco Water Department, May 24, Luhdorff and Scalmanini, Assessment of Water Addition Scenarios, Lake Merced, prepared for the SFPUC, May 2002.

154 Excerpts from: Development of a Decision Support Tool (DST) in Support of Water Right Acquisitions in the Walker River Basin 4 The overall objective of this project is to develop, test and implement a computer-based DST for the Walker River basin to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed water right acquisitions for increasing water deliveries to Walker Lake. The DST will capture important relationships among climate, simulate the evaporation from open water surfaces such as streams and ditches and the transpiration from different vegetation sources, river flows, groundwater-surface water exchange along the river, irrigation practices, groundwater pumping, lake volume, and total dissolved solids levels in Walker Lake. Walker Lake 5 Walker Lake is the terminal lake of the Walker River watershed draining east off the Sierra Nevada mountains (see map in next section). It supports threatened fish and hundreds of thousands of migrating birds, including biannual visits by up to a fourteen hundred migrating Common Loons to and from unknown locations. It is one watershed north of Mono Lake which became infamous when the City of Los Angeles diverted much of its inflow to suburban lawns and golf courses causing water levels to drop and water chemistry and limnology to change. The solution to the problem of a disappearing Walker Lake is simple: obtain more water. Implementing that solution is as complex as the watershed. Quoting limnologist Dr. Alex Horne of California-Berkeley, Walker Lake is a "rare and endangered species of lake" of which only a "handful exists in all of North America and on earth". The unfolding story of Walker Lake provides a case study of complex water issues that will be repeated all over the western United States. The level of Walker Lake fluctuated greatly during the past 5000 years (Benson et al. 1991). Most of these fluctuations were due to evulsions of the river channel rather than climatic variability. For example, the Walker River may have diverged through the Adrienne Valley north to join the Carson River (King 1993) around 2100 BP. When this occurred, Walker Lake completely dried. This may have prevented the cui-ui fish from establishing because it can not survive in fluvial systems. This diversion and subsequent desiccation may have allowed Walker Lake to attain its current low levels of salinity because much of the salt blows from a dried lake bed. Prior the unnatural drying beginning in 1882, TDS would have been near 2600 mg/liter (Myers 1997) which compares with values in a natural Mono Lake exceeding 20,000 mg/liter

155 The Problem The water law of most western states is based on the principle of prior appropriation which basically means: "first in time, first in right". The first person to put water to a beneficial use owns the highest priority water right on a river. Each water right owner on a river system has a priority date equivalent to the first date the water was used. The oldest, or senior, rights on a river must be completely filled before younger, or junior, rights receive any water. This is true without regard to the value of the use to which the water is applied. Water must be used at the same location in perpetuity unless the owner applies for, and receives, a transfer in point or type of use. Other users may protest such a change if they feel they will be harmed. For example, a user may be harmed if his or her water right is actually the return flow from another s use and the proposed change will eliminate that return flow. Return flow is the water that "returns" to a stream after being used and may be either on the surface or in the groundwater. Some states have begun to require minimum flows on some rivers to preserve habitat. Some states merely allow their wildlife department to purchase water rights and "use" the water by allowing flow to remain in the stream. On streams with inappropriate water, states may choose not to grant rights if they will lower flows below a minimum. Nevada does not currently have any instream flow requirements. Diversions primarily to irrigate alfalfa have caused the decreased flows. The river basin is federally adjudicated, which means that a federal district court certified the water rights. Water rights exist for about 130% of the normal river flow. The only rights dedicated to the lake are flood water rights, which basically mean that the lake is legally entitled to all water that currently escapes the diversions. Most of the water rights owners are organized into an irrigation district to improve their water management. The district also owns two reservoirs on the system to store spring runoff. Prior to development, most lake inflow occurred during spring runoff. The district s reservoirs evaporate about 10,000 acre-ft/year and Weber Reservoir, owned by the Walker River Paiute Tribe just upstream from Walker Lake, evaporates 4000 acre-ft/year. (An acre-foot is a volume equal to one foot of depth spread over one acre.) Evaporation is a rather small proportion of Walker River flow compared to many other developed rivers in the West, but the reservoirs deplete the flow by allowing storage rights to supplement the surface water flow rights which allow additional acreage to be irrigated. Beginning in the late 1950s, many irrigators developed supplemental groundwater wells to be used only when surface water flows are insufficient to meet their right. This is a form of water banking in that wintertime surface flows will make up groundwater deficits. Pumping has decreased the groundwater levels by tens of feet which decreases groundwater flow to the river in the Smith Valley and causes flow losses in the river in the Mason Valley. During high flow years in the early 1980s, a much smaller proportion of flow made it through the valleys to Walker Lake than during previous years because of the aquifer recharge. The combination of over-appropriation, reservoirs and groundwater pumping has led to decreased flows to Walker Lake. Flows reaching Walker Lake from its river have decreased by two-thirds, from 285,000 acre-ft/year to 90,000 acre-ft/year since The lake level dropped 150 feet between 1882 and 1994 and the volume decreased from 9.1 to 1.9 million acre-ft. During an eight-year drought prior to 1994, no flow reached Walker Lake. TDS concentrations peaked at over mg/l which is almost lethal for LCT and Tui Chubs. If allowed to continue, most fish will die and most of the birds that feed on them will have to find a different resting and feeding location. In arid Nevada, free water surfaces are long ways apart; the different productivity of reservoirs makes them poor replacements. Fortunately, high flows returned in 1995 because of an extremely wet winter. As of this writing (March 1997) after three wet winters, the lake level is

156 up eight feet. Nonetheless, with evaporation rates of four feet per year, a return to dry conditions for just a few years would cause ecosystem collapse. Solutions People working to save Walker Lake have one primary goal which will satisfy most other interests: reestablish spawning runs of Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. This requires three things. The lake must have sufficient water that TDS levels are low enough to allow natural growth and productivity. The river must flow into the lake during the spring of enough years to allow spawning runs. And either a fish ladder must be built on Weber Reservoir or the dam must be removed to allow spawning runs up the river. Even hatchery-spawned LCT feel the reproductive urge when flow reaches the lake. During high flows in 1996, trout moved upstream until stopped by the Weber Reservoir stilling basin. The first two needs will probably be solved jointly. If water rights are obtained for the lake, they will likely be satisfied during the spring spawning run. But western water law has impediments to the transfer of water rights for environmental purposes. Buying and transferring rights, or water marketing, is a solution but the irrigation district has promised to oppose transfers in court. Although it is difficult to imagine how others are hurt by allowing water to remain in the river, court battles are costly. Ongoing groundwater and water rights modeling studies are being performed to show the impacts of potential transfers and retirement of irrigated fields. Ironically, it is possible that irrigated acreage retirement could lower well levels and decrease return flow because irrigation is the primary source of groundwater recharge. As the groundwater table lowers, it will no longer slope as steeply toward the river and flow will return slower. Prior to the advent of irrigation in the 1860s, the river probably lost water to the groundwater. Other alternatives include paying for irrigation efficiency improvements and transferring the saved water to the lake. This would require a change in state water law. No states have recognized the transfer of saved water, but the Bureau of Reclamation has considered it as part of its new (since there are no more dams to build) water management mission. Arguments over the amount of savings from structural improvements (such as lining ditches) will occur. Advantages to the ranchers are that they could continue growing the same quantity of crop and have an easier irrigation system to operate. The district holds out because they argue that saved water should go to irrigate additional acreage. This would mean the end of Walker Lake and its ecosystem. Conclusion Saving Walker Lake will require that the water rights structure of the Walker River basin be changed radically. It requires the transfer of existing surface water rights to the lake and the cessation or substantial curtailment of groundwater pumping. It can be done in ways beneficial to both humans and Nature, but it requires the political will to make hard choices regarding whether we will save an ecological treasure or allow it to die. We need to ask whether it is ethical to so totally use a resource that all else dependent on it must die. Problems in the Walker River watershed resonate throughout the West, where overappropriated rivers are diverted dry during low flow periods to the detriment of Nature and downstream economies. It is time to reconsider "first in time, first in right" water law by remembering that the first in time were the native fish and birds and other wildlife that have been using Walker water for millennia

157 Excerpts from: LAKE-GROUND WATER INTERACTION at White Bear Lake, Minnesota 6 White Bear Lake has experienced wide fluctuations of water levels over the history of settlement and use of the lake and its shores. It has ranged in elevation from feet (Ramsey County Datum) on February 6, 1991 to a high of feet (Ramsey County Datum) on May 25, These wide fluctuations (exceeding seven feet) occur over a range of years and over changing annual climatic conditions (Figure 1). During and after the recent drought period of , levels of White Bear Lake declined dramatically, approximately 4 feet over a three-year period. Afterward, even though the drought had dissipated and many area lakes had recovered to pre-drought levels, White Bear Lake remained well below long-term average levels. Residents, recreational users and local governments expressed concerns about this fact and asked the MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to investigate and report on the reasons for the continued below average lake levels. At the request and support of local communities and residents to investigate the sustained low levels, the Department sought funding for this project from the MN 6 Minnesota-DNR, June

158 Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR). LCMR asked whether the situation at White Bear Lake was unique to that particular lake. In responding, the DNR reported that White Bear Lake is not entirely unique; in fact, there are over 50 large developed lakes throughout Minnesota that are subject to wide long term level fluctuations similar to White Bear Lake. Such lakes do not have sufficient land drainage area (watershed) to sustain lake levels. White Bear Lake is one of these lakes. In further replying to the LCMR and the local community, DNR acknowledged that analyzing the causes and underlying relationships of such fluctuations would be very difficult. This lake/ground water interaction is a relatively underdeveloped branch of hydrologic analysis and modeling. Traditional forms of modeling lakes and watersheds are based on water budgets where ground water movement is generally thought to be much less significant than other factors such as precipitation, runoff and evaporation. In such situations, lake levels can be modeled by a basic inputs-and-outputs model like a checkbook balance. The rainfall and runoff are the water inputs - the outflow and evaporation are the basic water outputs. In lakes such as White Bear Lake, however, there is not enough inflow from precipitation and runoff to account for the changes in water levels. Therefore, a model was needed that also described the lake/ground water interaction. The LCMR concurred and in 1994 funded this project that is entitled, Lake/Ground water Interactions at White Bear Lake. This report is the Department's final documentation of the project's results. As a result of this project, the DNR has developed a more useful technical analysis tool for use by other water resource professionals, units of government, lake associations, and individuals. The model allows for use of commonly available or attainable data, and it is available to anyone requesting it from the DNR. the model is written in a Windows 3.11 compatible format and contains an internal user help system similar to other Windows-based software. The following work plan products have been completed as a result of this project: Final report summarizing project and focusing on White Bear Lake water balance characteristics. The completion and availability of beta version WATBUD computer model for lake water balance computations. User s manual describing basic model use. Detailed model documentation via software internal help files. Construction of 5 additional observation wells in the White Bear Lake area for future monitoring needs. Retrofitted augmentation well to well code for future Mount Simon-Hinckley monitoring needs. Construction of a steady state MODFLOW ground water model for White Bear Lake covering the eastern Twin City metropolitan area. An abstract describing the WATBUD model and use was accepted and paper presented at the NALMS 1996 Annual Conference to be held in Minneapolis in November KEY CONCLUSIONS 1. Historic level fluctuations have ranged as much as 7 feet. 2. The watershed area is larger than previously documented.

159 3. Augmentation has increased levels. 4. Augmentation appears to increase water exchange to aquifers. 5. Augmentation is not 100% efficient. 6. Level increases due to augmentation are short-lived (less than a year). 7. Lake fluctuations are strongly correlated to aquifer fluctuations. 8. Reductions to the outlet control elevation have reduced peak lake levels. WBL levels are influenced by precipitation having fallen as much as four to five years prior to the level occurrence. LEVEL AUGMENTATION Lake level augmentation from ground water began by Ramsey County in the early 1900's and detailed records are available since Four lake level augmentation wells were installed at White Bear Lake. The locations of these wells are shown in figure 21. When all were in use, the maximum rate of augmentation was 5200 G.P.M. However, throughout any augmentation period, the rate varied significantly depending on the combination of wells and pumps used. Most periods of augmentation lasted few to as many 20 consecutive years and the rate has varied significantly throughout these periods. By documenting individual pump rates and on/off dates from Ramsey County

160 White Bear Lake level charts the Division of Waters has developed a database of daily pumping rates beginning in Augmentation Summary No level augmentation occurred during the following years: , , 1957, 1962, , , present. Maximum pumped in any year: 2551 Million Gallons (MG) in 1932 = 7,825 acreft. = 3.56 ft. over 2200 acre lake Maximum pumped in any month: MG in August, 1931 = acre-ft.= 0.35 ft. over 2200 acre lake Maximum pumped in any Jan-Feb: MG in 1932 = 1,441 acre-ft.= 0.66 ft. over 2200 acre lake (The lake level rose 0.67 ft and 0.24 ft of precipitation fell over period.) Total Pumped: 1924 thru 1977 = 45,480 MG = 58 feet over surface of lake (2400 acre lake) = average of 1.1 ft./yr (2400 acre lake) LAKE LEVEL FLUCTUATION CHARACTERISTICS Figures 9 through 16 show comparisons of lake levels, monthly precipitation and monthly pumped augmentation volume (equivalent feet over 2400 acre lake) for 10-year periods from 1924 to 1996 and are the basis for the following observations. During wet periods, summer lake level increases generally exceeded declines and during dry periods, summer declines generally exceeded increases. Years without augmentation show remarkably little winter fluctuation. This is in sharp contrast with summer levels that fluctuate significantly. Winters (Dec.-Feb.) during nonaugmentation periods showed very little lake level fluctuation -- less than 0.2 feet over the 3-month period. During augmentation periods winter increases of over 0.2 feet occurred frequently. This is contrasted with maximum level declines of up to 1.0 foot during the summers of generally normal to above normal rainfall ( ) and declines up to 2.0 feet during summers of less than normal precipitation ( ). Winter levels during years with heavy winter augmentation often showed significant level increases of 0.5 to 1.0 feet. This occurred during all winters during the decade of the 30's with the maximum winter level increase occurring during the '31-'32 winter. Summer levels during periods of augmentation showed significant fluctuation. It appears from level graphs that during the early 80's ( ) lake levels, absent augmentation, increased over winter periods indicating a net ground water flow to the lake. This is in contrast to most other non-augmentation years when level decline throughout winter periods is apparent. In late November of 1984 the lake rose 0.6 feet in two weeks. Levels then fell 0.6 feet in the subsequent two weeks. This unusual fluctuation likely was likely caused by some outlet obstruction and subsequent removal as no precipitation was recorded during that period.

161

162

163

164 Modeling of Surface Water/Ground water Interaction The most detailed work on ground water/lake interaction has been by Tom Winter of the US Geological Survey and Mary Anderson of the University of Wisconsin. This work is mostly based on analytic and numerical solutions to conceptualized lake systems and has brought about an understanding of how ground water seeps into and out of idealized lakes. Searching through other articles and bodies of work on this topic has shown that most studies do not take into account the dynamics of lake level fluctuation in their modeling. One notable exception is Cheng and Anderson, 1993, who have formulated a variable lake level module for MODFLOW. Unfortunately this module is still experimental and has not been incorporated into a mainstream version of MODFLOW. Most ground water models treat lakes as constant head boundaries. Some go as far as to vary lake levels to a few discreet elevations to simulate several different boundary conditions for a model. Instead of continuously varying the lake level, set levels over large periods of time are used to model supposed stable conditions in each time interval. One study went beyond this (Sacks, etc. 1992) and reprogrammed their model to re-compute lake levels after each time step of a transient model. This example is an exception to the rule. In most ground water models, lake levels are not allowed to fluctuate, and are rarely computed explicitly. Instead, the head potential in the geologic material beneath lakes is computed. In some cases this head value makes sense to use as a lake level surrogate. Surface water models based on the mass balance approach are much better at modeling lake levels than ground water models. Unfortunately, many surface water models compute ground water inflow/outflow as the residual of water left over from the other mass balance terms. This places the lump sum of the error of the rest of the input/output components into the ground water term. A middle ground needs to be found to incorporate the concepts of ground water flow and lake/ground water interaction into a surface water models. The WATBUD model takes a step in this direction. MODFLOW application to White Bear Lake A MODFLOW finite difference model was created to simulate ground water flow through the White Bear Lake study area. MODFLOW uses a mass balance approach combined with Darcy s equation to a discretized grid of cells in the model area. A steady state application of the model was used. This model attempts to simulate head potential for the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer in the vicinity of White Bear Lake. Because of the limitations of discretization of the model, limited subsurface parameter information, and the inherent variability of the geologic medium through which water is flowing, the output should be considered approximate. The model consists of two layers (39 rows by 32 columns) to roughly correspond to the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer in the lower layer and the St. Peter and Drift/Till aquifers in the upper layer. Cell sizes are mostly one mile on a side with sides becoming 2 miles long near the periphery of the model area. Cell size in the vicinity of White Bear Lake is ½ mile on a side. The cells along the Mississippi River from Minneapolis to Prescott, WI and along the St. Croix River were modeled as constant heads in the lower layer. The Rum and the Mississippi Rivers north of Minneapolis were modeled as constant heads in the upper layer. Large lakes including White Bear Lake, Bald Eagle Lake, Forest Lake, Big Marine Lake, Lake Phalen, Pleasant Lake, and lakes in the Lino Lakes area were modeled as constant heads in the upper layer. The upper layer has a no flow boundary along the northern end of the model. The northern extent of the Prairie du Chein-Jordan aquifer is used as the northern model boundary in the lower layer. Four re-injection wells in the center of the northern end of Washington County were used to simulate flow from the outwash sands of the Anoka Sand Plain to the Prairie du Chein-Jordan system in the lower layer. Figures 34 and 35 show the upper and lower layer grid configurations.

165 U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report (Schoenberg, 1990), which reported on a finite difference ground water flow model in the Twin Cities area, was used to help construct many of the initial hydrologic input parameters. In addition, published values for hydraulic conductivity and their ranges were consulted for starting values (Kanevetsky and Walton, 1978 and Lindgren, 1990). Interpreted lithologic well logs contributed to understanding the hydrogeologic system. MODFLOW Modeling Results Water appropriation data for high capacity pumping wells completed in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer extracting on average greater than 10 million gallons/year were evaluated. Wells were simulated in MODFLOW using the WELL package. In MODFLOW multiple wells inside a cell are grouped together to extract water out of the cell as if there were only one well. 33 cells had at least one high capacity well in the six townships surrounding White Bear Lake (T29R21, T29R22, T30R21, T30R22, T31R21, and T31R22). Running the model with and without the high capacity pumping wells produced changes in the head potential surface configuration of the layer representing the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer. The steady state configuration without pumping wells shows heads ranging from 940 ft to 930 ft elevation in the White Bear Lake area (figure 36). With the pumping wells the head configuration ranges from 925 ft to 900 ft elevation over the same area (figure 37). The simulation with pumping wells is more realistic for modern day conditions than without pumping wells. The simulated higher heads without pumping indicates the potential exists for higher head levels in the aquifer directly below the lake. These higher levels would increase the upward water flow toward the lake. This would likely increase the moderating effect that the ground water connection has on the lake level.

166 The modeling of flow path lines with and without pumping wells shows changes in fate of particles placed into the aquifer s flow. Without pumping wells, some particles moving past White Bear Lake are captured into the upper layer and may eventually enter the lake and some particles flow past the lake to flow towards St. Paul (figure 38). With pumping wells, fewer particles move upward towards the lake and many particles are captured by the pumping wells (figure 39). It is hard to quantify these effects by this model, but the qualitative influence is seen.

167 CONCLUSIONS Augmentation increases White Bear Lake levels. Visual comparisons of lake level data during winters of no augmentation (1980's) to levels during winters with augmentation (1930's) shows significant level increases during augmentation periods and little increase during periods of no augmentation. It is also clear however that augmentation is not 100% effective and increased levels due to augmentation are only temporary. Winter ground water exchange analyses for each year during the 1930's and 1980's were completed. The 1930's represented a period of nearly continuous augmentation and the 1980's had no augmentation. These WATBUD analyses show ground water exchange (GWex) at White Bear Lake varies from year to year. The average estimated loss to ground water is 5 inches per year over the ten year period of 1981 to 1990, the maximum loss was 11.4 inches per year (1990) and the minimum was actually a gain of 4.4 inches per year (1982 and 1983). Augmentation at White Bear Lake appears to increase water loss from the lake to ground water. If this increased loss from the lake is totally due to augmentation effects (increased head differential resulting from higher lake levels and lower ground water level due to augmentation pumping), then 86% of the augmentation water is lost due to the pumping-induced increased loss rate to groundwater. Put another way, the effectiveness of augmentation in terms of volume added to the lake in any year is estimated by WATBUD analysis to be 14%. The efficiency of augmentation volume to lake level change is difficult to assess in greater detail due to lack of data (especially ground water levels) during augmentation. In fact, this efficiency likely varies with time as do several other factors of the water balance. It is also apparent that any level increase due to augmentation is not everlasting and likely is dissipated relatively quickly. The effect of augmentation has been described as having a half-life of one year (Hill, 1993). The ground water exchange difference (from the 1930's to the 1980's) may also be due to substantially lower ground water levels during the 1930's than existed during the 1980's. Data is not available to support or refute this potential condition. The sustained dry conditions of the 30's persisted longer than any more recent dry period and it is possible ground water levels in the 1930's were lower than in the 1980's due to these conditions. MODFLOW modeling results indicate increased use of ground water via high capacity wells for municipal water supply and commercial use has resulted in lower ground water levels. Over the long term (years, decades), White Bear Lake levels are controlled principally by the region's ground water level fluctuations and in the short term (monthly, seasonally) by the surficial elements of the lake water balance parameters (which include precipitation, runoff and augmentation). Because White Bear Lake levels above elevation 925 have been documented prior to the mid- 1920's when Ramsey County began level augmentation via ground water, it is reasonable to assume that ground water exchange and level conditions existed at that time adequate to produce those lake levels. The key to ensuring that White Bear Lake levels can continue to at least periodically exceed elevation 924 or 925 is contingent on ensuring ground water levels do not permanently drop to levels similar to those resulting from the drought of the late 1980's. The two-foot reduction in the outlet control elevation since 1940 has significantly reduced the height and duration of extreme high levels and likely has no significant effect on extreme low levels.

168 The increase in drainage area compared to that documented in 1924 will tend to generally increase levels and level duration. It will likely not affect low levels because during dry climate conditions the additional areas now draining to the lake will likely have receded to a level where they will no longer contribute drainage to the lake. A major concern of local residents, and at least a partial reason for initiation of this project, was that White Bear Lake levels would not return to normal levels following the 1988, 1989 drought. The White Bear Lake area climate caused levels to exceed elevation 923 by 1993 and levels high enough to outflow by Fall, 1995 and continued outflow into How long levels above elevation 925 or 924 or 923 will be sustained is subject to the vagaries of long-term precipitation and other factors affecting local ground water levels. These factors certainly include long-term impacts of future ground water appropriations. Ultimately we need to begin to consider the concept of not only the water balance of lakes or surface water systems but also that of ground water systems. To accomplish this, improved knowledge of ground water recharge and discharge in addition to the ability to model multiple layers of groundwater systems is needed. For surface and ground water systems, improved understanding is contingent on available data documenting the resource characteristics and analytical expertise. The data collected and presented in this report and analyses completed are just one step of many in this process

169 Excerpts from:

170

171 Excerpts from: EFFECTS OF INTRODUCED GROUNDWATER ON WATER CHEMISTRY AND FISH ASSEMBLAGES IN CENTRAL FLORIDA LAKES 7 By PATRICK COONEY THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004 Water levels in central Florida lakes have declined since the 1960s as a result of numerous factors. To maintain water levels in these lakes, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) issued permits to pump water from limestone aquifers into lakes. I assessed effects of groundwater augmentation on limnological variables and fish assemblages in seven Central Florida lakes. Pumping history information indicated that lake level fluctuations were reduced, and pumping volumes could replace the volume of water in a lake multiple times in a single year. Well water samples, when compared with current lake water samples, indicated that well water had higher mean total alkalinity and total phosphorus concentrations, and lower concentrations of total nitrogen and chlorides. The replacement of original lake water with aquifer water indicated similar patterns when comparing current lake water samples to historical samples prior to initial introduction of groundwater. Current lake water samples had higher mean ph, Secchi depth, total alkalinity, total phosphorus, and chloride concentrations, and lower mean color, nitrogen and chlorophyll concentrations than historical means. Historical fish population studies did not exist on these lakes therefore data from the augmented lakes were compared to 36 nonaugmented lakes in Florida. The mean values for catch per unit effort (CPUE), species richness and biomass of harvestable fishes were lower in augmented lakes than those in nonaugmented lakes. However, significant multiple linear regressions indicated that fish population responses of augmented lakes to environmental variables were similar to nonaugmented lakes with similar limnological characteristics. Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) was used to examine the relationship between the abundance of individual fish species and measured limnological characteristics. Most fish species and nonaugmented lakes were correlated with axis one of the CCA, whereas augmented lakes were more related to axis two, indicating that augmented lakes were characteristic of high total alkalinity and Secchi depth, and low chloride and phosphorus concentrations. Cluster analysis with these four variables further demonstrated the similarities in limnological characteristics among augmented lakes. Joint plots of the CCA indicated a high probability of a low abundance of individual species in augmented lakes compared to a majority of nonaugmented lakes. One of the augmented lakes had much lower pumping rates than the others, and exhibited less of a shift in limnological variables from historical values, as well as had fish population characteristics more closely resembling those of nonaugmented lakes in the joint plot of the CCA. 7

172 Therefore, reduced volumes of groundwater introduction could reduce the alteration of limnological and fish population characteristics. MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS Hassel (1994) suggested that augmentation is not a good long-term solution to restore lake levels to reasonable levels because of altered environmental factors. He further states that lake augmentation is a short-term remedy for a long-term problem. It is apparent that Hassel is correct in stating that environmental factors have been altered in augmented lakes. However, without augmentation, many of the lakes would go dry, as was the case of Loyce Lake prior to groundwater introduction. Augmentation allows for lakes to be utilized for boating, swimming and other recreational activities. It also allows for lake and wetland hydrology to be maintained and fish and wildlife habitat to be provided. Further, fish, bird, reptilian, mammalian, insect and aquatic plant populations were all seen in the augmented lakes in this study. Without augmentation, it is likely fish would die, and the use of the lakes for recreational purposes would be compromised. The human population in the Tampa area is constantly increasing, along with the demand for water. As the population further expands from Tampa into the suburbs, more well fields will be created, and more lakes will be affected. Similarly, as the existing well fields increase the amount of water they withdraw the cones of depression will increase, affecting more lakes in the future. Granting more permits for lake level augmentation with groundwater pumping will further alter limnological characteristics until the demand for groundwater is decreased. However, lakes will still be able to be utilized and fish populations will still be able to exist and reproduce, despite possible shifts with altered environmental patterns. It has also been suggested that these shifts were minimized with reduced levels of groundwater pumping. Another change that could improve fish population parameters, and reduce changes in plant community characteristics, is an increase in water level fluctuation (Bonvechio and Allen in press). A more natural water level regime could be created by augmenting during rainy seasons, and allowing the lakes to decrease in level during the dry season.

173 Excerpts from: Ground Water Sustainability: A White Paper 8 The Chicago-Milwaukee metropolitan area: a case study of population growth and its effect on water supplies. There is generally no extra water in an aquifer. Water captured by a pumping well will result in some combination of a loss in discharge to surface water at some other location, an increase in recharge from surface water, or a loss of storage in the aquifer. Ground water and surface water are a single resource in constant flux. Because it is impossible to use a natural resource without having some effect on it, zero impact is neither a possible nor a desirable goal. However, by understanding the linkages between ground water and other water-dependent natural resources, we can make informed decisions and sustainable compromises. Use Sources of Water Other Than Local Ground Water Using sources other than local ground water warrants switching or supplementing local ground water with available surface water supplies. In some areas, this may be a viable option. In the 1980s, a seven county area around the City of Chicago abandoned hundreds of municipal and industrial wells withdrawing from an overexploited aquifer and switched to a centralized water system using water from Lake Michigan. The allowable diversion of Lake Michigan water is now fully allocated so no additional water can be withdrawn by Illinois. Change Rates or Spatial Patterns of Ground Water Pumpage As noted, withdrawing large amounts of ground water from centralized locations may overstress the system. Centralized water withdrawals, especially from confined aquifers where low-permeability geologic layers between the land surface and aquifer restrict rainwater from reaching the aquifer, can cause mining of the aquifer using more water than is naturally replenished. Land subsidence can also result if the confining geologic layer and aquifer materials compact when the water is pumped out but not replaced. Decreasing pumping rates may help. Additionally, increasing the number and spatial distribution of the withdrawal points may allow the same quantity of ground water to be extracted with a minimization of the adverse effects. Increase Recharge to the Ground Water System One method to increase ground water recharge to aquifers is through well injection systems. The water used for injection may come from treated wastewater or other return flows. The water is treated to meet necessary regulatory standards and then injected below ground for storage and future use. In areas of the United States where ground water resources have been strained by urban sprawl or agricultural uses, such as central Florida, the use of Rapid Infiltration Basins (RIBS) at treatment facilities, such as Conserv II, is becoming a standard practice for inducing the infiltration of treated wastewater into aquifers. Use Aquifers as Reservoirs Ground water may be withdrawn from underground storage and used during dry periods. This will result in a short-term reduction in ground water levels. If this short term reduction is balanced in the long term with replenishment, ground water can be used much like an above-ground reservoir to store water for use when other sources are in short supply. 8

174 Developing a Ground Water Sustainability Strategy Determining which method or combination of methods to employ in a particular situation to promote a sustainable ground water supply generally should: Be made at a local level, whether that is a state, some government subunit, or an aquifer or ground water basin level. Local decision making provides the necessary flexibility to tailor the strategies to the specific situation. Ground water resource and climatic variability makes a one-size-fits-all approach unworkable. Local ground water management plans can incorporate site-specific information and input from all potentially affected parties. Implementation tools, such as land use planning or conservation measures, are also available at the local level. Provide for meaningful community involvement. Ground water sustainability affects the country on an individual, local, state, and national scale. Ground water sustainability requires the identification of current and future beneficial uses and a determination as to what consequences are acceptable. This determination is a value judgment requiring a balancing of many factors for a given situation. Factors that contribute to the availability of water resources vary from location to location due to differences in need, availability, climate, geology, hydrogeology, and solution choices. Respect state water laws. State water laws must be viewed as a current statement of community values and judgment. Comply with federal environmental and public health goals. Compliance with these goals is required to provide consistent levels of environmental quality and public health protection and should work to prevent local management districts from unexpected and unplanned costs. Be based on sound scientific data and research. Needed scientific information may include the hydraulic properties of aquifers, ground water levels, accurate ground water use and consumptive use data, aquifer water quality, ground water recharge rates, and aquifer maps.

175 Excerpts from: Southeastern Wisconsin Water Supply Issues and Regional Water Supply Planning Program 9 9

176 EFFECTS OF LAKE POSITION RELATIVE TO SURROUNDING WATER BODIES

177