| **We consider the following details on chara to be well accepted fact. Most of this information is not new and it has guided the board in determining management policies toward chara. The cited information is from published, written sources (DNR publications from Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Massachusetts and Ohio, University reports and scientific publications), public reports by lake specialists on Peppermill or other similar Wisconsin Lakes as well as comments in e-mails or written reports from lake district citizens and WDNR employees. We have avoided hearsay and second hand comments, unless these were confirmed by multiple individuals and reaffirmed by recent communications with the expert source. As much as possible the statements are direct quotes. | |
ABOUT
CHARA
1. Chara is a native plant and a natural part of the lake ecosystem.
2. It is very common and often plentiful in hard water/marl lakes.
3. It has no roots but if you try and remove it, it is soon apparent
that it is attached firmly to the bottom.
4. Chara takes all its nutrients from the water. When it mounds and
hits the air, it has died or is dying.
5. Chara has been the dominant plant species in Peppermill for at least
the last 5 years (lake study report) and the prominent species in the
west 2/3’s of the lake for over a decade.
6. Because of size and extent of chara, it greatly improves water clarity
by taking up nutrients that would otherwise feed greater amounts of
microscopic algae (pea soup) and/or filamentous algae (pondscum).
7. With the spread of chara to the east bay, several persons,who are
on the lake almost daily throughout the season over multiple years,
have observed that local east bay water clarity has increased.
8. Chara covers lake bottoms and thus prevents other exotic invasive
plants, like Eurasian watermilfoil, from getting rooted and established.
If chara is removed by pulling or poisons, installing native plants
is difficult and has a very poor record of success.
9. It also stabilizes soft bottom sediment in shallow areas and thus
reduces water cloudiness from bottom disturbance that would otherwise
be caused by boat traffic and wind action; clearer water improves growth
of native plants and success of fish spawning.
10. Chara supports insects, small fish, crustaceans and other small
aquatic animals, which are important foods for bluegills, largemouth
bass and northern pike.
11. It also supports microscopic lake animals like zooplankton that
are important foods for small fish, insects and crayfish.
12. Chara is obviously part of the natural lake ecology and offers habitat
to support the lake's food chain.
13. These features of chara are consistent with the report of the 2001
Peppermill Lake study which was reviewed and approved by multiple lake
experts from Wisconsin DNR and UW Stevens Point, in addition to the
regional fish manager responsible for Peppermill Lake.
1. There is no question that chara has increased in certain areas in Peppermill Lake, particularly in the east one-third of the lake and especially near the public boat landing.
2. The Lake District Board has been intensively working to control Eurasian watermilfoil, which was a motivating factor in forming a lake district. Last year we followed a recommendation to use a liquid product in the east bay because the overall lake EWMF acreage had jumped from 7 to 15 acres from 2003 to 2004.
3. When plants are killed with chemicals, they die and add to the nutrients in the lake, including the nutrients in the water, as well as in the bottom sediments. Because chara is a plant that gets its nutrients from the water and the nutrients were increased by the chemical treatment of Eurasian watermilfoil, chara has increased also, especially in areas most intensively treated—the east bay. As Debra Konkel Explained: “It is normal for chara to expand in a lake as the lake is being treated for Eurasian watermilfoil. Chara is a pioneer species that moves in first in areas previously colonized by the exotic milfoil. “
4. Because we now have cut back on chemical treatment, and are removing nutrients (with harvesting), we can hope that the chara and other algae (especially the filamentous algae) will begin to be less prominent. As Deb Konkel also explained: “That does not mean that chara will be there long term. Chara is a pioneer species that would be expected to eventually give way to aquatic plant species. Peppermill must get through this early successional stage after milfoil treatments. In most cases, other more valuable habitat plants will move in as succession progresses.”
5. The
message is that we need to be patient. A quick fix, like poisoning or
trying to harvest chara (see information on these options) is very likely
to create more problems than are solved. Nature does not respond very
well to manipulation.
1. For proven effectiveness, chara treatment requires a chemical compound containing copper.
2. Fairly large doses of a copper compound herbicide are necessary to kill chara.
3. Effective chara treatment generally requires multiple herbicide applications each season.
4. Chara is most effectively treated early in the season before it becomes encrusted with calcium. Otherwise it is especially difficult to kill.
5. Copper compound herbicides are toxic to insects, microscopic lake animals, small fish and snails – Bass, bluegill and crappie eat insects as do smaller fish and crayfish. In turn, predator fish, like bass and pike depend on small fish and crayfish.
6. Copper based herbicides also are toxic to fish eggs, which are likely to be present early in the season, at the same time it is ideal to chemically treat chara (see #4).
7. Unsafe exposure to copper compound herbicides may affect the liver, kidneys, nervous system and GI tracts of humans, pets and other animals.
8. Swimmers with a history of chronic respiratory or skin disease may be at increased risk from copper compound exposure, in addition to headaches plus irritation of the eyes, nose and mouth.
9. Too many copper treatments or treatments at high levels have increased resistance in the fatally-toxic blue-green algae.
10. Applying copper compound treatments uniformly across the lake is technically difficult, possibly leading to unacceptably high toxicity in one portion of a lake and lower-than-effective treatments in others.
11. Copper compound treatments for algae in other lakes in Adams County (Fawn, Tri-lakes) and on other Wisconsin lakes have had long-term negative consequences.
12. Hydrogen peroxide formulations may be an alternative to copper compounds, for some kinds of algae, but early products killed some zooplankton. Newly approved products are untested in their impact on insect larvae and other critical lake bacteria.
13. One commercially available hydrogen peroxide based treatment (PAK™27) is approved for use as an algaecide for the selective control of blue-green algae, but It does not kill filamentous or green microscopic algae. It has not been well-tested in the field yet (MA report, 2004) and there are no data on its impact on chara, which generally is tougher to kill than filamentous and green microscopic algae. Its value with chara seems doubtful.
14. Without question, chara dying from chemical treatment will increase overall phosphorus in the lake water, increasing the likelihood of more chara, more filamentous algae (pondscum) and/or more microscopic algae (pea soup). As Deb Konkel pointed out: ” if we kill the chara in the lake, the nutrients will recycle into more chara.” Or she also remarked, “chemically treating it will not solve the “Chara problem”, but it could cause problems for the health of Peppermill Lake.”
15. Peppermill
Lake District could have liability issues if there are adverse results
from the use of copper compounds or hydrogen peroxide formulations, whether
damage is real or imagined..
1. Chara might possibly impact largemouth bass spawning beds, but research to support that claim appears to be lacking and reports from a number of Peppermill Lake residents (some who are on the lake every day from May 1 to July 15) claim that numbers of spawning beds, number of bass fry and number of bass are not different and even perhaps have increased from previous years.
2. Professor Michael Bozek failed to confirm the hearsay report by one property owner that perhaps chara could influence largemouth bass spawning. Bozek was contacted by e-mail and by telephone, although we may hear from him before the meeting on July 31.
3. Largemouth bass spawning on Peppermill Lake (and in most Wisconsin lakes) is predominantly in very shallow water (1-3 feet) at close-to-shore (2-4 feet) sites. Chara is relatively sparse and often absent in many of those in-shore areas on Peppermill Lake. This reduced density of chara in shallow water was noted in the DNR plant survey.
4. Observations by several different individuals, including a professional lake contractor (who has had experience on many lakes every year for 15 years and who worked on our lake the last two years) are that largemouth bass are able to move aside chara to create spawning beds even when it is somewhat dense. Fortunately, chara is not as dense near shore in preferred shallow bass spawning areas.
5. Fishing in general could be impacted by chara if the chosen fishing technique is heavily weighted lures or baits, because these sink rapidly to the bottom and into the chara layer. Most anglers on Peppermill report that topwater, lightly weighted or weedless lures and baits permit fishing throughout the lake, except of course in the lily pad beds.
6. Many bass anglers on Peppermill Lake maintain that the best largemouth bass fishing is in the southwest bay, and dense chara has been present for over a decade in that area. In line with this point, some popular fishing magazines have published reports by fishing guides that beds of chara are a prime area for catching trophy large mouth bass.
7. Other lakes in the Oxford area have significant chara density and at the same time support superb fisheries, particularly largemouth bass and large bluegill (e.g. Crooked Lake).
8. Ironically, in Minnesota a law is being proposed to make it illegal to remove chara because of its importance as a source of small bait fish for bass, pike, walleye and musky.
9. While there is a universal lament that the fish are smaller and fewer for every lake in every county, in every state, the 2004 Peppermill Lake Survey found that 56% of those who responded thought the fishing had NOT changed since they had been on the lake (with an average of 13 years of Peppermill Lake fishing experience). Of those who thought the fishing had declined, 60% thought that over-fishing was the main reason, not chara or weeds.
10. While observations of one or two individual anglers are not without value, the overall case for chara having an adverse impact on fishing and bass spawning appears weak and certainly does not (a) warrant the expense and toxic risk of chemical treatment or (b) the risk of other algae, or further spread of exotic plants if it is removed. There are standard quantitative sampling techniques for examining bass spawning success and density. Without such objective data, we should and cannot act. Perhaps we should seek to have such a study implemented in the next year. it could be funded as part of the Lake District Budget, if approved by the Lake Advisory Group.
1. Chara can be removed from the lake bed physically, but because it is not rooted and is encrusted with calcium, it is the opinion of every aquatic plant harvester we have contacted that it is impossible to cut.
2. Chara harvesting is also limited by several other factors. Machine harvesting is not permitted in shallow water, or near shore. Further, if chara is on the bottom and in water deeper than five feet the cutter cannot reach it. Essentially, as Deb Konkel has stated, chara cannot be harvested in a conventional sense. Basically, it is important to understand that because it cannot be cut, the top of the chara cannot be “trimmed;” you must remove it completely, or not at all.
3. According to harvesting contractors who do try and remove chara in those restricted depths where it is possible to reach, chara jams the cutter bar and must be dragged into a clump before being picked up by the conveyer.
4. Because chara is attached to the lake bed, removing it in the manner described leaves the lake bottom bare of vegetation and open to more aggressive invasive species.
5. In addition, because of the substantial disturbance of the lake bed in pulling the chara up, silt and nutrients are suspended in the water, reducing clarity and adding to the potential for greater algae growth.
6. While the impact of chara on bass spawning remains undocumented, as noted in the section on fish and fishing, it is legal and physically possible for individual property owners to remove chara manually along the shoreline, if they are convinced it is having a negative impact. Deb Konkel has suggested this option in a recent verbal consultation.
7. Three property owners on the west end of the lake did remove chara manually for several years in a row from 1999-2002. The impact on bass spawning or density was not apparent, but it was the case that the water clarity in those areas was not as good as previously and where chara was removed Eurasian watermilfoil appeared for the first time. They have now stopped that practice.
8. When
chara clumps and rises, it can be removed with a couple of benefits: (a)
the unsightly mound is gone, (b) we are removing biomass (potential nutrients)
from the lake. Currently, the DNR and the Lake District have chosen to
remove these clumps when possible for these reasons.