by R.D. Gainar, CEBS – Lake Management Committee Chairman

The Lake Erie Ecosystem Priority (LEEP) International Joint Commission recently published their summary report of key findings and recommendations. This US and Canadian commission’s function is to understand the sources of excess nutrients and the measures required in order to reduce them. The report can be found on our website (www.roamingshores.org) and is yet another important work provided in follow-up to the 2011 algal bloom, the largest in the history of Lake Erie. Like the Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force Final Report, Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force II, Strategic Plan for the Grand Lake St. Marys Restoration Commission, and several others (also on our website), this report is critical of the primary problem: flow of sediment and nutrients into our rivers and streams from the watershed and the current efforts to contain them in the fields.

The Commission writes: “Although eutrophication [a process akin to aging due to excessive nutrient enrichment] is again a serious threat to Lake Erie water quality, the sources and remedies are different from those of the 1960s and 1970s. While sewage plants still contribute some phosphorous to Lake Erie, diffuse runoff from rural and urban lands is a leading factor in eutrophication. Of particular concern is runoff of dissolved reactive phosphorous (DRP), which is highly bioavailable and thus a primary cause of renewed algae blooms. Addressing runoff requires strategies tailored to particular land uses, rather than controls on sewage plants alone.“

Among the Commission’s recommendations was that existing and planned incentive-based programs immediately shift to a preference for agricultural Best Management Practices that are most likely to reduce DRP by reducing the amount of phosphorous applied to fields, slowing the movement of water to the field drainage system, and detaining flows at field drainage outlets.

I encourage residents interested in understanding the facts of our water quality and clarity issues to read at least the executive summary of the LEEP Report. And remember, residents at Roaming Shores are a powerful political force especially when we voice reasonable requests to elected representatives. If you are interested in taking action to reduce HABs in our lake, please consider writing and calling your elected state representatives including Gov. Kasich and let them know that you support strong action to ensure that nutrients and sediment are controlled and limited so they do not enter our waterways.

I hope you are enjoying your summer goose free. If so, your Lake Management Committee has done a great job limiting the harmful effects of goose droppings this year. If not, now is the time when adult geese are spreading their new wings and the goslings are taking their first flights and it is a perfect time to return back to heavy harassment with the geese. Geese are currently going through a “shift” looking for the spot where they are going to spend their time until the Fall so now is the time to be vigilant in chasing the geese off the property. As I am sure you have heard me say before, the key to being goose free is doing the right techniques right at the right time of the year. Below I provide a refresher of these techniques for this time of the year:

1) Never stop short of the geese leaving the property. Doing so can actually be detrimental to your program allowing the geese to feel like they “won the battle” by still being allowed to use your property even though they were harassed making it increasingly harder to harass them.
2) If there is water on the property, always chase the geese away from the water. Water to geese is safety and you want to remove any places where they feel safe in order to be effective.
3) Look for places to chase geese where they can feel trapped such as thick shrubbery, fences, corners of buildings, walls, etc. Making them feel trapped will give them a much more effective feeling of vulnerability which will help tremendously in keeping them from coming back to your property.
4) While any bangers, screamers, lights, decoys, sprays, motion sprinklers, etc. should have been sitting on the shelf not being used over the last few months, now is the time to pull those back out and again begin using them.
5) The two times to focus harassment efforts is at sunrise and sunset when the geese are going to/from feeding areas.
6) Stay consistent with your harassment. You don’t want to send mixed signals to the geese. The goal is to make them understand loud and clear they are not welcome on your property.
7) Once you get the geese flying, stick around for a few minutes to see if they are doing a big loop and coming back. If they do this you should be yelling at them as they are coming back waving your hands to keep them in the air. If there is a pond they are going to land on, throwing some rocks or sticks to make splashes on the water works great to keep them from landing on the water.

Following these tips will ensure you get rid of the geese quickly to allow you the rest of the summer goose free till the next “shift” on September 1st.

Geoff Westerfield
Assistant Wildlife Management Supervisor
Ohio Division of Wildlife

by R.D. Gainar CEBS – Lake Management Committee Chairman

Your Lake Management Committee is committed to evidence-based management practices but is also careful to consider comments made by residents.  Questions continue to be raised comparing the dredging activities at Grand Lake St. Mary’s (GLSM) to our lake water quality activities by a very few residents who continue to favor and promote the former $2+ million plan to hydraulically dredge the shallows to “improve water quality”.  However, evidence suggests otherwise so I contacted the ODNR to ask Mr. Scott D. Fletcher, Deputy Chief, Ohio State Parks & Preserves a few questions about the dredging activities at GLSM.

Q: At Roaming Shores all lake front property, with the exception of a few recreation lots owned by the homeowners association are privately owned.  Is there any lake front property privately owned at GLSM’s?  If so, are these property owners contributing to the program costs?

A: Grand Lake St. Mary’s has a substantial amount of privately owned shoreline.  There was no direct cost to property owners; however, there was a significant amount of private money raised locally to support some demonstrations of promising technology, to develop strategic plans for remediation efforts and to provide for public education.

Q: I am confused by the relationship between your use of dredging and chemical treatment to control phosphorus.  Your consultants at TetraTech advise that dredging should only be used in strategic places, such as mouths of tributaries where there is significant nutrient buildup because the cost disparity of dredging as compared to chemical treatments ($17,894/ha vs. $564/ha).  It would seem to me more efficient and effective for you to skip dredging altogether and instead invest those funds in chemical treatment.  Even if you dredge the entire lake in your attempt to control internal release of phosphorus, you would still need to deal with DRP coming in from the watershed.  Are you dredging primarily to increase the lake depth as opposed to controlling internal phosphorus release?

A: Excellent questions.  Regarding dredging, the purpose of the program is actually to maintain navigation for safe boating.  This is dictated by the funding source (gas tax) that’s used to operate the dredging program.  As such our efforts focus on channels, the mouths of navigable streams and other areas that primarily support boating.  The minimal benefit in reducing nutrients in the lake as a whole is a net positive one, but not the focus of the dredging program.   If were using dredging to address the nutrient issue we would probably focus on the deepest portion of the lake and not the shallow areas where most of the work is currently done.

Q: What percentage of the lake has currently been dredged?

A: Off the cuff I would estimate that the percentage of the lake that is dredged in any single year is probably less than 1%.  A program that includes three dredges that generates about 300,000 cu. yds. of material on the 12,500 acre lake is a limited, targeted program.

Q: If you could do only one thing to improve the water quality at GLSM’s
what would that be?

A: We would stop the inflow of excess nutrients to the lake.  Controlling the watershed is the key to remediating the conditions
in the lake.