|
Oneida Lake Association Position on Native and Invasive
Aquatic Vegetation
Adopted
May 2008
The
OLA recognizes the value of aquatic plants
to the health and
wellbeing of Oneida Lake and its ecosystem.
The lake as we know it could
not exist without aquatic vegetation. However,
the OLA also recognizes
that aquatic plants can cause problems
to lake users, residents, and the
lake itself. These problems can generally
be categorized into two
groups: those caused by exotic, invasive,
and introduced plants; or
those caused by over abundant native plants.
Examples
of exotic, introduced, and invasive plants
causing problems in Oneida Lake are water
chestnut and frogbit. The OLA endorses
the
elimination and/or control of these plants
as it may be possible by any
legal means. The goal is the control or elimination
of these plants and
the problems associated with them.
With
regard to native vegetation, the OLA goal
for management is more moderate, as there
is great value in our native plants. The
OLA supports
the control of native vegetation that has
become a problem in the lake,
as when it causes impenetrable windrows or
mats of vegetation that
impede recreation and navigation, whether
offshore or near-shore. The
OLA specifically endorses the ability of
individuals or groups to
harvest native vegetation by legal means
in the public waters adjacent
to their property. The OLA goal for native
plants in Oneida Lake is to
encourage mitigation of the problems they
cause through a program of
legal harvest, removal and composting. Legal
harvest, which includes
obtaining necessary permits, can be accomplished
by hand pulling,
raking, shading, and the use of mechanical
weed harvesters. Concerned
individuals and groups are encouraged to
work with their municipalities
to explore composting and other sensible
options for disposing of weed
matter.
Oneida Lake Association Position on Phosphorous Levels in Oneida Lake
Adopted December 2005
The
Oneida Lake Association (OLA) is a 3,000+
member lake-user
organization that advocates for a healthy
Oneida Lake ecosystem -
including a vigorous sport fishery supported
by adequate nutrients,
beneficial habitat and wholesome environmental
conditions.
Proper
levels of phosphorous are vital to the
fishery and the lake as a
whole. Oneida Lake's recent total phosphorous
levels (mean annual levels
of 20-30 ppb during the 1990s) have proven
beneficial to the health of
the fishery and the lake. The weight of scientific
evidence and past
experience regarding Oneida Lake and other
watersheds demonstrates that
lowering Oneida Lake's total phosphorus level
could have serious
negative consequences. Too little phosphorous
equals too few fish.
OLA
supports a minimum mean annual level no
lower than 20 ppb of total
phosphorus. The OLA also supports the establishment
of a phosphorus
budget for Oneida Lake; this action should
be completed prior to any
significant nutrient abatement to ensure
that healthy nutrient levels
are maintained in Oneida Lake.
For
more information on the importance of phosphorous,
see page 19 of the Oneida Lake Watershed
Advisory Council's 2003 "State of
the Lake Report;" Edward Mills' and John Forney's
article "P=Life: Phosphorous
and the Oneida Lake Ecosystem," in the
Spring/Summer 2002 Oneida Lake
Bulletin; and Yurk, J. and J. Ney's study, "Phosphorous-Fish
Community
Biomass Relationships in Southern Appalachian
Reservoirs: Can Lakes Be
Too Clean for Fish?" in Lake and Reservoir
Management, 1989.
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 2830) was passed
today
by the U.S. House of Representatives
by a vote of 395 to 7 (26 NY
Representatives voted "Aye", 3 cast no vote).
The ball is now in the Senate's court to
pass S.1892); the two bills would have to
be
reconciled in conference before being
sent to President Bush.
Title V - Ballast Water Treatment Act
of 2007
Section 503 -
1. Amends the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control
Act of 1990 to replace provisions relating
to preventing the introduction and spread
of aquatic nuisance species in the Great
Lakes through the exchange of ballast water
with provisions relating to the introduction
and spread of such species from ballast
water and other ship-borne vectors. (The
new provisions are not focused only on
the Great Lakes.)
2. Prohibits the uptake or discharge of ballast water or sediment in
waters subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States except as specified in these
provisions, subject to exceptions.
3. Requires vessel operators to conduct all ballast water management operations
in accordance with an approved ballast water management plan that meets requirements
prescribed by regulation.
Requires maintenance of a ballast water record book.
4. Prohibits the discharge of ballast water in waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction
except after conducting ballast water exchange, using a treatment technology
meeting certain requirements, or using
environmentally-sound alternative ballast water treatment technology. Allows
exceptions, including for safety or stability. Allows waiver for a substantial
business hardship. Sets forth exchange and treatment requirements.
5. Requires notice to vessel owners and operators of any area in waters subject
to the U.S. jurisdiction in which vessels may not uptake ballast water due
to known conditions.
6. Prohibits the removal or disposition of sediment from spaces designed to
carry ballast water except in accordance with specified requirements, including
that the removal or disposition be more than 200
nautical miles from land or into a reception facility meeting certain requirements.
7. Authorizes the Secretary to inspect vessels and allows states to administer
their own inspection and enforcement programs.
8. Authorizes the Secretary to detain vessels and provides for civil penalties
(including in rem liability), criminal penalties, and
revocation of clearance.
9. Declares that provisions in this title relating to ballast water exchange
requirements and treatment requirements supersede any
inconsistent state or local law.
10. Requires a report to specified congressional committees on vessel-borne
vectors of aquatic nuisance species and pathogens other than ballast water
and sediment, including vessel hulls and equipment and from vessels equipped
with ballast tanks that carry no ballast water.
Full text of the Bill can be found at:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2830
Charles R. O'Neill, Jr.
Sr. Extension Specialist
Cornell University/New York Sea Grant
Director, National Aquatic Nuisance Species Clearinghouse
Morgan II, SUNY College
Brockport, NY 14420
Voice: 585/395-2638
Fax: 585/395-2466
E-mail: cro4@cornell.edu
Web site: www.aquaticinvaders.org
ONEIDA LAKE'S CORMORANT PROBLEM:
OLA Directors Speak at Fish and
Wildlife Hearings
by Jack Henke
The economic and ecological devastation
caused by Oneida Lake's thriving cormorant
colony was vividly discussed in testimony
given by several of your OLA Directors at "scoping
sessions" (public hearings) sponsored by
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
The sessions were held last May in Watertown
and Syracuse.
OLA President William Schriever and
Directors Tom Pierce, Kurt Snyder, Tony Buffa,
and Jack Henke entered their comments and
data into the Fish and Wildlife Service's
official record. The Directors cited the
following facts:
1. Cormorant predation
is the major factor behind the drastic
decline in Oneida's walleyed pike population.
The birds' feeding has destroyed hundreds
of thousands of walleyes in the 1990's.
2. Cormorants are also responsible
for severe reductions in our lake's yellow
perch population. The number of adult
perch hovers around 700,000--a fraction
of its former self. In some years, the
birds have consumed more than 200,000
perch that had reached age 2--a size
at which they have an excellent chance
of surviving to adulthood. The perch
death toll from cormorant predation throughout
the 1990's extends well into the millions.
3. Poor fishing has resulted from
reduced walleye and perch populations.
Poor fishing translates into economic
losses. Marinas, motels, restaurants,
and bait/tackle stores in the lake region
have experienced economic hardships.
The OLA submitted a detailed economic
analysis of 15 marinas on Oneida Lake.
This report documented nearly $1,000,000
lost every year to the area's economy
because anglers had left these marinas.
The report stressed that this loss is
but a fraction of the total amount lost
by the region because of the bad fishing
brought on by cormorants' predation.
The OLA gave the Fish and Wildlife Service
several copies of this report.
4. The cormorant colonies on Wantry
and Long Islands have destroyed much
of those isles' vegetation. Wantry, in
particular, bears the appearance of a "cormorant
guano wasteland", and anyone approaching
the islands from their downwind side
had best be prepared for some memorable
odors.
5. The Oneida Lake Association
is committed to the cause of eliminating
cormorant predation on the lake. The
Association strongly believes in working
through the legal channels of the Fish
and Wildlife Service and condemns any
vigilante efforts at harassing or harvesting
cormorants.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service
is in the process of developing a policy for
managing the nation's expanding, destructive
cormorant populations. The scoping sessions that
the Oneida Lake Association participated in were
two of many that have been held across the country.
Other hearings have occurred in Hauppauge, Long
Island, Burlington, Vermont, Portland, Oregon,
and in places as far flung as Wisconsin, Texas,
and Arkansas. The Fish and Wildlife Service used
these sessions to gather data about cormorants.
Participants could mail in their comments or
testify at the hearings.
The "comment period", during which
evidence could be submitted to the Fish and
Wildlife Service, ended in June. The agency
is now in the process of collecting and synthesizing
all the data and will prepare a "summary
document" of all the material by September
1.
The agency has hired two biologists
from the University of Wisconsin to prepare
a report containing relevant biological data
about cormorant predation. These biologists
have contacted the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation and its counterparts
in other states. The biologists' findings
will be combined with an analysis of the
data received in the scoping sessions. 
The Fish and Wildlife
Service will then issue a preliminary Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS, for short) by late
fall. The EIS will recommend a method, or
methods, to manage cormorant populations.
There will be a 90 day "comment period",
during which individuals and organizations
can submit their thoughts about the EIS.
Additional data, missed during the scoping
sessions, can be added to the process here.
The Oneida Lake Association will contribute
input at this time, should it be displeased
with the preliminary EIS.
After 90 days, the Fish and Wildlife
Service will prepare a "final EIS". This
report will constitute official agency policy
concerning double crested cormorants. A management
plan for the nation will be detailed here.
The final EIS should be completed by the
spring of 2001.
The Oneida Lake Association has voiced
your concerns to the appropriate authorities
in the cormorant issue. It will continue
to do so--loudly and clearly.
This graph, produced by Cornell Field
Station biologists, clearly shows their prediction
for Oneida Lake's perch population if cormorants
were eliminated (the "no cormorants line").
Perch numbers would soar from under 1,000,000
to 3,000,000 by 2010.
The other lines on the graph show
the following:
"Status quo" means that
nothing is done to change today's situation.
"No harvest" means that anglers
stop catching yellow perch, but cormorants
continue to feed.
"No top predators" translates
to stopping both angler and cormorant
predation.
Reprinted (with minor modifications) from The
Oneida Lake Bulletin: Summer, 2000.
|
