HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-257AUGUST 10, 2010 10 -257 RESOLUTION
(CARRIED 6 -0 LOST LAID OVER WITHDRAWN )
PURPOSE: APPROVE MILLER'S BAY AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT
PLAN
INITIATED BY: PARKS DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, there exists a need to control weeds within Miller's Bay to
accommodate the use of the boat launch, mooring plugs and navigation channels within
the Bay; and
WHEREAS, the City previously hired Onterra, LLC Lake Management Planning to
work with the City to study the Bay and draft an aquatic plant management plan for Miller's
Bay; and
WHEREAS, the Miller's Bay Aquatic Plant Management Plan was presented to the
Advisory Parks Board and the Advisory Parks Board unanimously recommended the Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the
Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Oshkosh that the attached Miller's Bay Aquatic Plant Management Plan is hereby
approved and the proper City officials are hereby authorized and directed to take those
steps necessary to implement the Plan.
City of Oshkosh
Parks Department
805 Witzel Ave., PO sox 1130 Ray Maurer
Oshkosh, WI 54903 -1130 Director
O.f H<Of H (920) 236.5080 (920) 232 -5316 FAX
ON THE WATER
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council
FROM: Ray Maurer, Parks Director
DATE: August 5, 2010
RE: Miller's Bay Aquatic Plant Management Plan
BACKGROUND
The City of Oshkosh has a long history of weed control in Miller's Bay to accommodate the use of the
boat launch, mooring plugs and navigation channels out of Miller's Bay. In 2008, the Parks Department
initiated an aquatic plant management planning project for Miller's Bay by hiring Onterra, LLC Lake
Management Planning from De Pere, WI. Parks Department staff worked with Onterra to draft an
aquatic plant management plan for Miller's Bay which was presented to the Advisory Parks Board on
April 13, 2009. With the Park Operations Manager and the Parks Director position vacancies that
occurred shortly thereafter, the draft plan stalled until earlier this year.
ANALYSIS
This spring, Bill Sturm and I met with Tim Hoyman from Onterra and discussed updates and revisions to
the draft plan. The primary topic of discussion was the development of the alternative analysis for the
feasible plant control methods brought forth in the draft's Summary and Conclusions Section and the
development of a realistic implementation plan.
In June, the draft plan was reviewed and discussed by the Advisory Parks Board (see attached minutes).
Following the Advisory Parks Board meeting in June, the draft plan was reviewed by DNR staff and we
received favorable comments. At their July meeting, the Advisory Parks Board unanimously
recommended the plan for approval by the Common Council (see attached minutes).
FISCAL IMPACT
There is obviously no fiscal impact to approving the plan. The fiscal impact for future years will be based
upon the City's chosen weed control option(s). The cost comparison for the various options is summarized
in the plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Common Council approve the Miller's Bay Aquatic Plant Management Plan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ray Maurer
Parks Director
Approved:
Mark Rohloff
City Manager
�un� / 2, 2ol e
2) Discuss /recommend Draft Miller's Bay Aquatic Plant Management Plan
Mr. Maurer stated staff had met with Tim Hoytman of Onterra with respect to the management plan.
Mr. Sturm noted the latest revisions of the plan are on page 16 of the plan (said plan on file at the City Parks
office and made a part of these minutes).
There was extensive discussion as to harvesting and chemical control of Miller's Bay. Mr. Sturm noted that there
are several areas in the bay where it would be difficult to handle a harvester. The proposed plan is required to
be approved by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
Mr. Siiman inquired as to the time -frame used in the Long -term Management Action of 2014 and beyond (page
16).
Mr. Sturm stated staff had to look at a shorter period of time because It will take staff a while to get a harvester.
Staff will need to continue monitoring the bay for the DNR.
Mr. Siiman inquired as to DNR grants and how much was available?
Mr. Maurer stated he was not sure what funds /grant money is available from the DNR at this time, but would be
researching that information.
Mr. Poeschl inquired as to shared use of a harvester.
Mr. Maurer stated there are logicistical things staff needs to do first, i.e., maintenance agreements, how to
transport the harvester, how to fund the purchase, etc.
Chairman Gogolewski inquired if Miller's Bay was the biggest problem area and inquired what other areas would
a harvester be used for?
Mr. Sturm stated it is possible that a harvester could be used at Fugelberg and also at the 24 Avenue boat
launch area.
Discussion ensued as to it being difficult for a harvester to navigate the Miller's Bay area. Mr. Sturm stated that
with sailboats on the mooring plugs in Miller's Bay, it would be impossible to get a harvester in that area as there
are anchor lines and concrete weights In that area.
Mr. Wohler stated harvesters are not economical by any means. Staff has gone with chemical treatments due
to the astronomical costs of a harvester.
Mr. Sturm stated there would still be areas that would be required to be chemically treated due to the species of
the weeds. This is not a one item fix. Staff needs to work with this plan /document and use a few different
options. Chemicals are used for certain weeds as some chemicals affect nuisance plants at certain times of the
year. With chemicals, there is less costs, fewer fishes taken and less future maintenance costs.
Mr. Phillip stated he concurs with Mr. Wohler as to costs involved and that a harvester would not be able to
maneuver around the sailboats moored in Miller's Bay.
Discussion ensued as to approximate costs needed to purchase, maintain and run a harvester.
Chairman Gogolewski inquired if staff felt that the City Council would approve money for a harvester and if two
people would be able to handle /staff the harvester.
J�K� �a, amio
Mr. Poeschl stated that the City Council needs to have the best options in front of them and then be allowed to
make their decision.
Mr. Wohler stated that we don't have our ducks in a row and did not wish to have this request put before the
City Council at this time.
Motion by Wohler to take no action on this item at this time. Seconded by Michelson. Motion carried
7 -1 (Siiman).
4) Discuss /recommend Miller's Bay Aquatic Plant Management Plan
Mr. Maurer reiterated his memorandum to the Board dated July 6, 2010 (said memorandum on file at the City
Parks office and made a part of these minutes). One change in the Onterra Plan involved staff costs and to
clarify that, initial cost was based on a city of similar size to Oshkosh. Staff had included usual staff time, but
after further review, it was determined that from time to time additional staff would be needed to run the
equipment and there more likely would be occasional time required to obtain a technician to fix that equipment,
so cost was increased. Staff understands that this is a very delicate decision and staff is trying to present as
much information as possible to the City Council to enable them to make a determination that is in the best
interest of the City. Staff will continue to look into any grant monies available.
Discussion ensued as to mooring plug area within Miller's Bay and it was noted that this area presents problems
with a harvester having enough room to operate. This year the number of boat plugs was decreased due to a
lack of patrons, but if that would change in the future and more people are interested in mooring their boats in
Miller's Bay, that area will have to be enlarged again and, therefore, making it inaccessible by harvester.
Besides the cost of a harvester, there would be funds needed for a shore conveyor, trailer and other
miscellaneous costs. Staff has researched various sizes of harvesters and looked at the scale for the project area.
There are a lot of moving parts on the harvester and staff is researching a package that includes spare parts or
extended maintenance plans. There will always be additional costs for maintenance Issues.
Motion by Wohler to recommend to the City Council to adopt the Miller's Bay Aquatic Plant
Management Plan. Seconded by Fried. Motion carried 8 -0.
Miller's Bay,
Lake Winnebago
Winnebago County, Wisconsin
Aquatic Plant
Management Plan
August 2010
Sponsored by:
City of Oshkosh
B
Wisconsin DeDt. of Natural Resources
Onterra, [LC 0 n } p r r r ' LLC
135 South Broadway Suite C a. 4
De Pere, W'1 54115 ,Lake Management Planning
920.338.8860
www.onterra-eco.com
Miller's Bay, Lake Winnebago
Winnebago County, Wisconsin
Aquatic Plant Management Plan
June 2010
Created by: Tim Hoyman & Eddie Heath
Onterra, LLC
De Pere, WI
Funded by: City of Oshkosh, Winnebago County, WI.
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources
Acknowledgements
This management planning effort was truly a team -based project and could not have been
completed without the input of the following individuals:
City of Oshkosh
Tom Stephany
Vince Maas
Ray Maurer
Bill Sturm
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources
Charles Fitzgibbon
Mark Sesing
Robin McLennan
Miller's Bay, Lake Winnebago
Aquatic Plant Management Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
Introduction.................................................................................................................... ............................... 2
StakeholderParticipation ............................................................................................... ............................... 3
Results& Discussion ..................................................................................................... ............................... 4
Aquatic Plants and the Lake Ecosystem ..................................................................... ..............................4
Summaryand Conclusions .......................................................................................... ............................... 12
NuisancePlant Control ............................................................................................ ............................... 12
Enhancing the Habitat Value of Miller's Bay and its Shorelands ........................... ............................... 15
ImplementationPlan .................................................................................................... ............................... 16
Methods......................................................................................................................... .............................18
LiteratureCited ............................................................................................................ ............................... 19
FIGURES
1. Location of Miller's Bay within the ecoregions of Wisconsin ............................... ............................... 6
2. Miller's Bay aquatic plant occurrence analysis of 2008 survey ............................. ............................... 8
3. Miller's Bay Floristic Quality Assessment of 2008 survey data ............................ ............................... 9
4. Spread of Eurasian water milfoil within Wisconsin counties .............................. ............................... 10
TABLES
1. Aquatic plant species located in Miller's Bay during the 2008 point- intercept survey ......................... 7
MAPS
1. Miller's Bay Project Location .............. ............................... ........................Inserted Before Appendices
2. Miller's Bay Eurasian Water Milfoil Locations During 2008 P -I Survey... Inserted Before Appendices
3. Miller's Bay Coontail Locations During 2008 P -I Survey .. ........................Inserted Before Appendices
4. Miller's Bay Waterweed Locations During 2008 P -I Survey .....................Inserted Before Appendices
5. 2008 Permitted Treatment Areas on Miller's Bay ............... ........................Inserted Before Appendices
6. Proposed Harvest Areas ....................... ............................... ........................Inserted Before Appendices
APPENDICES
A. Public Participation Materials
B. 2008 Aquatic Plant Survey Data
C. Miller's Bay Aquatic Plant Management /Treatment Cost Comparison (Bill Sturm, Parks Dept.)
Document Information On t erra, _ _ G.
2
INTRODUCTION
City of
Oshkosh
Millers Bay is an approximate 140 -acre, shallow bay on the west shore of Lake Winnebago,
Winnebago County, Wisconsin (Map 1). The bay is surrounded by Menominee Park (City of
Oshkosh) and supports intense recreational use through its two large boat landings, a sailboat
mooring area, a sailing school, and numerous dock - mooring sites for transient boaters. Further,
the Otter Street Fishing Club sponsors multiple fishing events on and out of the bay, including a
summer kids fisheree, a popular team walleye tournament (350+ boats), and an ice fisheree.
Excessive growth of aquatic plants was first noticed in 2002, but truly nuisance levels are not
believed to have been reached until 2004. In 2005 and 2006, Schmidt's Aquatic Plant Control
was contracted to harvest areas of the bay to alleviate nuisance plant levels and restore
navigation. Although the harvesting provided immediate relief, it was short-lived as the plants
returned to their pre - harvest levels within nine days during 2006.
The first herbicide treatment was completed on Millers Bay during July 2007. That treatment,
along with those completed in 2008, were found to do much in reducing plant biomass and
restoring navigation to the southern portion of the bay.
In 2008, the City of Oshkosh, through their Parks Department, initiated the aquatic plant
management planning project for Miller's Bay. The results of the planning project's associated
studies are contained within this document along the Miller's Bay Aquatic Plant Management
Plan.
Qatgn a LLC Introduction
Miller's Bay, Lake Winnebago
Aquatic Plant Management Plan
3
STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION
Planning Meeting
On February 11, 2009, Tim Hoyman and Eddie Heath of Onterra, LLC met with Tom Stephany
and Vince Maas of the City of Oshkosh, and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) staff including, Mark Sesing, Charles Fitzgibbon, and Robin McLennan. A draft of the
management plan's report sections were supplied ahead of time for review by the attendees.
During the meeting, the Onterra staff presented the results of the aquatic plant surveys and
analysis that were completed the preceding summer on Miller's Bay.
The management needs of Miller's Bay were discussed in terms of what could be completed as a
part of this project and what could be completed via additional projects. Aquatic plant
management planning was discussed extensively along with more comprehensive management
options for the bay, such as tree placement for fisheries habitat enhancement and shoreland
restoration. Herbicide applications and mechanical harvesting were decided upon as the two
most feasible methods of plant control for the bay.
Public Results Meeting
On April 13, 2009, at a regular meeting of the Oshkosh Advisory Parks Board, Tim Hoyman
presented the results of the project's studies and the conclusions he and his staff had drawn from
those results and from the meeting described above. The presentation and discussion were
broadcast on the city's public television station and attended by approximately 30 citizens. The
presentation slides and meeting minutes can be found in Appendix A.
Draft Management Plan Review Meeting
During the summer of 2009, Tom Stephany, Parks Director retired and Vince Maas of the Parks
Department accepted a position with an area city. On April 12, 2010, Tim Hoyman met with the
new Parks Director, Ray Maurer and Bill Sturm, Landscape Operations Manager to discuss the
draft management plan that was created during the winter of 2009. The primary topic of
discussion was the development of the alternative analysis for the feasible plant control methods
brought forth in the draft's Summary and Conclusions Section and the development of a realistic
implementation plan. Both of these sections, within this draft, reflect the results of that meeting.
Stakeholder Participation O n_te,rr L.LC
r�
4
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Aquatic Plants and the Lake Ecosystem
City of
Oshkosh
Although some lake users consider aquatic macrophytes to be "weeds" and a nuisance to the
recreational use of the lake, they are actually an essential element in a healthy and functioning
lake ecosystem. It is very important that the lake stakeholders understand the importance of lake
plants and the many functions they serve in maintaining and protecting a lake ecosystem. With
increased understanding and awareness, most lake users will recognize the importance of the
aquatic plant community and their potential negative effects on it.
Diverse aquatic vegetation provides habitat and food for many kinds of aquatic life, including
fish, insects, amphibians, waterfowl, and even terrestrial wildlife. For instance, wild celery
(Vallisneria americana) and wild rice (Zizania aquatica and Z. palustris) both serve as excellent
food sources for ducks and geese. Emergent stands of vegetation provide necessary spawning
habitat for fish such as northern pike (Esox lucius) and yellow perch (Perca flavescens). In
addition, many of the insects that are eaten by young fish rely heavily on aquatic plants and the
periphyton attached to them as their primary food source. The plants also provide cover for
feeder fish and zooplankton, stabilizing the predator -prey relationships within the system.
Furthermore, rooted aquatic plants prevent shoreline
erosion and the resuspension of sediments and nutrients by
absorbing wave energy and locking sediments within their
root masses. In areas where plants do not exist, waves can
resuspend bottom sediments decreasing water clarity and
increasing plant nutrient levels that may lead to algae
blooms. Lake plants also produce oxygen through
photosynthesis and use nutrients that may otherwise be
used by phytoplankton, which helps to minimize nuisance
algal blooms.
Under certain conditions, a few species may become a problem and require control measures.
Excessive plant growth can limit recreational use by deterring navigation, swimming, and fishing
activities. It can also lead to changes in fish population structure by providing too much cover
for feeder fish resulting in reduced numbers of predator fish and a stunted pan -fish population.
Exotic plant species, such as Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and curly -leaf
pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) can also upset the delicate balance of a lake ecosystem by out
competing native plants and reducing species diversity. These invasive plant species can form
dense stands that are a nuisance to humans and provide low -value habitat for fish and other
wildlife.
When plant abundance negatively affects the lake ecosystem and limits the use of the resource,
plant management and control may be necessary. The management goals should always include
the control of invasive species and restoration of native communities through environmentally
sensitive and economically feasible methods. No aquatic plant management plan should only
contain methods to control plants, they should also contain methods on how to protect and
possibly enhance the important plant communities within the lake. Unfortunately, the latter is
often neglected and the ecosystem suffers as a result.
0 n te,rr a,. LLC Results & Discussion
Miller's Bay, Lake Winnebago
Aquatic Plant Management Plan
5
Analysis of Aquatic Plant Data
Aquatic plants are an important element in every healthy lake. Changes in lake ecosystems are
often first seen in the lake's plant community. Whether these changes are positive, like variable
water levels or negative, like increased shoreland development or the introduction of an exotic
species, the plant community will respond. Plant communities respond in a variety of ways;
there may be a loss of one or more species, certain life forms, such as emergents or floating -leaf
communities may disappear from certain areas of the lake, or there may be a shift in plant
dominance between species. With periodic monitoring and proper analysis, these changes are
detectable and provide critical information for management decisions.
The aquatic plant surveys completed as a part of this project produced a great deal of information
about the aquatic vegetation within the bay. These data are analyzed and presented in numerous
ways; each is discussed in more detail below.
Primer on Data Analysis & Data Interpretation
Species List
The species list is simply a list of all of the species that
were found within the system being studied, both exotic
and native. The list also contains the life -form of each
plant found, its scientific name, and its coefficient of
conservatism. The latter is discussed in more detail below.
Changes in this list over time, whether it is differences in
total species present, gains and losses of individual species,
or changes in life -forms that are present, can be an early
indicator of changes in the health of the lake ecosystem.
Frequency of Occurrence
Frequency of occurrence describes how often a certain species is found within a lake.
Obviously, all of the plants cannot be counted in a waterbody, so samples are collected from pre-
determined areas. In the case of Miller's Bay, plant samples were collected from plots laid out
on a grid that covered the entire bay (Map 1). Using the data collected from these plots, an
estimate of occurrence of each plant species can be determined. In this section, relative
frequency of occurrence is used to describe how often each species occurred relative to the other
plants. These values are presented in percentages and if all of the values were added up, they
would equal 100 %. For example, if water lily had a relative frequency of 0.1 and that value was
described as a percentage, it would mean that water lily made up 10% of the population.
In the end, this analysis indicates the species that dominate the plant community within the lake.
Shifts in dominant plants over time may indicate disturbances in the ecosystem. For instance,
low water levels over several years may increase the occurrence of emergent species while
decreasing the occurrence of floating -leaf species. Introductions of invasive exotic species may
result in major shifts as they crowd out native plants within the system.
Results & Discussion
_�. ne_rra.Lc
City of
6 Oshkosh
Species Diversity
Species diversity is probably the most misused value in ecology because it is often confused with
species richness. Species richness is simply the number of species found within a system or
community. Although these values are related, they are far from the same because diversity also
takes into account how evenly the species occur within the system. A lake with 25 species may
not be more diverse than a lake with 10 if the first lake is highly dominated by one or two species
and the second lake has a more even distribution.
A lake with high species diversity is much more stable than a lake with a low diversity. This is
analogous to diverse financial portfolio in that a diverse lake plant community can withstand
environmental fluctuations much like a diverse portfolio can handle economic fluctuations. For
example, a lake with a diverse plant community is much better suited to compete against exotic
infestation than a lake with a lower diversity.
Floristic Quality Assessment
Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) is used to
evaluate the closeness of a lake's aquatic plant
community to that of an undisturbed, or pristine,
lake. The higher the floristic quality, the closer
a lake is to an undisturbed system. FQA is an
excellent tool for comparing individual lakes
and the same lake over time. In this section, the
floristic quality of Miller's Bay is compared to
lakes in the same ecoregion and in the state
(Figure 1).
The floristic quality of a lake is calculated using
its species richness and average species
conservatism. As mentioned above, species Figure 1. Location of Miller's Bay within
richness is simply the number of species that the ecoregions of Wisconsin. After
occur in the lake, for this analysis, only native Nichols 1999.
species are utilized. Average species
conservatism utilizes the coefficient of conservatism values for each of those species in its
calculation. A species coefficient of conservatism value indicates that species' likelihood of
being found in an undisturbed (pristine) system. The values range from one to ten. Species that
are normally found in disturbed systems have lower coefficients, while species frequently found
in pristine systems have higher values. For example, cattail, an invasive native species, has a
value of 1, while common hard and softstem bulrush have values of 5, and Oakes pondweed, a
sensitive and rare species, has a value of 10. On their own, the species richness and average
conservatism values for a lake are useful in assessing a lake's plant community; however, the
best assessment of the lake's plant community health is determined when the two values are used
to calculate the lake's floristic quality (see equation below).
FQI = Average Coefficient of Conservatism (5.4) * Number of Native Species (16)
FQI = 21.5
{ tC'.1"ra LLC Results & Discussion
LaAe Pxanagement AamdrW
Miller's Bay, Lake Winnebago
Aquatic Plant Management Plan
2008 Point - intercept Survey Results
In 2008, Onterra completed an aquatic plant survey on Miller's Bay utilizing the point- intercept
method as described in "Appendix B" of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource
(WDNR) document, Aquatic Plant Management in Wisconsin - Draft (April 2006). The survey
identified 19 species of aquatic plants within the bay, including three exotics (Table 1). The
three exotics include two submerged species, Eurasian water milfoil and curly -leaf pondweed,
and one emergent variety, purple loosestrife.
Table 1. Aquatic plant species located in Miller's Bay during the 2008 point- intercept
survey.
Life
Scientific
Common
Coefficient of
Form
Name
Name
Conservatism (c)
ro
Iris versicolor
Northern blue flag
5
m
Juncus pelocarpus
Brown - fruited rush
8
w
Lythrum salicaria*
Purple loosestrife
Exotic
Vallisneria ameticana
Wild celery
6
U_ Nymphaea odorata White water lily 6
U_
Lemna minor
Wolffia sp.
Spirodela polyrrhiza
Lesser duckweed
Watermeals
Greater duckweed
5
5
5
Ceratophyllum demersum
Coontail
3
Myriophyllum spicatum
Eurasian water milfoil
Exotic
Najas flexilis
Slender naiad
6
Elodea canadensis
Common waterweed
3
Vallisneria ameticana
Wild celery
6
Q
a�
Heteranthera dubia
Water stargrass
6
E
Elodea nuttallii
Slender waterweed
7
Potamogeton foliosus
Leafy pondweed
6
Potamogeton crispus
Curly -leaf pondweed
Exotic
Potamogeton richardsonii
Clasping -leaf pondweed
5
Stuckenia pectinata
Sago pondweed
3
Nitella sp.
Stoneworts
7
FL = Floating Leaf
FF = Free - floating
= Incidental
As Figure 2 indicates, Miller's Bay is highly dominated by coontail, which makes up nearly 40%
of the bay's plant population. Eurasian water milfoil occurs frequently also and makes up just
over 18% of the population. The remaining plants in the population occur at frequencies of 10%
or less. While Miller's Bay was found to have more native species within it than most lakes in
the ecoregion (Figure 3), its species diversity is low (Simpson's Diversity = 0.78) because the
lake is dominated by two species, coontail and Eurasian water milfoil. In other words, while the
bay has a relatively high species richness, the frequency of each species is unevenly distributed,
which leads to a low diversity. As alluded to above, this would be analogous to having 20 stocks
in your portfolio with two stocks making up the majority of the holdings. While there are many
stocks represented, it is not a diverse portfolio and as a result is at higher risk to major
fluctuations as the economy strengthens and weakens.
Results & Discussion OnLerra_LLC_
cam � s
City of
8 Oshkosh
45
40
35
d
v
30
3
U
p 25
O
T
20
d
3
Cr
E! 15
LL
m
10
m
W
A
0
-Ib
o` m \ °� a" a
ee e� a ee ee ol` \a
G � a e� c y ae� �aGe y�e�A atie� o o a � ve ties oc cca� o o a � o °*� e o e � p \
\e o oc c� e aYe ® �s' 9xA yep a yea mQ ,�Q a gti rep
0 °`aye Go �te S� y \e o a ire \e GJ§ \��
♦
G
Figure 2. Miller's Bay aquatic plant occurrence analysis of 2008 survey data. Exotic species
indicated with red.
As mentioned above, Miller's Bay contains slightly more
aquatic species than the state and ecoregion medians. The
Miller's Bay average conservatism values are considerably
lower than the state and slightly lower than the ecoregion
medians (Figure 3). This indicates that many of the species
present in the bay are indicative of a disturbed system.
Combining the species richness and average conservatism
values results in a moderate floristic quality for the bay that
is just slightly higher than the ecoregion median and
slightly lower than the state median (Figure 3).
The low diversity and moderate floristic quality found in Miller's Bay is indicative of a disturbed
system. As described in the introduction, the bay is utilized intensely by recreationist. Much of
this use includes powered watercraft. These activities have the potential to negatively impact a
lake ecosystem. Many studies have documented the adverse affects of motorboat traffic on
aquatic plants (e.g. Murphy and Eaton 1983, Vermaat and de Bruyne 1993, Mumma et al. 1996,
Asplund and Cook 1997).
Further, the shoreland development around the bay, primarily in the form of urbanized
landscapes and impervious surfaces provides another source of disturbance to the system.
Developed shorelines also can greatly impact the health of native plant communities. Radomski
and Goeman (2001) found a 66% reduction in quality vegetation coverage on developed
gnte_ LLC. Results & Discussion
GYIL �1 !fig
Miller's Bay, Lake Winnebago
Aquatic Plant Management Plan
shorelines when compared to undeveloped shorelines in Minnesota Lakes. Furthermore, they
also found a significant reduction in abundance and size of northern pike (Esox lucius), bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus), and pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) associated with these developed
shorelines.
25
20
15
10
Number of Native Species Ave Conservatism Floristic Quality
Figure 3. Miller's Bay Floristic Quality Assessment of 2008 survey data. Analysis following
Nichols 1999.
Curly -leaf Pondweed
Curly -leaf pondweed is a European exotic first discovered in Wisconsin in the early 1900's that
has an unconventional lifecycle giving it a competitive advantage over our native plants. Curly —
leaf pondweed begins growing almost immediately after ice -out and by mid or late -June is at
peak biomass. While it is growing, each plant produces many turions (asexual reproductive
shoots) along its stem. By mid or late July most of the plants have senesce (died- back), leaving
the turions in the sediment. The turions lie dormant until fall when they germinate to produce
winter foliage, which thrives under the winter snow and ice. It remains in this state until spring
foliage is produced almost immediately following ice -out, giving the plant a significant jump on
native vegetation. Curly -leaf pondweed can become so abundant that it hampers recreational
activities within the lake. Furthermore, its mid - summer die back can cause algal blooms spurred
from the nutrients released during the plant's decomposition.
On June 9, 2008, ecologists from Onterra visited Miller's Bay to inspect the area before the
herbicide treatment that was scheduled to occur the within the next few days. During that visit,
Results & Discussion
r7 terCa- LLc
Lake MsreV_1 fl—A V
City Of
10 Oshkosh
curly -leaf pondweed was noted as being present, but not canopying and very few plants were
producing turions. At that time, it was decided that the unusually late ice -out that had occurred
statewide delayed the curly -leaf development within the bay and in order assess its true level of
infestation, its mapping should be delayed. The curly -leaf pondweed survey was rescheduled to
occur in early July believing the plant would be at peak- biomass and lend itself to more accurate
mapping based upon density.
Onterra returned to Miller's Bay on July 8, 2008 to complete the curly -leaf pondweed mapping.
It was anticipated that the treated areas would not contain a great deal of curly -leaf pondweed,
but the remaining areas of the bay would be at full - growth. It was soon discovered that nearly
the entire population had senesced. As a result, no mapping of curly -leaf pondweed occurred
during the 2008 growing season.
Eurasian Water Milfoil
Eurasian water milfoil is an invasive species,
native to Europe, Asia and North Africa, that
has spread to most Wisconsin counties (Figure
4). Eurasian water milfoil is unique in that its
primary mode of propagation is not by seed. It
actually spreads primarily by shoot
fragmentation, which has supported its
transport between lakes via boats and other
equipment. In addition to its propagation
method, Eurasian water milfoil has two other
competitive advantages over native aquatic
plants; 1) it starts growing very early in the
spring when water temperatures are too cold
for most native plants to grow, and 2) once its
stems reach the water surface, it does not stop
,�,
,are,
growing like most native plants, instead it
continues to grow along the surface creating a
canopy that blocks light from reaching native Figure 4. Spread of Eurasian water milfoil
within WI counties. WDNR Data 2006
plants. Eurasian water milfoil can create dense
stands and dominate submergent communities, mapped by Onterra.
reducing important natural habitat for fish and other wildlife, and impeding recreational activities
such as swimming, fishing, and boating.
As discussed above, Eurasian water milfoil is the second most prevalent plant in Miller's Bay
and occurs at moderate densities throughout the entire bay (Map 2). In some waterbodies,
Eurasian water milfoil creates dense mats as the plant canopies across the water's surface. This
was not the case to any great extent during the summer of 2008 within Miller's Bay. Although
nuisance plant levels occur throughout much of the bay, hampering navigation, Eurasian water
milfoil contributes only a portion to the problem.
Oh1:E'rra LLG Results & Discussion
LA C
Miller's Bay, Lake Winnebago
Aquatic Plant Management Plan
Nuisance -level Aquatic Plants
11
The Miller's Bay aquatic plant community is dominated by coontail, with high frequencies of
Eurasian water milfoil, slender naiad, and common waterweed also being found. Of those
species, coontail, Eurasian water milfoil, and waterweed raise the most concern because of their
tendency to reach nuisance levels in productive systems like Lake Winnebago. Maps 2 -4 display
the rake fullness ratings of Eurasian water milfoil, coontail, and waterweed (respectively) within
Miller's Bay. Eurasian water milfoil is found frequently within nearly the entire bay; however, it
is not found in high densities as determined by rake fullness. In fact, Eurasian water milfoil was
not found to be matting on the surface to any noticeable level during any of the summer surveys.
Coontail, however, is found to occur frequently within the bay and often at high densities.
Waterweed, a plant that often reaches nuisance levels, was found to occur somewhat frequently
in the southern end of the bay, but not at high densities. Both Eurasian water milfoil and
waterweed may be exhibiting lower densities due to the dominance of coontail.
Currently, coontail is likely causing the most recreational difficulty within the bay, as nearly
50% of rake tows completed during the point- intercept study produced a fullness rating of 2 or 3.
The plant lacks true roots, so it can drift on the water's surface and at depth. Most reproduction
is through fragmentation, so its population can expand at any time during the growing season.
Results & Discussion
F
City of
12 Oshkosh
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The aquatic plant studies completed on Miller's Bay during the summer of 2008 verify that the
bay supports a dense, low diversity, plant community. The community is indicative of the
disturbed area in which it exists. The bay's shorelands are completely developed and with the
majority maintained as an urban lawn and the remaining area being paved. Further disturbance
is brought about by the large amount of recreational use the bay supports through its expansive
boat landing, many mooring areas, and public piers.
Two issues have developed within Miller's Bay that require relatively intense management.
First, Miller's Bay contains only low grade terrestrial and aquatic habitat. Second, nuisance
plant levels within the bay severely impact recreational use of the area, especially navigation.
While both of these issues are definitely related, each requires a different type of management
plan to correct or control them.
Nuisance Plant Control
Four alternatives exist for dealing with the nuisance levels of plants that hamper navigation
within Miller's Bay; 1) no action, 2) dredging, 3) mechanical harvesting, and 4) herbicides. All
four have advantages and disadvantages relating to their cost and effectiveness. With the
exception of dredging, all alternatives have been used on the bay.
No Action At the surface, this alternative may seem to be the easiest and the least expensive;
however, it is neither because it leads to the public applying negative pressure to the City of
Oshkosh, especially the Parks Department, and it ends up costing the city money because of
decreased usership. In fact, as result of the increased plant biomass, the city saw a greater than
50% decrease in sailboat mooring rentals from 2006 to 2007. In 2006 and in prior years, all 48
mooring plugs were leased and there was a waiting list for the program. In 2007, even with a
significant reduction in price, only 20 plugs were leased for the summer. Therefore, doing
nothing to alleviate the nuisance plant levels is not a viable option as it would likely lead to much
of the bay being non - navigable and cost the city funds in the form of lost revenue.
Dredging In August 2006, Radtke Contractors was hired by the City of Oshkosh to complete a
depth study of the bay with the primary focus being navigability. They concluded that sufficient
depth occurred within the bay and that most boaters should not have difficulty navigating
through the bay. The contractor also suggested that any navigation issues within the bay were
likely brought about by aquatic plants.
Dredging is also incredibly expensive. For example, dredging one acre of lake bottom, three feet
deeper (43,560 sq.ft. x 3 ft. = 130,680 cu.ft. = 4840 cu.yd.) at a conservative estimate of
$10 /cu.yd. removed would equal $48,400. It would be reasonable to assume that at least five
acres would need to be dredged; therefore, the dredging costs would exceed $240,000.
Finally, dredging large areas also leaves disturbed sections of open sediment. That disturbed
area is prime growing medium for pioneering species such as Eurasian water milfoil and curly -
leaf pondweed. In the end, dredging could lead to dense populations of these plants in the areas
that were managed to increase navigation.
On terra, LLC Summary & Conclusions
L.adie Me��emenl �
Miller's Bay, Lake Winnebago
Aquatic Plant Management Plan
13
Mechanical Harvesting As mentioned in the introduction, mechanical harvesting was used to
alleviate navigation problems within the bay during the summers of 2005 and 2006. As
expected, the harvesting restored navigation immediately, but it was short- lived. This is the case
in many waterbodies dominated by coontail and Eurasian water milfoil, because both these
plants can sometimes grow inches within a single day. To maintain navigation, repeat harvesting
is necessary throughout the summer.
Lake groups facilitate harvesting by operating a harvester they have purchased or by contracting
with a harvesting firm. The cost of contracting the harvesting is more expensive then operating
the equipment, therefore, if repeat cuts are required throughout the summer it is usually more
feasible for a lake group to own and operate their own equipment; that is of course once the
group has made the capital investment of purchasing the equipment.
Bill Sturm, Landscape Operations Manager compiled harvesting estimates using both contracted
harvesting and purchase, operation, and maintenance of a harvester by the city. The full analysis
is contained in Appendix C.
In summary, the capital cost to the city for purchase of an appropriate harvester would be
between $114,000 and $121,160. Operating costs for harvesting the two scenarios contained in
Map 6 would be approximately $5,726 for the 20.9 -acre navigation area and $2,494 for the 9.1-
acre habitat enhancement area. If these areas were harvested four times throughout a season, the
total costs would be $32, 880 per year. Harvesting of the same areas, four times each season by
a contractor would cost approximately $42,400.
As with all aquatic plant management techniques, harvesting has its advantages and
disadvantages. Advantages include the removal of plants and associated nutrients from the
waterbody, immediate relief of nuisance plants, harvesting is less controversial than chemical
use, and specific areas can be treated accurately. Disadvantages include sediment resuspension,
fragmentation of plants, high upfront equipment costs, annual maintenance and operating costs,
need for repeated treatments within a single year, and no ability to select specific plant species
for treatment.
Chemical Herbicides In general, herbicides come in two categories, contact herbicides and
systemic herbicides. Contact herbicides are nonselective and work to kill the target plant by
causing cellular disruption on exposed stem and leaf structure. In most cases, the entire plant is
not killed allowing it to regenerate. Systemic herbicides disrupt a function within the plant
causing the entire plant to die. Some systemic herbicides are selective towards particular
classifications of plants, such as dicots and monocots.
Advantages of chemical use include; the ability to selectively choose target species with different
herbicide choices, dose rate, and treatment timing; and the immediacy and longevity of results.
Disadvantages include; unknown ecological risks, the plant biomass is not removed from the
waterbody, but instead the plant tissue is left to decay; high per acre cost; and the use of
herbicides is often controversial among stakeholders.
During 2008, 13.84 acres of treatment were permitted by the WDNR (Map 5). Over the course
of the summer the following treatments were completed:
Summary & Conclusions OCt_lrraC
City of
14 Oshkosh
• June 10
• All of Site A (10.33 acres).
• Aquathol K, Cutrine - Ultra, & Reward.
• June 26
• Southern part of Site A (2.07 acres), All of Site B (0.88 acres), Site C (1.52 acres),
and Site D (1.11 acres). Total treatment acreage — 5.58 acres.
• Aquathol K, Cutrine - Ultra, & Reward.
• July 30
• Western half of Site A (4.64 acres), Shoreward 2/3 of Site D (0.73 acres), and a
36 by 100 site not contained within original permit but verbally given permission
by the WDNR (0.08 acres). Total treatment acreage — 5.45 acres.
• Aquathol K, Cutrine - Ultra, & Reward.
According to the billing received by the City of Oshkosh and the treatment records,
approximately 21.31 acres of treatment were completed over the summer at the cost of
$20,577.60. The treatments performed well and cost an approximate average of $965 /acre. The
chemicals used during the summer of 2008 to kill vascular plants were all non - selective, contact
herbicides. While that herbicide mixture worked well, an alternative herbicide does exist that
may also perform well.
The systemic herbicide, 2,4 -D, is a broadleaf- (dicot) selective herbicide used commonly within
Wisconsin to control Eurasian water milfoil. Coontail, the most frequent plant in Miller's Bay is
also a broadleaf species susceptible to 2,4 -D. Coontail requires higher dose rates of 2,4 -D to
achieve control as compared to Eurasian water milfoil. Further, when 2,4 -D is used to control
Eurasian water milfoil, its selectivity towards that plant can be increased if the treatment is
completed early in the spring when Eurasian water milfoil is actively growing and our native
broadleaf species, including coontail, are not.
Repeat treatments within the same growing season may not be required if 2,4 -D is used to
control coontail and Eurasian water milfoil. However, with those two dominant plants removed,
waterweed, which is not affected by 2,4 -D, may exhibit incredible growth rates and cause
navigational issues within the bay. A contact herbicide cocktail application similar to that used
during 2007 and 2008 may then need to be used to control waterweed.
The City of Oshkosh collected bids from local contractors for herbicide treatments of Miller's
Bay for the 2010 season. The applicator most likely to receive the contract, should the city elect
to treat during 2010, proposed two treatments of the roughly 14 -acre area treated in 2008 (Map
5). The first treatment would target Eurasian water milfoil with 2,4 -D during the early spring
and the second would target coontail, waterweed, and curly -leaf pondweed with a contact
herbicide during the early summer. The total cost of these treatments would be $27,300.
Based upon the information outlined above, the only alternative that is not feasible is the use of
dredging because of cost and the ecological impact it would likely have on the bay. Doing
nothing is undesirable, because as explained above, the recreational use of the bay is truly
impacted to the point that it is nearly unusable by the many people that use it via the boat
landing, the mooring plugs, and the transient mooring piers.
rt.. E'rra,uc_ Summary & Conclusions
Miller's Bay, Lake Winnebago
Aquatic Plant Management Plan 15
The options that appear to be most feasible are the use of herbicides and mechanical harvesting
by city staff or by a contractor. Overall, an integrated management strategy combining
mechanical harvesting and herbicide control is likely the most realistic.
Enhancing the Habitat Value of Miller's Bay and its Shorelands
While development of a habitat restoration plan was not a part of this project's scope, it must be
noted that the condition of the Miller's Bay shoreline is incredibly poor and provides no
aesthetic, habitat, or buffering value to the bay. Turf maintenance along the bay's shoreline
leads to increased runoff of nutrients, sediments, and other pollutants to Lake Winnebago, while
providing appealing loafing grounds to nuisance levels of Canada geese. The area also stands as
an incredibly poor example of shoreland maintenance for other riparian property owners — both
public and private.
The city's newly drafted Vision Plan recommends native vegetative buffers between all
waterways and impervious surfaces outside the downtown area. In addition, the Oshkosh
Comprehensive Plan states that the city will work with local units of government and agencies to
protect local natural and environmentally sensitive resources such as our water and shoreland
(Natural Resource Vision in Comprehensive Plan, p. 172). Restoration of the parklands adjacent
to Miller's Bay would bring the area in -line with the city's own vision and resource management
plan.
Summary & Conclusions OnLerra I LC_
16
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
City of
Oshkosh
The Implementation Plan outlined below contains a single goal with two actions, one long -term,
and one short-term, that would allow the City of Oshkosh to meet that goal. Diligence in
facilitating the actions by the city will be imperative to meeting the goal.
Management Goal: Maintain navigability within Miller's Bay for public
access to mooring areas, public piers, and Lake Winnebago.
Short -term Management Action: Control nuisance aquatic plant growth with herbicides.
Timeframe: 2010 -2013
Facilitator: Oshkosh Parks Department.
Description: As described in the report and the Summary and Conclusions Section, nuisance
plants in Miller's Bay include both native and non - native species. Two
treatments are recommended for the control of these species:
1. An early spring treatment of Eurasian water milfoil.
2. An early summer treatment of coontail, curly -leaf pondweed, and
waterweed.
Likely, a systemic herbicide, such as 2,4 -D would be used during the first
treatment and a contact herbicide or herbicides would be used during the second
treatment.
Action Steps:
1. Contract licensed applicator for guidance on herbicide selection/timing, permit
application, and application of herbicides.
2. Obtain herbicide application permit from WDNR.
3. Complete herbicide treatment.
4. Monitor treatment effectiveness and update short-term action as necessary.
Long -term Management Action: Control nuisance aquatic plant growth through integrated
management strategy utilizing mechanical harvesting and herbicides,
if needed.
Timeframe: 2014 and beyond
Facilitator: Oshkosh Parks Department.
Description: The use of mechanical harvesting for control of nuisance aquatic plants in
Miller's Bay is clearly the most ecologically sound method, whether it is
completed by city staff or by a contractor. Further, if the habitat enhancement
areas (Map 6) are included within the harvesting efforts, there would be an added
benefit beyond nuisance plant relief that would include:
A potential increase in fish size structure as predator fish would have
enhanced opportunity to feed on smaller fish within the 20 -foot wide fish
cruising lanes.
Increased navigability for boat fishing within the bay.
Enhanced angling opportunities from shore and the fishing pier.
The cost analysis completed by the Oshkosh Parks Department indicated that the
annual cost of completing the habitat enhancement harvesting would be roughly
$10,000 if completed by city staff and $12,000 if completed by a contractor. If
Qn.tura,mc Implementation Plan
L.Ae tAweagenmw PZwm*g
Miller's Bay, Lake Winnebago
Aquatic Plant Management Plan
17
this type of harvesting is to be completed, the city would seek partnerships to
defray these costs from local conservation organizations, fishing clubs and the
WDNR.
On an annual basis, the cost of harvesting would be less if completed by city staff;
however, that annual cost does not include the substantial cost of the equipment
purchase by the city, which would exceed $114,000. To make this capital
purchase, the city would rely on state grants to contribute funds to the equipment
costs. The most likely source of the funds would be a Wisconsin Waterways
Commission Grant.
At this time, it is not known whether or not navigability can be maintained in and
around the mooring plugs utilizing a mechanical harvester as the harvester may
not be maneuverable around the sailboats that use the plugs. If maintaining
control is not possible strictly with the harvester, herbicide use would be
warranted within this area.
Action Steps:
1. Contact WDNR to discuss grant opportunities for the purchase of harvesting
equipment.
a. If grants are available, pursue grant for purchase of equipment, purchase
equipment, and move onto Step 2. Please note: Completing Step 2 may be a
requirement of a grant application.
b. If grants are not available, move forward to Step 2 with contractor
performing harvesting.
2. Obtain mechanical harvesting permit (and herbicide permit if necessary) from
WDNR based upon harvest plan indicated in Map 6.
3. Foster partnerships with local conservation organizations and fishing clubs to
defray costs of harvesting habitat enhancement areas.
4. Complete harvesting following plan displayed in Map 6.
5. Monitor effectiveness of control efforts and adjust plan as needed.
Implementation Plan On terra, LLC
Latic rla�enre„r !'lwmdrx�
18
METHODS
Curly -leaf Pondweed Survey
City of
Oshkosh
Surveys of curly -leaf pondweed were completed on Miller's Bay during July 8, 2008 and June 3,
2009 field visits. Visual inspections were completed throughout the lake by completing a
meander survey by boat.
Comprehensive Macrophyte Surveys
A comprehensive survey of aquatic macrophytes was conducted on the system to characterize
the existing communities within the bay and included inventories of emergent, submergent, and
floating - leaved aquatic plants. The point- intercept method as described in "Appendix C" of the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource document, Aquatic Plant Management in Wisconsin
- Draft (April 20, 2006) was used to complete the studies. Based upon advice from the WDNR,
a point spacing of 40- meters resulting 353 points was used during the survey that was completed
on August 1, 2008.
Community Mapping
During the species inventory work, the aquatic vegetation community types within Miller's Bay
(emergent and floating- leaved vegetation) were mapped using a Trimble GeoXT Global
Positioning System (GPS) with sub -meter accuracy. Furthermore, all species found during the
point- intercept survey and the community mapping survey were recorded to provide a complete
species list for the bay.
Q n.te rr a _LK Methods
Lake planagemew Ydarm tv
Miller's Bay, Lake Winnebago
Aquatic Plant Management Plan 19
LITERATURE CITED
Asplund, T.R. and C.M. Cook. 1997. Effects of motor boats on submerged aquatic
macrophytes. Lake and Reservoir Mangement 13(l): 1 -12.
Mumma, M.T., C.E. Cichra, and J.T. Sowards. 1996 Effects of recreation the submersed
aquatic plant community of Rainbow River, Florida. Journal of Aquatic Plant
Management 34: 53 -56.
Murphy, K.J. and J.W. Eaton. 1983 Effects of pleasure -boat traffic on macrophyte growth in
canals. Journal of Applied Ecology 20: 713 -729.
Nichols, S.A. 1999. Floristic quality assessment of Wisconsin lake plant communities with
example applications. Journal of Lake and Reservoir Management 15(2): 133 -141
Omernick, J.M. and A.L. Gallant. 1988. Ecoregions of the Upper Midwest states. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/600 /3- 88/037. Corvallis, OR. 56p.
Radomski, P. and T.J. Goeman. 2001. Consequences of human lakeshore development on
emergent and floating -leaf vegetation abundance. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 21: 46 -61.
Vermatt, J.E., and R.J. de Bruyne. 1993. Factors limiting the distribution of submerged
waterplants in the lowland river Vecht (The Netherlands). Freshwater Biology 30: 147-
157.
Literature Cited Q n e_r r a,_LLC.
W E
' Map 1
� Legend
5
O n te rra. LLC Peet # Point - Intercept Plot Miller's Bay
(40 -Meter Spacing) Lake Winnebago
Lake IaAeme"t PiaruxrKq
135 South Broad »ay Sua,C Winnebago County, WI
De Pere, WI 54115 $O °'pB Millers Bay Project Limits project Area
920.338.8860 Orthophotograpy NAIP, 2005 "
�.onterro- eco.com Map dale: January 27, 2008 Extert of large map shown in red.
soo
w + - Legend Map 3
Feet
s tR, Coontail Locations
M iller ' s s Bay
Onterra. LLG � .; o Rake Fullness = 1 Winnebago County, Wisconsin
Lake mgrfnmt pA%w W Sources ;
733 .South B re, roedwvy SuaeC P—ds &Hydro: WDNR r . € 0 Rake Fullness = 2
De 2008 P -I Survey:
Pe WI 5J 115 Aquatic Planes: 0—re 2008
920.338.8860 Orthophutography. VAIP,2005 ® Rake Fullness = 3
wtvoeterm - eco.— MapD— Sept=be 23,2008 Coontail Locations
FNt?ri of lama man chnwn in rari
F
N
W 490 +E Map 5
Legend
5 Feet Miller's Bay
0 terra. LLc 2008 Treatment Area
F , Lake Winnebago
135 soau Broad »n sail, C Winnebago County, WI
De Pere, wt 54115 soumes: �. Millers Bay Project Limits
920.338.8860 Orthophotograpy: NAIP, 2005
" " - Map date: June 9, 1008 2008 Treatment Areas
6ctert of large map shown in red.
W saa
E
Legend
Map 6
YFYFS Feet
Harvest yeas
Millers Bay
O n t e r r a. LLC
C3 Navigation Areas /Lanes ( -20.9 acres)
Lake Winnebago
Winnebago County, WI
t-IJ.P- M-- S;ement Pyal"
es South Broad —y sage c'
De Pere. WI 54115
soar.ea.
*- Habitat Enhancement Lanes ( -9. 1 aces)
Proposed
Y.0.338.8860
r.oaeera- eeo.00ra
AIP 2005
ORhophoto9rapy: N,
Map date: ApN 7, 2009
Extent of large map shown in red.
Millers Bay Protect Limits
Harvest Plan
APPENDIX A
Public Participation Materials
Miller's Bay, Lake Winnebago
Aquatic Plant Management Planning Project
Plan Development Meeting
February 11, 2009
Invited Attendees: Tom Stephany, City of Oshkosh
Vince Maas, City of Oshkosh
Rob McLennan, WDNR
Mark Sesing, WDNR
Chuck Fitzgibbon, WDNR
Tim Hoyman, Onterra
Eddie Heath, Onterra
Meeting Intent: Discuss realistic elements and actions to be included within the Miller's Bay
Aquatic Plant Management Plan.
Discussion Items: Introductions
Onterra's "normal" planning model.
Comments on draft management plan report.
Aspects of Miller's Bay and its shorelands that can and should be addressed
within the management plan.
Develop a broad list of plan components (goals and/or actions).
Two general categories:
Aquatic plant management (for recreation).
Habitat management (for ecological enhancement).
Who needs to be involved with particular components?
How should we proceed with the development of each component?
b
a�
a
bA
c�
O
42
O
bq
c�
3
c�
wm
a\
0
0
N
M
Q,
■ ■ i
}
AJ
... ..'
E
O
�
N
a\
0
0
N
M
Q,
■ ■ i
}
AJ
... ..'
N
a\
0
0
N
M
Q,
■ ■ i
: O
AJ
... ..'
a\
0
0
N
M
Q,
'O
C
Q
EN
GA
C
O
R3
3
f..
N
0
0
N
M
2
rff tt
w
`
8
'�,
9 y 's .
R
No
In
IF
VA
,
N,
Ixl.w.w »owti...wa.,wrw
Vi
N
0
0
N
M
2
w
R
In
Vi
o
v:
s
N
0
0
N
M
2
.d
G1.
M
0
N
M
w
o _T
m
m o
.o G
a
a � A h
Ef
� y a
E .
53 4
W
fV
R y 3 v .0
n c
- � z• o S.
m
E v F ° Fo.U..
,c
I I I I
M
0
N
M
°
.o G
a
� y a
a o v
53 4
W
fV
y
3 H
M
0
N
M
°
a D
a o v
53 4
W
fV
y
3 H
- � z• o S.
,c
I I I I
M
0
N
M
W
fV
y
3 H
- � z• o S.
,c
,�
W
o
'�'
�
° mV aV I.
M
0
N
M
x
x
/
\
/
/
2
/
\
[
%
\
/
/
/
Q
\
_
§
"It
k
m
r
\
2 *
{!� .
)
_
\! z -.1e LK *
f 1, »\
Ģ7a2
»v46at3.0
"It
k
m
r
\
2 *
( 0
Of TfVK,. ;rtrA£3.A
ADVISORY PARK BOARD
MINUTES
APRIL 13, 2009
Present: Bill Gogolewski, Kay Hansen, Mark Philipp, Colin Walsh
Excused: Ted Bowen, Dennis McHugh, Jim Michelson, Allan Siiman, Terry Wohler
Staff: Thomas Stephany, Director of Parks; Vince Maas, Parks Operations Manager; Bill Sturm, Landscape
Operations Manager /City Forester; Steve Dobish Lakeshore Golf Course General Manager; Trish Wendorf,
Recording Secretary
CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Chairman Gogolewski called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. A quorum was determined not to be present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Since there was not a quorum, the minutes of January 12, 2009, could not be approved. The January 12, 2009
minutes will be brought back before the Board at their May 11, 2009 meeting for approval.
PARK BUSINESS
1) Miller's Bav Aauatic Plant Studv Report
Mr. Stephany gave a brief overview of the weed (aquatic problems) situation in Miller's Bay and attempts that
have been made to rectify the weed problems. He stressed that this meeting is for informational purposes and
discussion only and that no Board action would be taken at this time. He introduced Tim Hoyman, an aquatic
ecologist who owns Onterra, LLC from DePere, Wisconsin, who was commissioned to conduct a study of Miller's
Bay, and also Paul Leisten, an aquatic biologist from Aquatic Biologists Inc., from Fond du Lac, who has
previously treated Miller's Bay.
Mr. Hoyman gave a PowerPointT" presentation (said printed version of the presentation on file at the City Parks
office and made a part of these minutes) of the Miller's Bay Aquatic Plant Management Planning Project. He
stated his goal is to help the Board decide what to do with the weed situation and to develop an implementation
plan. He explained how his crews did a point intercept survey to collect plants in the Bay and then determined
what species were collected to analyze the alternatives and give their recommendations for treatment. Mr. Hoyman
noted that the coontail was the most commonly found plant, along with Eurasian water milfoil, which contribute
greatly, but are not the primary reasons for the weed problems. He stated that Onterra does not do the chemical
treatments, they just do the studies.
Mr. Phillips inquired as to which plants /weeds were the `stinky" ones?
Mr. Hoyman stated that the dying algae are what start to stink.
Mr. Phillips inquired if Mr. Hoyman knew of other bays that were suffering similar problems?
Mr. Hoyman stated there are several bays in Wisconsin that have similar issues /situations.
Mr. Phillips inquired if covering the bottom of the bay would help deter the weed problem.
ADVISORY PARK BOARD
MINUTES PAGE 2 APRIL 13, 2009
Mr. Hoyman stated it is too large of an area to cover plus the sediment on the bottom would have to be removed —
dilution and maintenance would be difficult. He noted that covering the area would stop recreational uses as well.
Chairman Gogolewski inquired if the weeds could be treated every other year and not on a yearly basis?
Mr. Hoyman stated, in his opinion, he would say "no" because of the way the plants are currently being treated.
Mr. Leisten stated he is limited to only using contact herbicides.
Mike Nigl, 1021 School Avenue, stated he is a Miller's Bay patron, and inquired if the primary objective of the
weed control is strictly for navigational purposes only? He stated the number of boats in the Miller's Bay program
has drastically reduced. He suggested relocating the mooring area to the south end of the bay and just chemically
treat that particular area to alleviate some costs.
Mr. Hoyman stated he has held discussions with the DNR, and their department is willing to allow the same
chemical treatments to the bay as were used last year.
Bob Plummer, 5251 Ivy Lane, inquired as to what agency had jurisdiction over Miller's Bay? Who owns the water
and Miller's Bay? He is of the opinion that any monies expended for this study /remedy should be taken from
Winnebago County taxes.
Mr. Stephany stated the City Parks Department takes care of Miller's Bay because it is a program (Miller's Bay
Mooring Program) that is operated by the City. He also stated that nothing for this study /remedy has been paid for
by or through taxes.
Chairman Gogolewski stated Miller's Bay affects not just sailboat navigation, but motorized boats' navigation as
well.
Dave Fenrich, 19 W 14 Avenue (former City Parks Department employee) stated he had worked for the Parks
Department for over 33 years and as part of his park duties, he was required to apply the herbicide treatments to
Miller's Bay. He stated the bay had been dredged by the water filtration plant area approximately 25 years ago.
He gave a brief description of the way the Montello (Buffalo Lake) area staff cut the weeds with weed harvesters.
He stated he would prefer that Miller's Bay be chemically treated as he did not feel it would be harmful to the fish
(weed harvesting tends to also affect the fish population).
Mr. Philipp stated he was shocked about the amount of fish that were "caught up" with the weed harvester.
Michael Lizotte, Ph.D., 229 Hickory Lane, stated he is the Winnebago Lakes Council President, and stated that the
submitted report of Onterra LLC (said report on file at the City Parks Department and made a part of these
minutes) is excellent. He stated he would prefer to see weed harvesting done at Miller's Bay since it is a cheaper
route. Dr. Lizotte stated the amount of fish being pulled out by the weed harvester is not in excess. He inquired as
to how many days after the weeds were harvested, did they return?
Mr. Stephany stated the weeds started to grow back almost immediately and after nine (9) days, they were
significant.
Mike Nigl, 1021 School Avenue, stated that the cuttings that he observed were not significant and didn't
accomplish much. The cuttings also made it harder for the boats to maneuver because the weed harvester left
behind a lot of debris. He is of the opinion that chemical treatments would be more effective.
ADVISORY PARK BOARD
MINUTES PAGE 3 APRIL 13, 2009
Mr. Stephany explained the DNR regulations relative to weed harvesting and noted they were only able to cut one -
half of the depth area.
Mr. Philipp inquired if it was possible to get rid of the coontail with a chemical application, how long before they
would grow back (navigation area)?
Mr. Hoyman stated there are too many variables — type of strain of coontail, dependent upon winds, etc., so that
question becomes unanswerable.
Mr. Stephany expressed concern with the chemical treatment and inquired if there have been any negative impacts
with communities utilizing chemical treatments?
Mr. Hoyman stated that is difficult to answer because there are different types of chemicals being used by different
communities. If chemical 2,4 -D is used correctly, there should be no negative impacts.
Mr. Leisten stated chemical 2,4 -D has been used since the 1940's and is the most widely used and researched
chemical out, and there should be no ill- effects if applied properly.
Dr. Lizotte encouraged the Board to have the park staff apply for State funded grants and suggested that the
academic and government get together to partner for a study of the chemicals for long or short term effects.
Andrew ( ?), 333 Saratoga Avenue, stated he is in favor of a weed harvester for the Miller's Bay weed problem.
Mr. Maas stated he has been and is continuing to do research for the pricing of a weed harvester and noted that a
trailer for the harvester would also have to be purchased. He noted that he would also attempt to apply for grant
dollars to help with the cost of the harvester and trailer.
Mr. Stephany inquired who would operate the harvester? How will staff maintain it? How will it be hauled?
These are all questions that need to be researched as well.
2) Introduction of 2010 -2014 Capital Improvement Proiects (CIP)
Mr. Stephany stated he will get copies of this Board meeting video tape to the Board members not present at this
meeting so they are aware of the dialogue /discussion. He will also get a list of proposed CIP projects to all of the
Board members so that they can view and prioritize them and get the results back to Ms. Wendorf so she can get
the Board members' selections prioritized for the next Board meeting.
Chairman Gogolewski questioned the project at Menominee Park — construct an asphalt trail from the lake -side
trail to connect to the central toilet building and amusement rides * * * also repair areas of the roads within the
parks — for a cost of $40,000.
Mr. Maas stated there are some areas where it would be cutting and patching areas — poor areas, not the entire
roadway.
There were no citizen statements.
CITIZEN'S STATEMENTS
PARK DIRECTOR/STAFF REPORTS
Mr. Stephany stated that the first event at the Leach Amphitheater is a half marathon scheduled for April 18`
ADVISORY PARK BOARD
MINUTES PAGE 4 APRIL 13, 2009
Mr. Dobish stated the Lakeshore Municipal Golf Course has been open for the best part of two weeks and so far,
so good. He also stated that he will be bringing a request to grant an easement for transmission lines on Highway
21 before the Board at their next regularly scheduled meeting (May 11"). The easement needs Park Board
approval and then approvals from the Plan Commission and City Council. It is a standard easement requested by
American Transmission Company (ATC) for planting trees, construction, etc.
Mr. Maas stated that since it is now spring, crews are getting ready to cut grass, as well as their regular spring
duties.
Mr. Sturm stated his forestry crews have a lot on their plate and are continuing their regular duties for a typical
season.
There being no other business,
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Philipp for adjournment; seconded by Hansen. Motion carried 4 -0. The meeting adjourned at 8:35
P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
0 11 =01"I"
Trish Wendorf
Recording Secretary
APPENDIX B
2008 Aquatic Plant Survey Data
Millers Bay, Lake Winnebago
Point - intercept Vegetation Survey
Appendix B
2008
Onterta, LLC
Y
O
d'
r
A
N
II
1
N
E
>
w
E
>
>
°
3
R
m
m
m
ami
n
d
o.
IX
c
v
a
m
-
0
N
t
m
°_
a
CD
n
m
E
E
v
_
_
v
m
0
0.
'
m
m
CL
coo
IL
m rn
-
t
v
n
c
:u
m a
m
m
m
m
m
a
°-'
m R
° m
r
-
C
m
a
0
0
C
E
0
°
c
c
is
m
c
m
m
a E
y
E
•�
E
o
m
m
m
m
l°
m
'u
c
m
n
w
m
E
m
m
a
•0
n
m
v
i
0
E
m
m
E
A
A
Q
v
=
o
m l
°
o
K
c
m
o
',
z
•z
CO
a
0
w
w
x
_j
z
a
o
rn
0)
1
44.032190
- 88.520477
5
M
P
3
2
44.031830
- 88.520486
6
M
P
2
3
44.031470
- 88.520495
6
M
P
2
4
44.031110
- 88.520504
6
M
P
1
3
5
44.030750
- 88.520513
5
M
P
2
1
6
44.030390
- 88.520522
6
M
P
1
1
1
7
44.030030
- 88.520531
5
M
P
1
8
44.030364
- 88.518526
7
R
P
1
2
1
9
44.029670
- 88.520540
5
M
P
3
1
1
10
44.032544
- 88.519969
4
M
P
1
3
11
44.032184
- 88.519978
4
M
P
1
3
12
44.031824
- 88.519987
4
M
P
1
13
44.031464
- 88.519996
7
M
P
1
3
14
44.031104
- 88.520005
4
M
P
1
3
15
44.030744
- 88.520014
6
M
P
3
1
16
44.030384
- 88.520023
6
M
P
1
3
17
44.030024
- 88.520032
7
M
P
2
18
44.029664
- 88.520041
6
M
P
1
1
19
44.029304
- 88.520050
6
M
P
1
3
20
44.028944
- 88.520059
5
M
P
1
2
21
44.028584
- 88.520068
4
M
P
1
1
22
44.028224
- 88.520076
4
M
P
1
1
1
1
1
23
44.026424
- 88.520121
4
M
P
1
1
1
24
44.026063
- 88.520130
4
M
P
3
1
1
1
25
44.025703
- 88.520139
4
M
P
1
1
1
26
44.025343
- 88.520148
4
M
P
V
2
1
27
44.024983
- 88.520157
4
M
P
V
3
28
44.032897
- 88.519461
4
M
P
2
29
44.032537
- 88.519470
5
M
P
1
2
30
44.032177
- 88.519479
4
R
P
1
2
31
44.031817
- 88.519488
4
M
P
3
32
44.031457
- 88.519497
7
M
P
V
3
33
44.031097
- 88.519506
6
M
P
V
2
34
44.030737
- 88.519515
6
M
P
3
35
44.030377
- 88.519524
7
M
P
2
1
36
44.030017
- 88.519533
5
M
P
3
2008
Onterta, LLC
Millers Bay, Lake Winnebago
Point - intercept Vegetation Survey
Appendix 8
2008
Onterra, LLC
Y
0
d'
a
N
V7
;
N
E
Y
>
7
>
C
E
An
>
N
m
w
3
w
v
R
R
Ol
m
YI
m
11
•-
a
CRf
'
N
E
v
a
3
v
c
i
m
m
w
0
E
c
m
v
R
N
O
0.
'_
!.
d
N
a
rn
o
°
E
c
v
R
o
m
° c
N
m
v
c
c
m
0
E
T
a
o
it
a
T«°
'
t
°u
n
:X
m
m
m
m
"
c.
m A
v
N
_
w
C
L
r
V
C
E
m
a
m
°
(m
=
N
CL
m E
s
E
m
o
E
°
m
m
m
m
3
R
Q
E
E
O
Y
R
E
= m
c v
a
:6
n'
;?
v
v
d
c
E
A
E
m
J
J
W
W
C
tl1
in
R
a
U
Z
J
2
Z
d
°
N
to
>
37
44.029657
- 88.519542
6
M
P
1
3
1
1
1
38
44.029297
- 88.519551
12
M
P
2
39
44.028937
- 88.519560
5
M
P
1
3
1
1
40
44.028577
- 88.519569
6
M
P
3
1
1
41
44.028217
- 68.519577
5
M
P
1
2
1
42
44.027857
- 88.519586
5
M
P
1
2
1
1
43
44.027497
- 88.519595
3
M
P
1
1
1
44
44.027137
- 68.519604
4
M
P
1
1
1
1
1
1
45
44.026777
- 88.519613
4
M
P
3
1
46
44.026417
- 88.519622
4
M
P
1
1
47
44.026057
- 88.519631
4
M
P
1
2
48
44.025697
- 88.519640
4
M
P
1
1
1
1
49
44.025337
- 88.519649
4
M
P
1
1
50
44.024977
- 88.519658
4
M
P
1
51
44.024617
- 88.519667
5
M
P
V
2
52
44.033251
- 88.518953
5
M
P
1
3
53
44.032891
- 88.518962
4
M
P
1
2
54
44.032531
- 88.518971
5
M
P
1
1
55
44.032171
- 88.518980
4
R
P
1
2
1
56
44.031811
- 88.518989
6
M
P
1
1
1
1
57
44.031451
- 88.518998
4
M
P
1
3
58
44.031091
- 88.519007
6
M
P
3
1
59
44.030731
- 88.519016
4
M
P
1
60
44.030371
- 88.519025
7
R
P
61
44.028931
- 88.519061
7
M
P
2
1
62
44.030011
- 88.519034
6
M
P
3
63
44.029651
- 88.519043
7
M
P
1
2
1
64
44.029291
- 88.519052
5
M
P
1
2
1
65
44.028571
- 88.519070
5
M
P
1
1
2
1
66
44.028211
- 88.519079
6
M
P
2
1
1
67
44.027851
- 88.519087
4
M
P
3
1
68
44.027491
- 88.519096
4
M
P
1
1
1
69
44.027131
- 88.519105
5
M
P
1
3
70
44.026771
- 88.519114
4
M
P
1
1
1
1
71
44.026411
- 88.519123
4
M
P
2
1
72
44.026051
- 86.519132
4
M
P
1
1
2008
Onterra, LLC
Millers Bay, Lake Winnebago
Point - intercept Vegetation Survey
Appendix B
2008 Onterra, LLC
Y
O
OF
w
V
R
N
N
E
_
R
E
C
3
E
(p
@
m
m
7
0
B
R
R
E
'
U
O.
E
m
R
N
R
=
O
N
m
m
m
d
E
a
•o,
0
0
'w
z
a
fa
c
2
w
a
a
o
E
c
G
'O
3
R
m
°o
o
y
E
c
m
m
o
R
m
`o
o
o
0
c
c
a
R
m
0
CL
O
y❑
a
• _
m
a,
m
t
m
c
•E
:%
d
R
m
o
m
o
m
m
a
m N
V
N
C
t
m
L
O
C
O.
w
O.
m
07
tm
R
CL
0 E
w E
w
E
y
o
E
.°.
mm
m
2
m
=
c
m
2
a
E
E
�
x
w
R
U)
° i °
o
CO
a
E
a
v
w
w
z
�
z
z
z
a
a
u
in
>
73
44.025691
- 88.519141
4
M
P
1
1
1
74
44.025331
- 88.519150
4
M
P
1
1
75
44.024971
- 88.519159
4
M
P
1
1
76
44.024610
- 88.519168
5
M
P
V
V
1
77
44.024250
- 88.519177
5
M
P
1
2
78
44.033604
- 88.518445
4
M
P
1
3
79
44.033244
- 88.518454
4
R
P
1
1
80
44.032684
- 88.518463
4
R
P
1
1
1
81
44.032524
- 88.518472
5
M
P
1
1
1
82
44.032164
- 88.518481
4
R
P
1
1
1
83
44.031804
- 88.518490
6
M
P
1
2
1
1
84
44.031444
- 88.518499
5
M
P
1
3
1
85
44.031084
- 88.518508
4
M
P
2
86
44.030724
- 88.518517
5
M
P
2
1
87
44.030004
- 88.518535
4
M
P
1
1
1
88
44.029644
- 88.518544
4
M
P
1
1
89
44.029284
- 88.518553
4
M
P
V
1
1
90
44.028924
- 88.518562
5
M
P
2
2
1
91
44.028564
- 88.518571
5
M
P
1
1
1
92
44.028204
- 88.518580
5
M
P
1
1
1
93
44.027844
- 88.518586
5
M
P
1
1
94
44.027484
- 88.518597
4
M
P
V
1
1
95
44.027124
- 88.618606
4
M
P
3
1
96
44.026764
-88.518615
5
M
P
V
1
97
44.026404
- 88.518624
5
M
P
2
2
98
44.026044
- 88.518633
4
M
P
1
1
1
1
99
44.025684
- 88.518642
4
M
P
V
2
1
100
44.025324
- 88.518651
4
M
P
1
1
101
44.024964
- 88.518660
4
M
P
1
2
1
102
44.024604
- 88.518669
4
M
P
1
103
44.024244
- 88.518678
5
M
P
2
1
1
104
44.023884
- 88.518687
herman
105.
44.033958
- 88.517937
4
R
P
1
1
1
106
44.033598
- 88.517946
5
M
P
2
1
1
107
44.033236
- 88.517955
4
M
P
1
1
1
108
44.032878
- 88.517964
3
M
P
2
1
1
2008 Onterra, LLC
Millers Bay, Lake Winnebago
Point - intercept Vegetation Survey
Appendix B
2008
Onterra, LLC
Y
O
O!
v
R
f7
;
V1
m
E
_
W
N
E
>
7
is
tl
m
m
'E
m
c
a
•_
m
N
m
N
'm
H
m
fp
m
a
R-
.n
V
G
7
O•
1
3
L
L
R
C
U
E
G
m
m
m
V
E
m
'p
N
m
O
n
`
T
"
N
m
m
ID
w
m
o
o
E
c
o
o
m
m
`o
°
o
o
w
m
•
.a
o
c
c
o
E
m
o
m o
w
n
m
c
`m
c
m
c
m
m
r
o
d
n
o
m
m
m
m
R
m
a
o
c
c
y
E
d
m
m
m
p
m
'c
m
m CL
m
a
v
E
'-' E
�`
r
o
m
v
m
e
'°
E
Y
C
E
M
-1
o
to
2
o
o
N
'z
3
0
_3 °
°
M
a
v
w
w
z
_
- °,
-j
z
z
o
a
rn
N
>
109
44.032518
- 88.517973
4
M
P
1
1
1
1
1
110
44.032158
- 88.517982
5
M
P
1
3
1
111
44.031798
- 88.517991
6
M
P
2
1
1
1
112
44.031438
- 88.518000
4
R
P
1
1
1
113
44.031078
- 88.518009
6
M
P
1
2
114
44.030718
- 88.518018
4
M
P
1
2
1
115
44.030358
- 88.518027
6
R
P
NV
116
44.029998
- 88.518036
5
R
P
1
1
1
1
1
117
44.029638
- 88.518045
4
M
P
1
1
1
1
118
44.029278
-88.518054
4
M
P
1
1
1
1
119
44.028918
- 88.518063
5
M
P
1
1
1
120
44.028558
- 88.518072
5
M
P
3
1
1
1
1
1
121
44.028198
- 88.518081
4
M
P
1
1
122
44.027838
- 88.518090
5
M
P
2
1
123
44.027478
- 88.518098
4
M
P
2
124
44.027118
- 88.518107
4
M
P
1
2
1
125
44.026758
- 88.518116
5
M
P
V
1
126
44.026398
- 88.518125
5
M
P
1
1
127
44.026038
- 88.518134
4
M
P
1
3
128
44.025678
- 88.518143
5
M
P
3
1
1
129
44.025318
- 88.518152
3
M
P
1
1
1
130
44.024958
- 88.518161
5
M
P
1
131
44.024598
- 88.518170
4
M
P
1
1
1
132
44.024238
- 88.518179
5
M
P
NV
133
44.023878
- 88.518188
4
M
P
1
134
44.034312
- 88.517429
4
R
P
2
135
44.033952
- 88.517438
4
R
P
1
2
136
44.033592
- 88.517447
4
R
P
2
1
1
1
137
44.033232
- 88.517456
6
M
P
1
1
1
1
138
44.032871
- 88.517465
3
R
P
1
1
1
1
139
44.032511
- 88.517474
5
R
P
1
1
140
44.032151
- 88.517483
8
M
P
1
1
1
1
141
44.031791
- 88.517492
6
R
P
1
2
1
1
1
142
44.031431
- 88.517501
4
R
P
1
1
1
143
44.031071
- 88.517510
5
M
P
1
2
1
1
144
44.030711
- 88.517519
4
M
P
1
1
1
2008
Onterra, LLC
Millers Bay, Lake Winnebago
Point - intercept Vegetation Survey
Appendix B
2008 Onterra, LLC
Y
O
a'
a
N
N
fA
E
_
3
7
w
7
m
N
N
m
II
u
m
�
e:.
a
Ip
m
V
C
3
O.
N
L
L
m
m
ao
rn
a
m
N
u
E
v
_
'-
7
v
m
O
C.
T
u
d
E
N
°_'
W
m
E
3
c
0
_'
m
m
o
c
`o
w
0
v
0
c
0
c
o
o
n
Q
m
u
o
O
m D
a°
m
a.
r
m
c
:X
m
m
a
m
m
m
!�
n
y
m
7 m
d
_
O.
O
C.
N
N
C
Ln
E
0
N
t
O
0
m
0
m
N
'
'v
o,
E
E
A
v
v
i
N
m
c
�
�
E
E
o
.
a
E
u
�
o.
E
m
c
E
in
°
rn
a
a
U
w
w
i
_j
z
z
z
0.
ao
in
in
>
�
145
44.030351
- 88.517528
6
M
P
1
1
1
1
1
146
44.029991
- 88.517537
4
M
P
1
1
1
1
147
44.029631
- 88.517546
5
M
P
1
1
1
148
44.029271
- 88.517555
6
M
P
2
1
1
1
149
44.028911
- 88.517564
5
M
P
3
1
1
150
44.028551
- 88.517573
5
M
P
1
3
151
44.028191
- 86.517562
4
M
P
1
2
152
44.027831
- 88.517591
5
M
P
1
153
44.027471
- 88.517600
4
M
P
1
3
154
44.027111
- 88.517608
5
M
P
1
1
'
155
44.026751
- 88.517617
5
M
P
1
1
166
44.024951
- 88.517662
4
M
P
2
2
1
157
44.024591
- 88.517671
4
M
P
1
1
158
44.024231
- 88.517680
5
M
P
1
1
1
159
44.023871
- 88.517689
4
M
P
1
160
44.034665
- 88.516921
4
R
P
1
161
44.034305
- 88.516930
4
M
P
1
3
162
44.033945
- 88.516939
4
R
P
2
1
1
163
44.033585
- 88.516948
4
R
P
1
1
1
164
44.033225
- 88.516957
6
R
P
1
1
1
165
44.032865
- 88.516966
3
R
P
1
1
166
44.032505
- 86.516975
5
R
P
1
1
1
1
1
167
44.032145
- 88.516984
5
M
P
1
1
1
1
168
44.031765
- 88.516993
5
R
P
1
1
1
169
44.031425
- 88.517002
5
R
P
1
1
1
1
170
44.031065
- 68.517011
9
R
P
1
1
1
1
171
44.030705
- 88.517020
6
M
P
1
1
1
172
44.030345
- 88.517029
5
M
P
1
1
173
44.029985
- 88.517036
8
M
P
1
1
1
174
44.029625
- 88.517047
5
M
P
1
2
1
1
1
176
44.029265
- 88.517056
5
M
P
1
1
1
176
44.028905
- 88.517065
6
M
P
1
1
177
44.028545
- 88.517074
6
M
P
2
1
178
44.028185
- 88.517083
4
M
P
1
179
44.024945
- 88.517163
6
M
P
1
2
1
1
1
1
180
44.024585
- 88.517172
6
M
P
1
2
1
1
2008 Onterra, LLC
Millers Bay, Lake Winnebago
Point- intercept Vegetation Survey
Appendix B
2008 Onterra, LLC
Y
O
w
v
m
H
N
R
-
t
7
E
C
«
m
7
m
-E
R
R
C
E
lR1
06
E
'N
R
N
r
R
fA
m
d
7
a
°
L
`
R
c
0
O
m
d
•_
m
T
C
m °
m
C
•�
d
R
"m
m
N
A
6
D.
m N
° N
C
t
Cm
°
L
C
U
C
+
C
-°
0.
0.
m
m
r
0
w
O
m
C
m
m
CL
V
«
n
(D
E
0.
R
R
m
R
m
O
E
m
R
«
rn
m
o
v
i
m
>
°
m
E
o
N
°,
rn
-j °
� °
o
0)
K
f
n
L)
w
w
z
-i
z
z
IL
CL
rn
in
>
3
181
44.024225
- 88.517181
6
M
P
1
1
182
44.023865
- 88.517190
6
M
P
2
1
1
183
44.035019
- 88.516413
3
R
P
1
2
1
184
44.034659
- 88.516422
4
S
P
3
1
185
44.034299
- 88.516431
4
R
P
1
2
186
44.033939
- 88.516440
4
S
P
1
1
2
187
44.033579
- 88.516449
4
R
P
1
1
1
1
188
44.033219
- 86.516458
5
M
P
1
1
1
1
189
44.032859
- 86.516467
5
R
P
1
1
1
1
190
44.032499
- 88.516476
5
M
P
1
1
1
1
191
44.032139
- 88.516485
6
R
P
1
1
1
192
44.031778
- 88.516494
6
M
P
1
1
193
44.031418
- 88.516503
6
M
P
1
1
1
1
194
44.031058
- 88.516512
8
R
P
1
1
1
195
44.030698
- 88.516521
5
R
P
1
196
44.030338
- 88.516530
5
R
P
1
1
1
1
197
44.029978
- 88.516539
9
M
P
1
1
198
44.029618
- 88.516548
4
M
P
199
44.024578
- 88.516673
8
M
P
NV
200
44.024218
- 88.516682
5
M
P
1
1
1
201
44.023858
- 86.516691
4
M
P
1
2
1
1
202
44.035012
- 88.515914
4
R
P
3
1
203
44.034652
- 88.515923
4
S
P
V
1
204
44.034292
- 88.515932
4
R
P
1
1
1
205
44.033932
- 88.515941
4
M
P
1
1
1
1
206
44.033572
- 88.515950
4
R
P
1
1
1
207
44.033212
- 88.515959
6
M
P
1
1
208
44.032852
- 88.515968
5
R
P
1
1
2
209
44.032492
- 88.515977
5
R
P
1
1
1
1
1
210
44.032132
- 88.515986
5
R
P
1
1
1
211
44.031772
- 88.515995
5
M
P
1
1
212
44.031412
- 88.516004
6
M
P
1
1
1
213
44.031052
- 88.516013
9
R
P
1
1
1
1
214
44.030692
- 88.516022
7
M
P
2
1
215
44.030332
- 88.516031
4
M
P
1
216
44.029972
- 88.516040
3
M
P
1
1
2008 Onterra, LLC
Millers Bay, Lake Winnebago
Point - intercept Vegetation Survey
Appendix B
2008
Onterra, LLC
Y
O
Q'
R'
4
m
m
E
7
W
E
N
N
N
E
>
m
=
o
m
_
m
m
N
E
m
N
`O
C L
c
m
C
m
y
O •
O
E
C
?
N
W
�e
O
C
C
0
mm
p
c
c
o
y
E
d
p
m p
?''
0_
?
d
A
N
0
- y
E
0
m
d
m
N
A
m m
m
d
a
t
t
u
c
t
o
E
m
a
m
m
m
a
R
d
N
m
CL
E
E
o
E
a
°
d
m
m
E
E
N
m
a
E
E
Y
N
R
��
m
m
v
v
c
f
N
R p
o p
d
d
o
�.
p
d
O
O
m
7
E
m
N
7.
O
O
c.
i6
O
N
J S
J a
O
0)
K
O.
V
W
W
m
I -
I n
J
1 2
2
Z
a
(L
U)
V7
>
217
44.024572
- 88.516174
8
R
P
1
1
218
44.024212
- 88.516183
8
M
P
NV
219
44.035366
- 88.515406
5
S
P
1
3
220
44.035006
- 88.515415
5
M
P
3
1
1
221
44.034646
- 88.515424
4
S
P
2
1
1
222
44.034286
- 88.515433
4
R
P
1
1
1
223
44.033926
- 88.515442
4
M
P
2
1
224
44.033566
- 86.515451
4
R
P
1
1
1
225
44.033206
- 88.515460
5
M
P
1
1
226
44.032846
- 88.515469
6
M
P
V
1
1
227
44.032486
- 88.515478
6
R
P
1
1
228
44.032126
- 88.515487
6
M
P
1
1
1
1
229
44.031766
- 88.515496
6
R
P
1
1
1
230
44.031405
- 88.515505
4
R
P
1
1
231
44.031045
- 88.515514
5
R
P
3
232
44.030685
- 88.515523
4
R
P
1
1
1
233
44.030325
- 88.515532
4
M
P
1
2
234
44.029965
- 88.515541
10
R
P
1
1
1
235
44.024565
- 88.515675
4
R
P
V
1
1
236
44.024205
- 88.515684
8
R
P
NV
237
44.035719
- 88.514898
4
S
P
1
3
238
44.035359
- 88.514907
4
S
P
1
3
239
44.034999
- 88.514916
3
S
P
1
1
240
44.034639
- 88.514925
3
S
P
1
241
44.034279
- 88.514934
4
R
P
1
1
1
242
44.033919
- 88.514943
5
M
P
1
1
1
243
44.033559
-88.514952
5
R
P
2
244
44.033199
- 88.514961
5
M
P
1
1
1
245
44.032839
- 88.514970
6
R
P
1
1
1
246
44.032479
- 88.514979
6
M
P
V
1
1
247
44.032119
- 88.514988
4
R
P
1
248
44.031759
- 88.514997
6
R
P
1
2
249
44.031399
- 88.515006
4
M
P
1
1
1
1
250
44.031039
- 88.515015
8
R
P
3
1
251
44.030679
- 88.515024
7
R
P
1
2
1
252
44.030319
- 88.515033
5
M I
P
1
2008
Onterra, LLC
Millers Bay, Lake Winnebago
Point - intercept Vegetation Survey
Appendix B
2008
Onterra, LLC
Y
O
K
V
m
U)
;
U)
-
N
3
N
E
>
m
v
rs
O
CL
4
N
N
N
7
N
L
E
N
2
m
N
-'
C
°r
d
0)
7f
n
O
E
c
O
A
O
°
O
O
N
O
d
N
A
O
O
m p
�'
a
7
-
m
%
c
0
0
m
c
=
U
O
O
a
U
y
1
m R
D N
C
. .
L
OI
L
m
O
C
L
U
O.
E
m
0
m
m
0
m
Of
d
O)
R
0
N
0
s E
E
m
o
°
E
p
A
m
c
a
c
N
A
t
0
°
m
c
m`
c
N
°
E
.°-
a•-
E
°'
0
v
v
m
0
v
c
E
Z
a
E
E
c
m p
O p
m
y
o
>•
o
m
°
O
m
u
3
.�
E.
o
o
a
3
m
°
U)
J ....
J ....
O
m
0'
d
U
W
W
2
-
J
Z
2
Z
a
a
rn
to
>
3:
253
44.024199
- 88.515186
4
R
P
1
1
1
1
1
254
44.023839
- 88.515195
8
R
P
NV
255
44.036073
- 88.514390
9
R
P
NV
256
44.035713
- 86.514399
5
S
P
1
3
257
44.035353
- 88.514408
4
S
P
1
1
258
44.034993
18.514417
4
M
P
3
2
259
44.034633
-88.514426
3
M
P
3
260
44.034273
- 88.514435
3
S
P
1
2
1
1
1
1
261
44.033913
- 88.514444
4
R
P
1
1
1
1
262
44.D33553
- 88.514453
5
M
P
1
1
1
263
44.033193
- 88.514462
4
R
P
1
2
264
44.032833
- 88.514471
5
M
P
1
2
1
1
1
265
44.032473
- 88.514480
6
R
P
2
1
266
44.032113
- 68.514489
6
M
P
1
1
1
267
44.031753
- 88.514498
5
R
P
1
1
1
1
268
44.031393
- 88.514507
6
R
P
1
1
2
1
269
44.031033
- 88.514516
4
R
P
1
2
270
44.030672
- 88.514525
5
R
P
1
1
271
44.030312
- 88.514534
5
R
P
1
1
1
1
272
44.029952
- 88.514543
7
R
P
1
1
2
273
44.029592
- 88.514552
5
M
P
1
1
1
274
44.036066
- 88.513891
6
M
P
1
1
1
275
44.035706
- 88.513900
5
S
P
1
276
44.035346
- 88.513909
4
S
P
1
1
1
277
44.034986
- 88.513918
4
M
P
1
2
1
278
44.034626
- 88.513927
5
M
P
1
1
1
279
44.034266
- 88.513936
5
S
P
1
2
1
280
44.033906
- 88.513945
4
S
P
1
1
1
1
1
281
44.033546
- 88.513954
5
M
P
1
1
1
282
44.033186
- 88.513963
5
R
P
1
1
1
283
44.032826
- 88.513972
6
R
P
1
1
1
1
284
44.032466
- 88.513981
6
R
P
2'
285
44.032106
- 88.513990
6
M
P
1
1
1
286
44.031746
- 88.513999
5
R
P
1
2
287
44.031386
-88.514008
6
G
P
1
1
1
1
288
44.031026
- 88.514017
6
R
P
1
1
1
2008
Onterra, LLC
Millers Bay, Lake Winnebago
Point - intercept Vegetation Survey
Appendix B
2008
Onterra, LLC
Y
O
d'
Q'
a
A
fn
;
E
@
m
w
E
>
°
G
E
.2
N
c
N
m
N
m
��
•_
d
U
n
`
m
v
w
m
N
O
a
m
m
'm
L
`
m
V
=
c
E
c
°
v
m
o
v
w
m
v
c
c
o
m
E
o
D
0
°_
- '
m
a
m
°
m
c
-
m
m
d
R
o
a
m
m
° A
r
Cm
z
R
°
c
L
°
a
'E
y
a
m
m
m
rn-
m
m
° E
E
m
a
°
p
m
m
L
m
m
N
t
°
o
v
m
c
m
E
`°-' °
c 'u
a
E
o.
•c
m
m
v
v
m
>
u
c
m
'-°
°'
m
m
Q
u
!"
R
m
p
d
°
°
�?
d
'A
E.
' O.
m
O 0
m
o
�.
W
W
d
2
-
j
J
2
"
Z
Z
o
a
o
a
N
N
ip
>
°
Ts
289
44.030666
- 88.514026
5
R
P
1
2
290
44.030306
- 88.514035
6
R
P
1
1
1
1
291
44.029946
- 88.514044
7
R
P
1
1
292
44.029586
- 88.514053
6
M
P
1
1
293
44.036060
- 88.513392
8
R
P
1
1
1
294
44.035700
- 88.513401
5
R
P
1
1
3
295
44.035340
- 88.513410
5
M
P
3
296
44.034980
- 88.513419
4
M
P
2
2
297
44.034620
- 88.513428
4
M
P
1
3
298
44.034260
- 88.513437
5
S
P
3
1
299
44.033900
- 88.513446
6
M
P
3
300
44.033540
- 88.513455
4
M
P
3
1
301
44.033180
- 88.513464
4
R
P
3
302
44.032820
- 88.513473
3
R
P
1
1
1
1
303
44.032460
- 88.513482
6
R
P
1
1
1
1
304
44.032100
- 88.513491
6
M
P
1
1
1
1
305
44.031740
- 88.513500
6
R
P
1
1
1
306
44.031380
- 88.513509
7
M
P
1
307
44.031020
- 88.513516
8
R
P
1
308
44.030660
- 88.513527
8
R
P
V
1
1
309
44.030299
- 88.513536
9
M
P
1
1
310
44.029939
- 88.513545
9
M
P
NV
311
44.029579
- 88.513554
10
R
P
NV
312
44.029219
- 88.513563
6
R
P
1
1
313
44.036053
- 88.512893
8
R
P
NV
314
44.035693
- 88.512902
5
R
P
1
V
2
315
44.035333
- 88.512911
5
M
P
1
1
1
316
44.034973
- 88.512920
5
M
P
1
3
317
44.034613
- 88.512929
44
R
P
1
3
318
44.034253
- 88.512938
4
S
P
1
2
319
44.033893
- 88.512947
5
R
P
1
1
320
44.033533
- 88.512956
5
M
P
3
321
44.033173
- 88.512965
4
M
P
1
1
322
44.032813
- 88.512974
5
M
P
V
1
1
323
44.032453
- 88.512983
6
R
P
3
1
324
44.032093
- 88.512992
6
M
P
1
1
2
2008
Onterra, LLC
Millers Bay, Lake Winnebago
Point - intercept Vegetation Survey
Appendix B
2008
Onterra, LLC
Y
0
ri
m
v�
>
ut
,•'
A
E
-
E
N
>
7
A
N
N
10
E
O
H
m
N
A
7
N
A
.�+
A
N
m
H
d
a.
• a
•E
v
c
y
w
s
R
v
N
a
-
°
o.
0
d
rn
m
a
c
c
=
�
c
v
m
v°
c
E
'51
m
t
c
CL
CL
m
IL
m m
v
C
Im
t
m
U
C
n
E
d
a
d
m
OI
N
CL
E
L
E
m
o
E
°
d
d
L°
m
0
c
N
n
E
_
E
v
Y
c
m
of
N
N Q
O 0
d
N
O
>.
O
N
O
O
0
N
7
d
R
=
>.
O
O
O-
=
m
O
r°
J
J
D
Q)
K
a
6
U
W
W
2
_
7
J
Z
Z
2
a
a
ut
m>
3
325
44.031733
- 88.513001
8
R
P
NV
326
44.031373
-88.513010
9
M
P
327
44.D31013
- 88.513019
9
M
P
NV
1
328
44.030653
- 88.513028
10
M
P
1
329
44.030293
- 88.513037
10
M
P
NV
330
44.029933
- 88.513046
9
R
P
NV
331
44.036047
- 88.512394
9
R
P
1
2
332
44.035687
- 88.512403
3
R
P
3
333
44.035327
- 88.512412
5
M
P
3
1
334
44.034967
- 88.512421
4
S
P
1
3
335
44.034607
- 86.512430
5
R
P
V
3
336
44.034247
- 88.512439
5
S
P
3
337
44.033887
- 88.512448
5
R
P
1
1
1
338
44.033527
- 88.512457
4
M
P
3
339
44.033167
-88.512466
4
M
P
3
340
44.032807
- 88.512475
5
M
P
1
341
44.032447
- 88.512484
6
M
P
1
1
1
1
342
44.036040
- 88.511895
7
M
P
1
1
343
44.035680
- 88.511904
3
R
P
1
2
1
344
44.035320
- 88.511913
5
M
P
2
345
44.034960
- 68.511922
4
M
P
1
2
1
346
44.034600
- 68.511931
6
S
P
1
2
347
44.034240
- 88.511940
5
R
P
1
1
1
348
44.033880
- 88.511949
5
R
P
2
349
44.033520
- 88.511958
4
M
P
1
1
350
44.035674
- 88.511404
4
M
P
1
1
351
44.035314
- 88.511414
3
R
P
1
1
1
352
44.029959
- 88.515042
3
M
P
1
2
1
353
44.034954
- 88.511423
6
S
P
1
1
V
1
2008
Onterra, LLC
APPENDIX C
Miller's Bay Aquatic Plant Management/Treatment Cost Comparison
Compiled by City of Oshkosh Parks Department
MILLER'S BAY AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT
TREATMENT COST COMPARISON
The following cost comparison is based on data derived from the April 2009 Onterra (DRAFT)
report and the treatment and /or plant harvest recommendations based on mapped acreage
estimates that include navigational areas /lanes and habitat enhancement lanes. Cost data is based
on 2009 equipment purchase and operating costs as well as 2010 chemical treatment costs. All
treatment and harvest activities are subject to the permitting requirements of WI DNR.
The proposed 2010 Harvest Plan includes navigation areas /lanes approximately 20.9 acres and
habitat enhancement lanes approximately 9.1 acres.
HARVESTER COSTS TO OWN AND OPERATE
Several aquatic plant harvester equipment vendors have been contacted for pricing of new
equipment with the following estimate appropriate to our project. This item would be a capital
purchase and then an annual operating budget cost if we choose to perform the ongoing work
each season with city staff.
H5130 Harvester
w /options
SC -130 Shore Conveyor
w/ options
T -130 Trailer
Options
Total Equipment Cost
Or
$59,940
$22,247 (extended package) $5,814 (basic package)
$19,320
$4,796 (extended package)
$4,076 (basic package)
$11,015
$3,842
$121,160 (All equipment w /extended packages)
$114,007 (All equipment w/basic option packages)
AVERAGE COST OF HARVESTER OPERATION BY CITY STAFF
Includes wages, benefits, operating supplies and fuel at an average of $330 per acre assuming a
0.5 acre per hour production estimate while on the lake. This cost is based on a similar WI
community's actual staff and supplies cost for a program of similar scale. Included in this
estimate is an additional 20% for mechanic and other staff necessary for the operation. The City
of Oshkosh currently does not have sufficient staffing levels to operate a harvester.
Cost for navigation area and lanes (20.9 Ac.) = $6,897 each cutting event
Cost for habitat enhancement areas (9.1 Ac.) = $3,003 each cutting event
Estimated Total Cost of harvest each event = $9,900
Depending on conditions, approximately four (4) cutting events per year will be required
(minimum) = $39,600
AVERAGE COST OF HARVESTER OPERATION BY CONTRACTOR
2010 rates based at $165 per hour on the lake with harvesting machine, shore elevator, dump
truck and on -board guidance system plus $700 set up and mobilization charge per visit.
Operating rate of 0.5 Ac. Per hour on the lake with cost equal to $330 /acre plus set up and
mobilization each visit ($700).
Cost for navigation area and lanes each visit (20.9 Ac.)(41.8 hrs.) = $6,897 +700 = $7,597
Cost for habitat enhancement areas (9.1 Ac.)(18.2 hrs.) = $3,003 (assumes part of navigational
lane visit)
Estimated Total Cost (with set up and mobilization) of harvest each visit by contractor = $10,600
Depending on conditions, approximately four (4) visits per year will be required = $42,400
CHEMICAL CONTROL OF AQUATIC NATIVE AND INVASIVE SPECIES
(2010 rates) Two treatment events have been recommended specifically in the same areas
treated in 2008 to include an early to mid -May application for control of the Eurasian Water
Milfoil (non- native) and a later treatment of the same areas for Curly Leaf Pondweed and
Coontail. The area to be treated is approximately fourteen (14) acres and addresses boat launch
areas, sailboat mooring area and existing docking facilities. The sailboat mooring area is
approximately 10.3 acres and would not be possible to harvest with mechanical equipment with
mooring plugs in place.
CHEMICAL TREATMENT COST BASED ON ACREAGE TREATED IN 2008
2008 Permitted Treatment Area= 13.8 Acres
Estimated treatment cost for 2008 areas (approximately 14 acres) = $27,300 (20 10 estimate)
Historical Information for 2008 indicates that 13.84 acres of treatment were permitted by the
DNR (see map #8). The following treatments were done over the course of the summer:
-June 10, All of Site A (10.33 acres)
-June 26, Southern part of Site A (2.07 acres), All of Site B (0.88 acres), Site C (1.52
acres) and Site D (1.11 acres). Total treatment acreage =5.58 acres.
-July 30, Western half of Site A (4.64 acres), Shoreward 2/3 of Site D (0.73 acres), and a
36' by 100' site not contained within the original permit but verbally authorized by the
WDNR (0.08 acres). Total treatment acreage = 5.45 acres.
- According to the billing received by the City of Oshkosh and the treatment records,
approximately 21.31 acres of treatment were completed over the summer at the cost of
$20,577.60. The treatments performed well and cost an approximate average of
$965 /acre.
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL TREATMENT AND /OR HARVEST COSTS
2010 ESTIMATES
CONTRACTOR HARVEST 30 ACRES (based on 4 cutting events) _ $42,400
CITY STAFF HARVEST 30 ACRES (plus cost of harvester purchase above) _ $39,600
CONTRACTOR HARVEST 13.8 ACRES (may not be able to perform more than one event at
plugs, estimate based on 4 cuttings) _ $21,016
CITY STAFF HARVEST 13.8 ACRES (may not be able to perform more than one cutting
event at plugs, estimate based on 4 cuttings) _ $18,216
CHEMICAL TREATMENT 13.8 ACRES (not to exceed price subject to current conditions) _
$27,300