FOX LAKE AQUATIC PLANT SURVEYS 2017 & 2018 · 2018 White Water Lily 0 1 3 ¯ 0 0.02750.055 0.11 0.165 0.22 Miles Figure 14 Frequency of Occurrence of White Water Lily 1994 through

FOX LAKE AQUATIC PLANT SURVEYS 2017 & 2018

PREPARED FOR:

THE FOX LAKE INLAND LAKE PROTECTION AND REHABILITATION DISTRICT

NOVEMBER 18, 2018

Ecological Research Partners, LLC. 2-1

FOX LAKE 2017 & 2018 AQUATIC PLANT SURVEY

INTRODUCTION

Fox Lake is a 2,625-acre lake located within the municipal boundaries of the Town of Fox Lake and City of Fox Lake. Fox Lake is a natural glacial drainage lake that was enlarged in 1845 by the construction of a dam on the lake outlet named Mill Creek. Fox Lake has a history of alternating between clear water and turbid water states. In 1995 the Fox Lake Inland Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District (FLILPRD) in partnership with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), University of Wisconsin – Extension, and Dodge County Land Conservation Department began a restoration project to stabilize Fox Lake into a clear water state. The management plan included the following elements:

Shoreline Stabilization

Watershed Protection

Aquatic Plant Management

Fishery Management

Dam Replacement

Public Education

Aquatic macrophyte surveys have been conducted on Fox Lake in 1954, 1986, 1994, 1998, 2004, 2005, and 2006, 2007, 2008, 2013, 2014, 2017 and 2018. These surveys are conducted to understand the health of Fox Lake and the success of management activities. LAKE CHARACTERISTICS

Fox Lake is a 2,625-acre lake located within the municipal boundaries of the Town of Fox Lake and City of Fox Lake in township T13N, Ranges R13 S13-16, and sections 21-23, 26, and 27 in Dodge County, WI. Table 2-1 summarizes the lake’s physical characteristics.

Table 1

Physical Characteristics of Fox Lake, Fox Lake, Wisconsin

Parameter Size

Surface Area (open water) 2,525 acres

Surface Area (with fringe wetlands) 4,690 acres

Maximum Depth 19 feet

Mean Depth 5 feet

Volume 19,307 acre-feet

Shoreline Length 17.9 miles Source: WDNR


AQUATIC PLANT COMMUNITY

Historically, the plant community on Fox Lake was surveyed using a transect-based technique (Figure 1 Left). Beginning in 2006 a new comprehensive point-intercept survey was started on the lake to provide a better overall picture of the aquatic plant community. Point-intercept surveys contain many more survey points than transect-based surveys (Figure 1 Right). The point-intercept survey method was repeated in 2007, 2008, 2013, 2014, 2017 and 2018.

Figure 1

Comparison of Historic Transit Method to Point-Intercept Method Source: WDNR and Hey and Associates, Inc.

The historic transects were recreated from the 2006 data from sampling locations from the point-intercept survey that roughly correspond to historic sampling locations; however, methodological differences do exist between the survey types. As a result, comparisons between 2006 through 2018 data and prior years are likely not as precise as comparisons between years where the transect method or point-intercept method was solely applied Maps of the 2006 through 2018 survey results are included in Appendix A. Appendix B contains the survey data sheets from the 2017 and 2018 surveys and is located on the CD at the back of this report. Aquatic plant data was available for Fox Lake from 1950 to the present. Data from the historic surveys can be summarized utilizing a series of calculated metrics that can be used for comparison. A brief explanation of each metric follows:

1) Frequency of Occurrence: the number of sites a plant species was collected divided by the total number of sites. The abundance of plants is not taken into account with this calculation. Only the presence/absence is noted. This value is also used to calculate the total percentage of littoral zone supporting aquatic plant growth.

2) Density: the amount of all plants found at each sample site.


3) Maximum Rooting Depth: the deepest sampling point that contained rooted aquatic plants. This measure is an important estimate of water clarity. Aquatic plants usually grow at 2-3 times the Secchi depth.

4) Number of Species Presence: illustrates the diversity of plants in the lake.

5) Floristic Quality Index (FQI, Nichols 1999): a biological index value based on the presence/absence of species and the ability of plants to tolerate disturbed conditions. FQI is calculated by multiplying the average C value for all native plant species by the square root of the number of native plant species collected. “C” is the coefficient of conservatism which is a value assigned to native aquatic plants estimating a plant’s likelihood to occur in an undisturbed lake. The C values range from 0-10, with 10 representing an undisturbed condition and 0 representing severely degraded conditions.

Fox Lake supports a plant community typical of a shallow lake in southern Wisconsin. This is evident by the frequency of occurrence of aquatic plants (Figure 2), the Floristic Quality Index scores, and the presence of exotic invasive species (Table 2). The recent trends indicate Fox Lake’s aquatic plant community expanded between 1998 and 2005. From 2006 through 2013 the presence of rooted aquatic plants had declined. In 2014 the plant community saw a major rebound and has seen a decline in 2017 and 2018.

Figure 3 illustrates the density of aquatic plants geographically from 2006 through 2018. We see in 2006 and 2007 wide distribution of plants in the lake. In 2008 a major decline in the density and distribution of plants is seen. In 2013 plants begin to recover in the Alto and Cambra Creek inlet areas. In 2014 we see a major recovery of plants throughout the lake. In 2017 and 2018 we see plants are again declining in abundance and distribution in the lake. Figure 4 and 5 illustrates the trend in the dominant species in Fox Lake in 2017 and 2018 respectively. Coontail, elodea and Eurasian water milfoil all expanded from 1998 through 2005. Each of these species saw declines beginning in 2006 through 2013. Coontail, Eurasian water milfoil and flatstem pondweed expanded in 2014 and in 2017, and showed decline in 2018. Appendix A illustrates the distribution of the major species from 2006 through 2018.


Figure 2 Frequency of Occurrence of Aquatic Plants Fox Lake

Source: WDNR, Hey and Associates, Inc., and Ecological Research Partners, LLC.


Table-2 Aquatic Plant Community Summary Statistics


Scientific Name Common Name C

Frequency of Occurrence

1989 1994 1998 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2013 2014 2017 2018

C. demersum Coontail 3

19 18.3 55.6 73.3 62.3 56.4 37.6 26.6 46.5 52.8 33.9

Chara spp. Muskgrass 7

- - 5.1 8.9 9.4 8.9 2.2 4.1 3.6 14.8 -

E. canadensis Elodea 3

2 10.6 11.1 51.6 44 9.2 - 3.4 4.2 0.5 -

H. dubia Water Stargrass 6

3 - 4.3 10.4 - 0.3 0.5 - 0.7 2.5 -

L. minor Small Duckweed 5

- 2.6 18.8 20.5 4.3 - - - 3.5 7.2 6.5

L. trisulca Star Duckweed 6

- - 1 2.6 0.3 - - - 0.5 - -

M. spicatum Eurasian Water-milfoil NA

15 27.9 35.9 27.4 46.8 34.1 21.0 11.1 15.0 48.5 45.7

N. flexilis Slender Naiad 6

1 - - - * 0.2 - 0.2 0.1 - -

N. marina Spiny Naiad NA

- - 1 - - - - - - - -

Nuphar spp. Yellow Water Lily 8

1 - 1.7 6.8 0.3 - - 0.7 - - -

Nymphaea spp. White Water Lily 6

5 5.1 5.1 4.3 1.2 - - 1.7 1.6 3.4 0.1

P. crispus Curly-leaf Pondweed NA

5 1.9 8.5 18.5 1 - 0.2 0.2 0.2 - -

P. sp. #1 Unknown Pondweed 6

1 - 1.7 - 0.5 - - 0.2 - - -

P. zosteriformis Flat-stem Pondweed 6

- - - 14.1 - 0.9 - 8.2 17.1 - 0.3

S. pectinatus Sago Pondweed 3

22 15.4 11.1 9.9 17.4 5.3 1.3 2.3 4.3 8.3 0.9

S. polyriza Large Duckweed 5

- - 2.6 - - - - 2.4 - - -

Sparganium (fluctuans) Floating-leaf Bur-reed 10

- - - 1.5 - - - - - - -

V. americana Water Celery 6

1 - 1 - * - - 2.3 3.3 - 2.5

W. columbiana Watermeal 5

- - - 4.3 - - - - - - -

Z. palustris Horned Pondweed 7

1 - - 1 - - - - - - -

P. pusillus Slender Pondweed 7

- - - - - 0.3 - - - - -

P. perfoliatus Claspingleaf pondweed NA

- - - - - - - 0.2 - - -

P. gramineus Variable-Leaf Pondweed NA

- - - - - - - 0.2 - - -

P. foliosus Leafy Pondweed 6

0.1 - -

Utricularia vulgaris Bladderwort NA

0.6 - -

All Species => 31 33 41.3 57.3 88.9 73.4 63.6 44.8 28.4 52.2 57.5 50.7

Average C =>

5.4 4 5.6 5.8 5.5 5.1 4.8 4.9 5.3 6.4 3.6

FQI =>

17.1 8.9 19.3 20.9 18.1 15.3 11.8 19.0 21.6 12.5 9.6

Maximum Rooting Depth (ft) =>

5 6 6 8 14 14 10 7 12.0 10.0 12.0

Total # Plant Species =>

12 7 15 15 14 9.0 6.0 15.0 17.0 9.0 8.0

1994. Winkeman, J. Results of the 1994 Macrophyte in Fox Lake. WDNR Bureau of Research 1998 Values tabulated from data provided from P. Garrison WDNR Bureau of Research 2006- 2018 Total are results for comprehensive point-intercept survey


0 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.40.175Miles

¯

Legend

2007_APS_East

Density

0

1

2

3

0 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.40.175Miles

¯

Legend

2006_APS_Results

Density

0

1

2

3

0 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.40.175Miles

¯

Legend

2008_Survey_Results

Density

0

1

2

3

0 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.40.175Miles

¯

Legend

2013_APM_Results

Total_Dens

0

1

2

3

4

5

¯

0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.20.15Miles

Legend

2014_Aquatic_Plant_Survey

Total_Dens

0

1

2

3

4

5

Legend

2017 Total Density

0

1

2

3

4

¯

0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.60.075Miles

2006 2007

2008 2013

2014 2017


Legend

2018 Total Density

0

1

2

3

¯

0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.60.075Miles

2018

Figure 3 Density of Aquatic Fox Lake 2006 through 2018


Figure 4 Frequency of Occurrence of Major Aquatic Plant Species in Fox Lake in 2017

Source: Ecological Research Partners, LLC


Figure 5 Frequency of Occurrence of Major Aquatic Plant Species in Fox Lake in 2018


Figure 6

Frequency of Occurrence of Dominant Aquatic Plants in Fox Lake from 1994 through 2018


Source: WDNR, Hey and Associates, Inc., and Ecological Research Partners, LLC

The maximum rooting depth, illustrating the maximum depth to which plants were observed and an indicator of the average depth that sunlight is penetrating in the lake is illustrated in Figure 7. We see that maximum rooting depth increased from 1994 through 2005, declined from 2007 through 2013, and increased in 2014 through 2018.

Figure 7 Maximum Rooting Depth (feet) 1994 through 2018


The total number of submerged rooted aquatic plant species identified in the surveys is illustrated in Figure 8. The number of species present indicates the diversity of plants in the lake. We see the number of species reached a maximum of 17 species in 2014. From 2006 through 2008 the number declined to six. In 2013 and 2014 the number of species increased, then declined in 2017 and 2018.


Figure 8 Total Number of Species Present by Year


The Floristic Quality Index (FQI, Nichols 1999), a biological index value based on the presence/absence of species and the ability of plants to tolerate disturbed conditions. For Fox Lake the FQI values from 1994 through 2018 are illustrated in Figure 9. All lakes in the state of Wisconsin have an average FQI of 22.2. We see in 2005 the value exceeded 20.9 indicating a balanced plant community. From 2006 through 2013 the FQI declined to a low of 11.8, indicating a high level of disturbance, likely caused by the high level of turbidity from algae blooms. In 2013 and 2014 the FQI increased. In 2017 the FQI began declining again to a low of 9.6 in 2018.


Figure 9 Floristic Quality Index 1994 through 2018


Major Native Species

Major species that are native to Wisconsin found in Fox Lake include Coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), Sago Pondweed (Stuckenia pectinate), Elodea (Elodea Canadensis), and Flat-stem Pondweed (potamogeton/zosteriformis). The following is a discussion of their importance and trends in Fox Lake.

1.) Coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum) has historically been the most abundant native plant in Fox Lake. The plant grows underwater with no roots; upper leaves may reach the surface; central hollow stem has stiff, dark-green leaves; plants may be long and sparse, but are often bushy near the tip, giving the plant a "coontail" or "Christmas tree" appearance (Minnesota DNR). Many waterfowl species eat the shoots; it provides cover for young bluegills, perch, largemouth bass, and northern pike; supports insects that fish and ducklings eat. However, when growing densely, commonly causes nuisance conditions along shorelines. Figure 10 illustrates the abundance of Coontail in Fox Lake for 1994 through 2018. From the data we seen Coontail reached a peak in the summer of 2005 and has declined since. In 2017 Coontail was the most abundant plant in the lake and in 2018 the plant was the second most abundant plant in next to Eurasian water-milfoil a non-native species.


Figure 10 Frequency of Occurrence of Coontail 1994 through 2018


2.) Sago Pondweed (Stuckenia pectinate) has long been the third dominant plant in Fox Lake. Sago pondweed is made up of long, thread-like leaves that spread out like a fan. Leaves taper to a point, grow to about 4 inches long and are arranged alternately along slender, branching stems. Sago pondweed is one of the most important sources of food for waterfowl in North America. Figure 11 illustrates the abundance of Sago pondweed in Fox Lake for 1994 through 2018. While this plant was once found at more than 20% of the sample sites in 1994, it frequency of occurrence has dropped to 0.9% of the sample sites in 2018.


Figure 11

Frequency of Occurrence of Sago Pondweed 1994 through 2018 Source: WDNR, Hey and Associates, Inc., and Ecological Research Partners, LLC

3.) Elodea (Elodea Canadensis) has dark green, blade-like leaves in whorls of 3

with finely toothed margins. Submerged portions of the plant provide habitats for many micro and macro invertebrates. These invertebrates in turn are used as food by fish and other wildlife species (e.g. amphibians, reptiles, ducks, etc.). Figure 12 illustrates the abundance of Elodea in Fox Lake for 1994 through 2018. In 2005 Elodea was found at more than 51 percent of the sample sites, in 2018 the plant was not observed at any of the sites.


Figure 12 Frequency of Occurrence of Elodea 1994 through 2018


4.) Flat-stem Pondweed (potamogeton/zosteriformis) has a defining feature in its flat, almost linguine-esc stems that grows in a zig-zag pattern underwater. The plant provides habitat for fish and a source of food to many herbivores (plant-eating organisms) such as waterfowl. Figure 13 illustrates the abundance of Flat-stem Pondweed in Fox Lake for 1994 through 2018. As seen by the data Flat-stem Pondweed was first found in 2005, disappeared from the lake until 2013 and 2014, and was not observed in 2017 or 2018.


Figure 13 Frequency of Occurrence of Flat-stem Pondweed 1994 through 2018


5.) White Water Lily (Nymphaea spp.) has white flower with rows of petals surrounding a yellow center; rooted on the bottom and floating on the water surface or extending slightly above it; surrounded by round, floating leaves that are green-colored and 6 to 12 inches in diameter; plant stem is mostly below water surface. Provides excellent habitat for largemouth bass and sunfish; seeds are eaten by waterfowl. Figure 14 illustrates the abundance of White Water Lily in Fox Lake for 1994 through 2018. While generally not a very abundant plant is all of Fox Lake, it can be abundant in shallow bay areas. In 2018 a number of complaints were raised about the increase of abundance of this plant in an area locally known as the “Jug”. The Jug is just east of Chief Kono Trail Drive and the abundance of the plant in 2018 in that area is illustrated in Figure 15.


396

395

394

393

392

391

390

389

369

368

367

366

365

364

345

344

343

342

341

321

320

319

318

317

298

297

296

278

277

276

275

257

256

255

254

253

252

235

234

233

232

231

230

213

212

211

210

209

208

192

191

190

189

188

187

186

172

171

170

169

168

167

166

165

164

156

155

154

153

152

151

150

149

148

140

139

138

137

136

135

134

133

132

Legend

2018 White Water Lily

0

1

3

¯

0 0.055 0.11 0.165 0.220.0275Miles

Figure 14

Frequency of Occurrence of White Water Lily 1994 through 2018 Source: WDNR, Hey and Associates, Inc., and Ecological Research Partners, LLC

Figure 15 Abundance of White Water Lily in the “Jug” 2018



Non-Native and/or Invasive Species

There are a total of two important invasive species in Fox Lake. They are Eurasian water-milfoil, and Curly-leaf pondweed.

1.) Eurasian water-milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), a non-native invasive species. Eurasian water-milfoil forms dense mats at the water surface that shade out native plants, deposits large amounts of dead plant material as it dies back in the fall that may cause local shifts in water chemistry and dissolved oxygen, and supports fewer invertebrates than native plants (Cheruvelli et al. 2001). Eurasian water-milfoil was found at a relatively high number of sites in 2006 46.8%, declined to a low of 11.1% in 2013. A major increase was observed in 2016 and minor declines in 2017 and 2018 (Figure 16). In 2018 Eurasian water-milfoil was the most abundant plant in Fox Lake.

Figure 16

Frequency of Occurrence of Eurasian Water-milfoil 1994 through 2018 Source: WDNR, Hey and Associates, Inc., and Ecological Research Partners, LLC

2.) Curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) is another non-native invasive species found in Fox Lake. Mid to late summer surveys are inconsistent at detecting the actual extent of Curly-leaf pondweed in lakes because their life cycle is atypical. Curly-leaf pondweed begins to grow in the fall, continues to grow throughout the winter, and dies off in late June or early July. As a result,


surveys to detect Curly-leaf pondweed should occur in late May or early June to provide more accurate information. Curly-leaf pondweed does not appear to be a problem in Fox Lake during mid to late summer. While Curly-leaf pondweed made up 18.5% of the sample sites in 2005, in 2008 through 2014 it was found at only 0.2% of the sample sites and in 2017 and 2018 was not found in Fox Lake (Figure 17).

Figure 17 Relative Frequency of Curly-Leaf Ponweed 1994 through 2018


Water Quality

The abundance of aquatic plants in Fox Lake is strongly correlated to the water quality of the lake. The water quality of Fox Lake’s has been the focus of a number of studies. The studies indicate that Fox Lake is eutrophic to hyper-eutrophic and capable of a rapid transition from a clear water macrophyte dominated ecosystem into a turbid algal dominated system. Typical goals to manage a shallow eutrophic lake in the clear water state require total phosphorus less than 100ug/l (Scheffer et al. 1993 and Hosper and Meijer 1992). In-lake phosphorus concentrations in Fox Lake range from 100 ug/l to greater than 300 ug/l during the summer months from 2006-2018 (Figure 18). There is a correlation between the higher phosphorus levels in 2008 and the decline in aquatic plants. Lower phosphorus levels from 2010 through 2018 are associated with more rooted aquatic plants.


Figure 18 Fox Lake Total Phosphorus 2006 through 2018

Source: WDNR

Chlorophyll-a is the green photosynthesizing pigment in algae and is an indicator of algae abundance in the water column. Mean chlorophyll-a concentrations in Fox Lake range from less than 20 ug/l to as high as 140 ug/l during the summer months from 2006 to 2018 as illustrated in Figure 19. As with total phosphorus, there is a correlation between the higher chlorophyll-a levels in 2008 and the decline in aquatic plants. Lower chlorophyll a levels from 2010 through 2018 are associated with more rooted aquatic plants. Secchi disk readings from 2006-2018 are illustrated in Figure 20. Years with water clarity reading in the spring greater than 6-feer were generally associated with years of greater rooted aquatic plants.


Figure 19

Fox Lake Chlorophyll-a 2006 through 2018 Source: WDNR

Figure 20 Fox Lake Secchi Disk Readings 2006-2018

Source: WDNR


REFERENCES

Hauxwell, J., S. Knight, K. Wagner, A. Mikulyuk, M. Nault, M. Porzky and S. Chase. 2010. Recommended baseline monitoring of aquatic plants in Wisconsin: sampling design, field and laboratory procedures, data entry and analysis, and applications. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Science Services, PUB-SS-1068 2010. Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Nichols. 1999. Floristic Quality Assessment of Wisconsin lake plant communities with example applications. Journal of Lake and Reservoir Management Society. 15 (2). pp 133-141.

Nichols, Stanley A. 1999. Distribution and habitat descriptions of Wisconsin lake plants. Bulletin 96. Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey,

Ecological Research Partners, LLC 1

APPENDIX A

Aquatic Plant Survey Results 2006 – 2018


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Leg

en

d

20

06

_A

PS

_R

es

ult

s

De

ns

ity 0 1 2 3


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Leg

en

d

20

07

_A

PS

_E

as

t

De

ns

ity 0 1 2 3


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Leg

en

d

20

08

_S

urv

ey

_R

es

ult

s

De

ns

ity 0 1 2 3


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Leg

en

d

20

13

_A

PM

_R

es

ult

s

To

tal_

De

ns

0 1 2 3 4 5


¯

00.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

0.1

5M

iles

Leg

en

d

201

4_

Aq

uati

c_P

lan

t_S

urv

ey

To

tal_

Den

s

0 1 2 3 4 5


Le

ge

nd

20

17

To

tal

De

ns

ity

0 1 2 3 4¯

00.1

50.3

0.4

50.6

0.0

75

Mile

s


Le

ge

nd

20

18

To

tal

De

ns

ity

0 1 2 3¯

00.1

50.3

0.4

50.6

0.0

75

Mile

s


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

20

07_

AP

S_

Eas

t

Co

on

tail

0 1 2 3


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

200

8_S

urv

ey_R

es

ult

s

Co

on

tail

0 1 2 3


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

201

3_

AP

m_R

es

ult

s

Co

on

tail

0 1 2 3 4 5


¯

00.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

0.1

5M

iles

Le

ge

nd

20

14

_A

qu

ati

c_

Pla

nt_

Su

rve

y

Co

on

tail

0 1 2 3 4 5


Le

ge

nd

20

17

Co

on

tail

0 1 2 3 4¯

00.1

50.3

0.4

50.6

0.0

75

Mile

s


Le

ge

nd

20

18

Co

on

tail

0 1 2 3¯

00.1

50.3

0.4

50.6

0.0

75

Mile

s


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

200

6_

AP

S_R

es

ult

s

Eu

ras

ian

_w

0 1 2 3


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

200

7_

AP

S_E

as

t

Eu

ras

ian

_w

0 1 2 3


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

200

8_

Su

rve

y_

Res

ult

s

Eu

ras

ian

W

0 1 2 3


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

201

3_

AP

m_R

es

ult

s

Eu

ras

ian

_w

0 1 2 3 4


¯

00.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

0.1

5M

iles

Le

ge

nd

20

14

_A

qu

ati

c_

Pla

nt_

Su

rve

y

Eu

ras

ian

_w

0 1 2 3 4 5


Le

ge

nd

20

17

Eu

ras

ian

Wa

term

ilfo

il

0 1 2 3 4¯

00.2

50.5

0.7

51

0.1

25

Mile

s


Le

ge

nd

20

18

Eu

ras

ian

WM

0 1 2 3¯

00.1

50.3

0.4

50.6

0.0

75

Mile

s


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

200

6_

AP

S_R

es

ult

s

Sa

go

0 1 2


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

200

7_

AP

S_E

as

t

Sa

go

0 1 2


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

200

8_

Su

rve

y_

Res

ult

s

SA

GO

_08

0 1 2


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

201

3_

AP

M_R

es

ult

s

Sa

go

_P

on

dw

0 1 2 3


¯

00.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

0.1

5M

iles

Le

ge

nd

20

14

_A

qu

ati

c_

Pla

nt_

Su

rve

y

Sa

go

_P

on

dw

0 1 2 3 4 5


Le

ge

nd

20

17

Sa

go

Po

nd

we

ed

0 1 2 3 4¯

00.2

50.5

0.7

51

0.1

25

Mile

s


Le

ge

nd

20

18

Sa

go

Po

nd

we

ed

0 1¯

00.2

50.5

0.7

51

0.1

25

Mile

s


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

200

6_

AP

S_R

es

ult

s

Elo

de

a 0 1 2 3


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

200

7_

AP

S_E

as

t

Elo

de

a 0 1 2 3


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

EL

OD

EA

_0

8

0


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

201

3_

AP

M_R

es

ult

s

Elo

de

a 0 1 2 3 4 5


¯

00.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

0.1

5M

iles

Le

ge

nd

20

14

_A

qu

ati

c_P

lan

t_S

urv

ey

Elo

de

a 0 1 2 3


Le

ge

nd

Elo

de

a0 1¯

00.2

50.5

0.7

51

0.1

25

Mile

s


Le

ge

nd

20

18

Elo

de

a

0¯

00.1

50.3

0.4

50.6

0.0

75

Mile

s


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

200

6_

AP

S_R

es

ult

s

Ch

ara

0 1 2 3


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

200

7_

AP

S_E

as

t

Ch

ara

0 1 2 3


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

200

8_

Su

rve

y_

Res

ult

s

CH

AR

A_

08

0 1 2


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

201

3_

AP

M_R

es

ult

s

Ch

ara

0 1 2 3 5


¯

00.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

0.1

5M

iles

Le

ge

nd

201

4_

Aq

uati

c_

Pla

nt_

Su

rvey

<a

ll o

the

r va

lue

s>

Ch

ara

0 1 2 3 4 5


Le

ge

nd

20

17

Ch

ara

0 1 2 3 4¯

00.2

50.5

0.7

51

0.1

25

Mile

s


Le

ge

nd

20

18

Ch

ara

0¯

00.1

50.3

0.4

50.6

0.0

75

Mile

s


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

200

6_

AP

S_R

es

ult

s

Ye

llo

w_

Lil

0 1


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

201

3_

AP

M_R

es

ult

s

Ye

llo

w_

Wa

t

0 1 4 5


¯

00.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

0.1

5M

iles

Le

ge

nd

20

14

_A

qu

ati

c_

Pla

nt_

Su

rve

y

Ye

llo

w_

Wa

t

0


Le

ge

nd

20

17

Ye

llo

w W

ate

r L

ily

0 1 2 4¯

00.2

50.5

0.7

51

0.1

25

Mile

s


Le

ge

nd

Ye

llo

w_

Wa

t0 1 3¯

00.1

50.3

0.4

50.6

0.0

75

Mile

s


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

201

3_

AP

M_R

es

ult

s

Wh

ite

_W

ate

0 1 2 3 4 5


¯

00.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

0.1

5M

iles

Le

ge

nd

20

14

_A

qu

ati

c_

Pla

nt_

Su

rve

y

<a

ll o

the

r va

lue

s>

Wh

ite_W

ate

0 2 3 4 5


Le

ge

nd

20

17

Wh

ite

Wa

ter

Lil

y0 1 2 3 4¯

00.2

50.5

0.7

51

0.1

25

Mile

s


Le

ge

nd

20

18

Wh

ite

Wa

ter

Lil

y

0 1 3¯

00.2

50.5

0.7

51

0.1

25

Mile

s


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

201

3_

AP

M_R

es

ult

s

Fla

tste

m_

P

0 1 2 3 4 5


¯

00.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

0.1

5M

iles

Le

ge

nd

20

14

_A

qu

ati

c_

Pla

nt_

Su

rve

y

Fla

tste

m_P

0 1 2 3 4 5


Le

ge

nd

20

18

Fla

tste

m P

on

dw

ee

d

0 1¯

00.1

50.3

0.4

50.6

0.0

75

Mile

s


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

201

3_

AP

M_R

es

ult

s

Bu

sh

y_

Po

nd

0 1


Le

ge

nd

20

18

Bu

sh

y P

on

dw

ee

d0¯

00.1

50.3

0.4

50.6

0.0

75

Mile

s


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

201

3_

AP

M_R

es

ult

s

Ee

l_G

ras

s

0 1 2 3 4 5


¯

00.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

0.1

5M

iles

Le

ge

nd

20

14

_A

qu

ati

c_

Pla

nt_

Su

rve

y

<a

ll o

the

r va

lue

s>

Ee

l_G

ras

s

0 1 2 3 4 5


Le

ge

nd

20

18

Ee

l G

ras

s

0 1 2¯

00.1

50.3

0.4

50.6

0.0

75

Mile

s


00.3

50.7

1.0

51.4

0.1

75

Mile

s

¯

Le

ge

nd

201

3_

AP

M_R

es

ult

s

Sm

all

_P

on

d

0 1 2 3 4


¯

00.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

0.1

5M

iles

Le

ge

nd

20

14

_A

qu

ati

c_

Pla

nt_

Su

rve

y

<a

ll o

the

r va

lue

s>

Sm

all

_P

on

d

0


Le

ge

nd

20

18

Sm

all

Po

nd

we

ed

0¯

00.1

50.3

0.4

50.6

0.0

75

Mile

s


¯

00.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

0.1

5M

iles

Le

ge

nd

20

14

_A

qu

ati

c_

Pla

nt_

Su

rve

y

Du

ck

we

ed

0 1 2 3 4 5


Le

ge

nd

20

17

Du

ck

we

ed

0 1 2 3 4¯

00.2

50.5

0.7

51

0.1

25

Mile

s


Le

ge

nd

Du

ck

we

ed

0 1 2 3¯

00.1

50.3

0.4

50.6

0.0

75

Mile

s


¯

00.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

0.1

5M

iles

Le

ge

nd

20

14

_A

qu

ati

c_

Pla

nt_

Su

rve

y

Fo

rke

d_

Du

c

0 1 2


¯

00.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

0.1

5M

iles

Le

ge

nd

20

14

_A

qu

ati

c_

Pla

nt_

Su

rve

y

Bla

dd

erw

or

0 1 2 3


Le

ge

nd

20

18

Bla

dd

erw

ort

0¯

00.1

50.3

0.4

50.6

0.0

75

Mile

s


Le

ge

nd

20

17

Wa

ter

Sta

rgra

ss

0 1 2 3 4¯

00.2

50.5

0.7

51

0.1

25

Mile

s


Le

ge

nd

20

18

Wa

ter

Sta

rgra

ss

0¯

00.2

50.5

0.7

51

0.1

25

Mile

s

Documents

FOX LAKE AQUATIC PLANT SURVEYS 2017 & 2018 · 2018 White Water Lily 0 1 3 ¯ 0 0.02750.055 0.11 0.165 0.22 Miles Figure 14 Frequency of Occurrence of White Water Lily 1994 through