The “Shocking” Fish Survey Report

Have you ever looked over the vast expanse of Lake Mohawk (507 acres) and wondered what lies beneath the surface or lives within the lake? A very complex interaction of aquatic organisms including plants, phytoplankton, zooplankton, aquatic insects, bacteria, and fish make up the aquatic ecosystem of Lake Mohawk. Property values and summer recreational activites in and on the lake are all dependent on this complex ecosystem. In order to preserve the economic and recreational value of Lake Mohawk, it is vitally important to understand how this ecosystem works and responds to imbalances caused by both man and nature.

Knowing the composition of the fisheries within Lake Mohawk provides enormous insight into the “health” of the lake. Fish are excellent “biological indicators” of water quality and ecosystem dynamics considering they live within this environment 24/7. Water tests and sampling are snapshots in time but often do not represent long term conditions. Ironically, fish themselves depending on the species of the fish can adversely affect water quality which will be discussed below.

Jones Lake Management recently completed (May 5th and 6th, 2026) an electrofishing survey of Lake Mohawk and presented their report to the Lake Restoration and Protection Committee on Tuesday, June 16th, 2026. You can download the full report by either clicking the Jones image below or by clcking here.

Summary of My Thoughts and Feelings

• I must start out by saying that I am generally not an advocate of electrofishing in the spring for a variety of reasons. A simple AI Google search will provide you with a list of reasons why electrofishing should be avoided during the spring. One reason is that electrofishing can adversely affect bass spawning success. Other reasons include irreprable harm to the sampled fish itself such as broken vertebrate from the intense paralysis where the fish eventually swims off and succumbs to it’s injuries. With that said, I do believe that this particular survey was well worth the time, money, and effort as it clearly indicates that there is an imbalance within the fisheries of Lake Mohawk. More specifically, it gives clear insight as to why the bass population is suffering in number, size, and general overall health.
• Page 1 indicates that Lake Mohawk is 300 acres. I was informed that this was a typographical error however this number (300) is used again on page 16 of the report in a calculation for crappie harvesting reduction management (Catching and removing Crappie). The Jones report indicates that there are too many Crappie in the lake and that 25-30 Crappie PER SURFACE ACRE /PER YEAR.should be removed. The report stated that 8250 crappie should. be removed each year which is actually based on a 300 acre lake not a 507 acre lake like Lake Mohawk actually is. Using the same constant of 25-30 crappie per acre / per year, the numbers should be between 507 X 25-30 = 12,675 to 15,210 (Crappie removed each year). NOTE: This recommendation from Jones Lake Management for the need of crappie reduction hopefully dispels the concerns of those individuals that observe a relatively few dead crappie along the shoreline each spring. The death of crappie in the spring each year in the numbers observed are insignificant and are often due to natural causes including overpopulation, winter stress, spawning stress, etc..
• Too Many Crappie – As noted above, the Jones survey revealed that Lake Mohawk contains too many crappie and suggested that between 12,675 and 15,210 crappie should be removed from the lake each year. Overpopulation of crappie are directly harming the bass in several ways including the number, the size, and their overall health by competing for valuable food resources. Crappie also prey on small bluegill and their eggs which further adversely affects the bass as well as the bluegill. The Jones report indicated that bluegill are a primary and important food source for the bass. In fact, it was suggested that up to $89,200 be budgeted for restocking the bluegill population over a period of several years.
• In terms of the standard recommended bluegill to bass ratio in lake and pond environments, the report indicates that the prey to predator ratio should be 5 to 1 meaning that there should be 5 sunfish (bluegill) to every 1 bass in the lake. This number has changed over the years and it was primarily recommended for POND environments years ago. The sunfish to bass ratio use to be 10 to 1 until it was discovered that many ponds and smaller lakes were becoming overpopulated with bluegill. The final Jones report revealed that there were 20 sunfish to 96 bass. This is obviously a reversed ratio in terms of what it should be according to the Jones recommendation however it fails to take into account the vast number of other forage fish such as golden shiners (page 9) and yellow perch (page 5) that were identified in the report which also serve as forage fish for bass. Because of the low sunfish/bluegill population, Jones is recommending the stocking of “supplemental forage ” in the form of bluegill. In summary, the Jones survey identified an abundance of other bass forage fish such as the golden shiners and yellow perch. Logically, one would ask why focus on adding more sunfish as a bass forage fish when there are so many other species of bass forage fish? There are other considerations that must be taken into account to explain the distressed bass population as discussed below.
• Large Mouth Bass – 96 bass sampled in the survey ranging from 1″ up to 19″. The 11″ to 19″ bass were analyzed using Relative Weight Analysis – 79.3% of the bass between 11 and 19 inches are. below average condition. 51.7% of those selected bass are considered malnourished and 20.7% were in above average condition. In addition, greater than 50% of the bass sampled had sores and wounds on them. Clearly the largemouth bass population is being adversely affected by something. That something is NOT JUST ONE THING OR CAUSE such as lack of bluegill for forage In my opinion. Aquatic ecosystems like all ecosystems are very complex and delicate and can become imbalanced in a variety of ways. For example, how can too many yellow perch and crappie adversely affect a bass popultion within a large lake like Lake Mohawk? Answers following:
• Yellow Perch & Crappie – From AI Summary of Can Yellow perch and Crappie affect bass populations?

The Yellow Perch, Crappie, and Bass Connection

Page 5 of the Jones Report – “During the survey, we sampled 600 Yellow Perch with measured speciments ranging from 1″ up to 12″. Upon sampling, there were hundreds of more Yellow Perch that we did not collect”

Yes, overpopulation of yellow perch can cause severe problems for bass fishing. Overcrowded perch frequently stunt in growth, exhaust the local food chain, and compete directly with smaller bass for available forage. Additionally, swarms of competing panfish can excrete hormones that chemically suppress bass reproduction. [1, 2, 3]

Yellow Perch Imbalance

How Overpopulated Perch Impact Bass

• Stunted Growth: When yellow perch overpopulate, they out-eat their food supply, remaining small (often 3 to 5 inches) and stunted. These small, overcrowded panfish degrade the overall health of the fishery. [1, 2, 3]
• Reproductive Interference: In extreme cases of overpopulation, forage fish (including perch and sunfish) can release chemical or hormonal repressive factors that lead to reproductive failure in adult bass. [1]
• Direct Competition: Young and intermediate perch compete with young-of-the-year bass for the same primary food sources, such as insects and small minnows. [1, 2, 3]

Foraging and Predation Dynamics

Yellow perch are torpedo-shaped and generally soft-fleshed, making them a premium food source for both largemouth and smallmouth bass. However, the dynamic depends heavily on the size balance between the two species: [1, 2]

• Bass Eating Perch: Large adult bass (15 inches or larger) will actively feed on 7 to 9 inch perch. If the lake or pond features a robust, predatory bass population, they will generally keep the perch numbers in check. [1, 2]

• Perch Eating Bass: Newly hatched yellow perch are highly piscivorous. If the perch population explodes, dense schools of perch fry will frequently target and eat newly hatched bass fry in the spring, which significantly damages the bass population’s ability to successfully spawn and recruit. [1, 2]

Crappie Overpopulation

• Direct Forage Competition: Crappie eat the exact same forage fish (like shad and bluegill) that largemouth bass rely on to grow. When crappie overpopulate, they quickly deplete this food source. [1, 2, 3]
• Stunted Growth: Without enough food, both the crappie and the bass become stunted, resulting in an abundance of skinny, small, and unhealthy fish. [1, 2]
• Bass Fry Predation: Crappie spawn earlier in the spring than bass. This gives crappie fry a head start in size, allowing them to eat bass fry and reduce the number of young bass surviving into adulthood. [1, 2]

• Body Shape and Catchability: Because crappie are deep-bodied, they become too large for average-sized bass to eat very quickly. Furthermore, bass are ambush predators (hiding near cover) while crappie are schooling open-water fish, causing bass to expend more energy to chase them down than they would with other prey. 

Golden Shiners

Golden Shiners – Adverse affects on bass populations

Yes, a golden shiner overpopulation can cause significant problems for bass fishing and the overall health of your fishery. While golden shiners are prized as excellent forage for trophy bass, an unbalanced population creates several issues that disrupt the ecosystem. [1, 2, 3]

Key Problems Caused by Golden Shiner Overpopulation

• Stunted Forage Base: While mature shiners provide great meals for larger bass, they are highly prolific—capable of producing hundreds of thousands of eggs in a season. When they overpopulate, there are simply too many small shiners competing for the same zooplankton and insects. This stunts their growth, leaving them too small for bass to eat efficiently. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Egg & Fry Predation: Golden shiners are opportunistic eaters. If their numbers explode, they will aggressively feed on newly hatched bluegill, crappie, and even largemouth bass fry. This decimates the future generations of your primary gamefish. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Disrupted Artificial Lure Action: When a lake or pond is overflowing with shiners, bass become highly accustomed to feeding on them. This can make bass incredibly selective, often causing them to ignore your artificial lures in favor of the abundant natural bait. [1, 2]
• Feed Competition: In managed ponds that utilize automatic fish feeders, swarms of golden shiners will consume the commercial feed, outcompeting other desirable panfish (like bluegill) for resources.

Carp – Grass Carp – Golden Shiners

Adverse Affects on Water Quality and Clarity

Carp, Grass Carp, and Golden Shiners can adversely affect water quality and fish habitat in several ways.

The common carp (page 14) being a bottom feeder stirs up significant amounts of lake sediments and uproots aquatic plants. Lake sediments contain phosphorus which fuels algal blooms. Algal blooms and suspended soil particles keeps the water turbid (cloudy) and therefore limits sunlight which is required for a healthy aquatic plant population. Submersed aquatic plants are vital for both habitat cover and protection as well as providing a base for the food chain consisting of aquatic insects. Jones sampled and removed 26 common carp that measured between 17″ and 33″. (nearly 3 feet long).

Surprisingly, the Jones survey sampled and removed 10 Grass Carp (page 15) that measured between 42″ to 48″ from Lake Mohawk. Grass Carp are aquatic plant “eating machines” and are very damaging to aquatic ecosystems. Grass Carp are preferential eaters of native aquatic plants rather than exotic aquatic plants such as Eurasian watermilfoil. In other words, Grass Carp eat the desireable aquatic plants first leaving undesirable plants such as Eurasian watermilfoil to spread throughout the lake.

Golden Shiners – Jones sampled 111 Golden Shiners that measured between 4 inches up to 9 inches with 5 inches being the most common size (60). Golden shiners. While an excellent forage fish for bass, too many Golden Shiners cause significant issues for bass populations AND WATER QUALITY. Golden Shiners are planktivores meaning they primarily feed on zooplankton. Zooplankton (microscopic aquatic animals if you will) feed on microscopic plants (phytoplankton). If the zooplankton population is reduced by over grazing Golden Shiners, the phytoplankton population dramatically increases leading to algal blooms. From AI:

Yes, golden shiners can indirectly cause or worsen algae blooms. They do this through a biological chain reaction (trophic cascade) where they feed heavily on zooplankton (like Daphnia) that normally graze on phytoplankton, allowing algae to grow unchecked. [1]

How the Shiner-Algae Cascade Works

1. Zooplankton Depletion: Golden shiners are active planktivores that consume the tiny zooplankton in the water column.
2. Phytoplankton Unchecked: When zooplankton populations drop, there is nothing left to eat the microscopic algae (phytoplankton).
3. Algal Bloom: Without these grazers, the phytoplankton multiply uncontrollably, resulting in murky, green water.
4. Filamentous Algae: Golden shiners often seek out and scatter their adhesive eggs over mats of filamentous algae during their spring/summer spawns, creating an ideal micro-habitat for them to breed but further sheltering the algae

My Summary of the Jones Report

The Jones electrofishing sampling and associated report has yielded valuable lake and fisheries management information. The report focuses on the addition of bluegill and the reduction in crappie in order to correct the prey to predator balance within the bass population. Unresolved issues are the sores and wounds that were observed in over 50% of the bass population. Considering that 51.7 % of the sampled bass population was considered malnourished, it is not surprising that many bass would be prone to a variety of fish diseases. One important topic missing from the Jones report was that of maintaining a healthy aquatic plant population. Habitat is an important part of a healthy and blanced aquatic ecosystem. From AI:

The optimum aquatic plant coverage for largemouth bass is 15% to 25% of the pond or lake’s surface area. This density creates the perfect balance, providing enough cover for ambush hunting and juvenile shelter without allowing forage fish to overpopulate and stunt the bass. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Why the 15-25% Rule Matters

Too much vegetation (>40%): Forage fish (like bluegill) have too many hiding spots. They become overly successful at avoiding the bass, leading to stunted prey populations and “bass-crowded” or stunted bass fisheries

Too little vegetation (<10%): Bass struggle to find ambush points, and young-of-the-year fish are highly vulnerable to predation. This results in poor survival rates and fewer bass overall. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Over my past 17 years of managing Lake Mohawk for nuisance aquatic plant growth, I have never witnessed a natural decrease in the aquatic plant population as I have seen over the past three years. Heavy spring precipitation and overflowing lake levels early in the season has changed the dynamics of the lake from an aquatic plant dominated lake to a phytoplankton dominated lake. Once a lake becomes turbid with phytoplankton, soil particles, etc.., aquatic plants have a difficult time becoming established. Carp and Golden Shiners are also responsible for reduced aquatic plant populations as discussed above. The absence or scarcity of aquatic plants creates an imbalance within the ecosystem itself.

Minimal use of aquatic herbicides have been utilized to manage Lake Mohawk over the past three years and the growth of aquatic plants is encouraged. Copper algaecides however have been used to control summer cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) blooms in part due to the scarcity of aquatic plants (aquatic plants help naturally suppress blue-green algae blooms). I absolutely dislike the use of any copper based algaecides as it controls (kills) zooplankton in addition to targeted blue-green algae. Copper precipitates to the bottom of the lake where it accumulates over time considering it is not biodegradable. Copper can reach toxic levels for both aquatic plants and benthic aquatic insects. Minimal concentrations of copper algaecide are always the application goal whenever blue-green algae control is necessary.

The Jones electrofhishing survey illustrates the complexity of aquatic ecosystems and how everything works together to ultimately affect top predator fish such as the bass within Lake Mohawk.

Unique Advanced Algae on West Beach

Chara and Nitella are actually advanced forms of algae that have a similar appearance to aquatic plants like Coontail (Ceratophyllum) and other macrophytes. Chara and Nitella prefer clear water and are beneficial in that they stabilize lake sediments which helps suppress blue-green algae blooms. West Beach is one of the few places around the lake that you will see the algae growing on the sandy lake bottom which occasionally breaks loose from the wind and wave action and ends up along the shoreline beach area. This algae is gritty when rubbed between your fingers and has a musky smell. The gritty feeling comes from the fact that this algae extracts and and coats itself with calcium as the season progresses. Chara and Nitella also provide beneficial habitat to a healthy fisheries.

This advanced form of algae when washed ashore dries up quickly in the sun to the point it becomes a non-nuisance to beach goers. Lake Mohawk maintenance crews also often use mechanical methods to keep the beaches clear of any nuisance debris that may wash ashore during the lake season.

Always a fun day at Lake Mohawk even on rainy days!

One of my favorite views of the lake (looking from south to north)

Beautiful Lake Mohawk on June 2, 2026!!!

Beautiful beaches, beautiful homes, pristine lake conditions, and an abundance of rare wildlife including the American Bald Eagle as seen in the video below.

Trivia – Have you ever heard of “Biological Indicators of Water Quality? Fish, aquatic invertebrates (insects), waterfowl, aquatic plants, and a wide variety of species of phytoplankton and zooplankton provide excellent insights into the overall water quality of aquatic ecosystems like Lake Mohawk. Unlike physical chemical tests which only take a very small snapshot in time of water quality conditions, biological indicators monitor the lake 24/7. In other words, the lake is their home and when changes occur to their home, changes also occur to the type and species of wildlife that can survive and thrive there.

The American Bald Eagle seen in the video below as seen flying over the West Beach area on June 2, 2026, is an excellent biological indicator of how health Lake Mohawk and the surrounding watershed is. Top predator birds like the eagle do not inhabit areas where there is excess purturbation from man to the environment.

• Lake Levels
• Carp Spawning
• Wetlands – A Place for Peace and Nature
• The Fisheries of Lake Mohawk – Facts, Myths, and More.
• Interesting 2012 Ohio Shorelines Article on Lake Mohawk

Lake levels remain in overflow conditions as of May 27, 2026 (play video below). The photo above is taken from the dam looking to the east.

Carp

Large carp are taking advantage of the dam flow conditions and shorline structure to lay eggs and spawn (see video below) along the entire rip rap shoreline. Carp are undesireable from a lake management standpoint as they destroy beneficial habitat for a healthy sports fisheries as well as disturb lake sediements which contributes to blue-green (cyanobacteria) algae blooms as phosphorus is mixed into the water column. Controlled bow-fishing is one of the most effective ways to selectively control carp especially during this time of year when they are spawning near the surface as illustrated in these videos.

The Wetlands – A Place for Peace & Nature

The Fisheries of Lake Mohawk

The health of the fisheries at Lake Mohawk has been a subject of debate and concern for as long as I can remember which dates back to 2008. Even today there are concerns about the health of the fisheries with some people posting on NextDoor that the lake is “dying”. Nothing could be further from the truth but I do understand how misinformation can lead to rumors and the spreading of additional misinformation. In summary, here are the facts about the fisheries of Lake Mohawk based on my many years of observation:

Lake Mohawk is a multi-use lake meaning that the lake is utilized by a very diverse group of property owners consisting of fishermen, skiers, wake boats, jet skis,etc.. A prime fishing lake consists of a lake that has 15-25% aquatic plant cover. That equates to about 125 surface acres of aquatic plant cover for Lake Mohawk. Achieving that amount of aquatic plant growth without interfering with other water activities is very challenging especially in a relatively shallow lake with a highly developed shoreline. In addition, Lake Mohawk uses a winter drawdown method to prevent ice damage to docks, seawalls, etc.. That drawdown procedure essentially freezes out much of the aquatic plant growth that would normally become permanently established in prime spring spawning areas known as the littoral zone. Lake Mohawk has more morphological characteristics of a reservoir than it does with a natural lake.

The overall lake management approach at Lake Mohawk is to encourage native low growing species of aquatic plants while controlling exotic taller species of plants such as watermilfoil. Minimal use of aquatic herbicides is advised for a variety of reasons. In addition to benefiting the fisheries of Lake Mohawk, aquatic plants also help stabilize lake sediments and assist in the natural suppression of cyanobacteria (blue-green) algae blooms.

Each spring there are reports of “fish kills” as some individuals grow concerned over seeing dead crappie accumulate along some wind blown shorelines. Due to the stress of winter combined with spring spawning activities, many fish become weakened and diseased. Sores that some people report on the fish are the result of spawning injuries and various spring parasites and fungal infections.

Artificial Reef Structure

One of the most beneficial and effective methods of improving the fisheries at Lake Mohawk IMHO, is to supplement natural aquatic plant growth with artificial reef structure in a planned and well coordinated manner. This reef structure could easily be installed under docks, in deeper water locations (not to exceed 12 feet) and other designated areas as selected by the Lake Restoration and Protection Committee. Using integrated methods (combination of both natural and artificial) of improving fish habitat is ideal for lakes that have limited natural structure like Lake Mohawk.

Interesting Ohio Shorelines Article on Lake Mohawk

Click for full article

May 20, 2026 Lake Assessment

This weeks assessment of Lake Mohawk and surrounding watershed revealed several new and interesting observations which included seeing an albino deer in the wetland area of bays 9/10, identifying a freshwater clam commonly known as the Asian clam on the West Beach shoreline, and noting water clarity differences that varied from turbid in the southern portions of the lake to significantly clearer in the northern portions of the lake. A significant source of soil runoff into the lake from the Main Beach drainage area during a significant rain event was also observed. Paul Mickley initiated his selective nuisance aquatic plant control of watermilfoil in the back of bay 3 and throughout bays 6 and 7. Watermilfoil is an exotic aquatic plant that has a high potential to spread throughout the lake if left unchecked. This plant however does provide some benefits to the overall ecology of the lake as discussed on my lake ecology page.

Albino Deer – While I have heard many stories of an albino deer at Lake Mohawk, I have never seen it until Wednesday May 20th standing in the middle of the wetland area of bays 9/10. Simply a rare site that was truly a joy to observe.

Water Clarity (transparency) – is perhaps one of the most influential aspects of water quality that impacts the overall aquatic ecology of Lake Mohawk. Water clarity can be influenced by both organic and inorganic substances ranging from phytoplankton, zooplankton, etc. (microscopic plants and animals) (organic) to soil particles containing nitrogen, phosphorus, etc. (inorganic). Early water clarity at Lake Mohawk often determines what type of lake season the lake will have in terms of being dominated by either submersed aquatic plants OR by phytoplankton such as blue-green algae (cyanobacteria). Heavy spring precipitation that causes a rapid rise in lake levels from the winter drawdown of about 42 inches brings with it reduced water clarity and associated increased depth. Drawdown inhibits the establishment of rooted aquatic plants to about 3-4 feet all around the perimeter of the lake with the exception of the exotic summer aquatic plant known as Brittle naiad (Najas minor). Brittle naiad germinates from overwintering seeds and is very common in lakes that use drawdown during winter months. Shading from low water clarity prohibits many species of native aquatic plants from becoming established at deeper depths of the lake. This leads to increases in phytoplankton that further inhibits the establishment of aquatic plants that are not only desirable for a healthy fisheries but also as a natural control for algal blooms. (nutrient competition and sediment stabilization)

Soil Runoff – One major factor that can affect water clarity and ultimately water fertility comes from runoff within the watershed. Direct runoff from the watershed not only reduces water clarity, it also brings with it many nutrients such as phosphorus which contribute to summer blue green algae blooms. Water depth over time is also reduced which can negatively impact the lake in a variety of ways. The runoff shown in these photos is coming from some source within the eastern side of Lake Mohawk’s watershed. It could be temporary runoff from a nearby construction project or other source yet to be identified.

Paul Mickley is in the process of selectively controlling areas of watermilfoil especially in southern portions of the lake. This control process will be ongoing throughout the season in a manner which minimizes negative impacts and actually promotes the growth of native aquatic plant species.

My lake assessment on May 15, 2026 revealed the following.

1. The lake is at full pool with water levels well controlled. The lake looks both healthy and in excellent condition. The lake for the third season in a row is not dominated by a spring aquatic plant commonly known as Curlyleaf pondweed (CLP). Prior to 2023, CLP would often consist of 50 to 70 surface acres of the lake that would peak in May and have a natural die off (senescence) period by mid to late June if not treated earlier in the season. Years of control measures along with the dredging project and high water levels the past three years prevented the formation of seeds (turions) which would overwinter and grow under ice only to emerge in the spring where it would begin it’s lifecycle again. The ecology of CLP is an interesting topic especially at Lake Mohawk where fish structure for a healthy fisheries is limited. In summary, CLP can be both beneficial and a nuisance as an exotic aquatic plant species.

2. All three Lake Mohawk beaches are in pristine condition. Paul Mickley and crew do an excellent job at maintaining these beaches. Not only are the beaches extremely well maintained, the restrooms associated with Main Beach and West Beach are extremely clean also.

3. Water clarity varies from bay to bay and generally has the most transparency in the northern basin of the lake which is normal and typical given the morphology (shape/depth) and inputs into the lake. Bay 9/10 (barefoot bay) often has the least clarity which is affected by suspended soil particles due to it’s shallow depth. Click for Depth Map . Bays 6, 7, and 8 are also affected by soil particle suspension both from the lake sediments and inputs into the lake from those respective areas.
4. Bay 9/10 wetland area. Bay 9/10 has a beautiful and beneficial small wetland area in the back of the bay which is home to many waterfowl and migratory birds. In addition to being a beneficial habitat, the wetland plant community acts an excellent natural filter to incoming potential pollutants and runoff.

5. Watermilfoil – (Myriophyllum sp.) An aquatic plant with the common name watermilfoil is making it’s presence known in several locations around the lake. Areas particularly affected at this point include the back cove area of bay 3 and along sporadic areas around the shoreline of bays 6 and 7. This rooted aquatic plant most likely overwintered and survived winter drawdown by being located in depths where the roots were not subject to freezing temperatures.

Limited growth of watermilfoil can be beneficia for the fisheries and the lake ecology however, milfoil can quickly spread to other parts of the lake by plant fragmentation. There were years in the past when this plant became very dominant (abundant) around much of the entire lake. Fortunately there are ways to manage this plant through judicial and targeted use of aquatic pesticides. There are times in our northern lakes that watermilfoil is naturally controlled by a weevil appropriately named the milfoil weevil (Euhrychiopsis lecontei). This natural biological controI is a slow process as it takes time for the weevil population to increase enough to control the plants adequately. Generally, the best method of control is with the application of a systemic herbicide early in the season which controls both all parts of the plant including the roots, stem, and leaves.

Abundant spring precipitation has resulted in Lake Mohawk reaching full pool early in the season affecting many biological aspects of the lake. Managing water levels at Lake Mohawk is extremely challenging considering the fact that Lake Mohawk uses a “drawdown” winter method of lake management to prevent damage to docking structures and shoreline retaining walls. Drawdown also is a selective natural method of aquatic plant control. Allowing too much water out in the spring followed by summer drought conditions results in an abundance of nuisance aquatic vegetation and docking issues in shallow portions of the lake. Paul Mickley does an excellent job at managing water depth throughout the season.

Water clarity was good with a healthy balance of spring planktonic algae which benefits the overall aquatic ecology of the lake. Relatively few aquatic plants were observed around the entire perimeter of the lake with the exception of the marina. Watermilfoil fragments were observed accumulating in the marina due to prevailing southwest winds. The origin of the plant fragments have yet to be determined. Watermilfoil while beneficial to the fisheries to some degree can quickly spread to other portions of the lake and become a nuisance. Management of watermilfoil will be ongoing throughout the season.

An electrofishing survey of the fisheries was being conducted by Jones Fish and Lake Management on the day of my lake assessment. While generally not recommended during the spring spawning season of bass and crappie, this survey was initiated due to concerns over the health of the fisheries. Spring crappie “die off” is often alarming to many people even though it is a natural part of the crappie life cycle. Spawning stress, overwintering, natural aging, etc., often results in a relatively minor die off. I will post the results of the electrofishing study here when it is available.

by Jeff Gray M.S. Aquatic Biologist