Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Harry Gibbons
Toni Pennington
Robert Plotnikoff
Impacts of Aquatic Weeds
• Impedes water movement
• Degrades recreation
• Reduces valuable aesthetics
• Increases evapotranspiration
(water loss)
• Impacts ecological process
and function
• Potential impacts drinking
water (taste and odor)
Benefits of Native Plants
• Provide diverse habitat for fish and wildlife
• Completes with algae for nutrients
Eurasian Northern
watermilfoil watermilfoil
Invasive Plants of Concern
• Curlyleaf pondweed
(Potamogeton crispus)
¾ Emergent/shoreline plants
– Turbidity
– Water chemistry
Management Strategy
• Multi-year approach
• Aggressive management actions
• Dedicated funding
• Strong community support
• Enforceable prevention measures
• Diligent monitoring for satellite populations
• Regular reviews of management options
• Adaptive and sustainable program
Aquatic Plant Control Alternatives
• No Action
• Environmental Manipulation
• Biocontrol
• Manual Control
• Mechanical Control
• Chemical Control
No Action
• Acknowledges the presence of invasive weeds, but offers no
management plan
• Pros
– Limited short-term costs at risk of environmental
degradation
• Cons
– Continued expansion of milfoil in Lake Tapps and nearby
lakes
– Further degradation and loss of beneficial uses
• Applicability to Lake Tapps
– None
Environmental Manipulation
• Water level control (drawdown)
• Pros
– Inexpensive for non-hydropower
generating systems
• Cons
– Sediment compaction
– Difficult to establish native plants
• Applicability to Lake Tapps
– Insufficient dry and cold
conditions
– Use in combination with other
tools
Environmental Manipulation
• Nutrient Reduction
• Pros
– Preempt nuisance algae blooms
• Cons
– Detailed nutrient budget needed
• Applicability to Lake Tapps
– Important for long-term planning
– Unlikely to reduce nuisance vegetation
Biocontrol
• One organism eats another
• Example: Milfoil weevil
• Pros
– Public perception
• Cons
– For control, not eradication
– Restocking required
– Control unpredictable
• Applicability to Lake Tapps
– None
Biocontrol
• Example: Grass carp
• Pros
– Public perception
– Relatively inexpensive
– Total control or limited control
– Long-term control (restocking required)
• Cons
– Removal difficult and expensive
– At low stocking rates, spread of less-favored plants (Eurasian
milfoil)
– May lead to algae blooms and turbidity
– All inlets and outlets must be screened to prevent escaping
– Permitting
• Applicability to Lake Tapps
– None
Manual Control
• Bottom Barrier, hand-pulling
and hand-cutting
• Pros
– Public perception
• Cons
– Labor intensive
• Applicability to Lake Tapps
– Small-scale, post-treatment follow-up
– Use in combination with other tools
Mechanical Control
• Machines that cut plants
– Rotovation
– Harvesting
– Diver-assisted suction
– Hydraulic suction
• Pros Photo: Jeff Schardt
– Public perception
• Cons
– Not applicable to eradication goals
– Creates fragments
– Requires off-site disposal
• Applicability to Lake Tapps Photo: John Madsen Drawing: Ann Bove
– None
Chemical Control
• Products approved by EPA and
Ecology
• Formulated for applications in or Photo credit: John Madsen
around water
• Pros
– Aggressive Photo credit: John Madsen
Vegetation Mapping x x
Plant index x
Draft IAVMP x
Final IAVMP x
Next Steps…
• Resurvey for plant locations and
density
• Provide management
recommendations
• Prepare Plan
• Public meetings with Lake Tapps
community Photo: John Madsen