Lake Tapps Integrated Aquatic

Vegetation Management Plan

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

Drawing: Robert Doyle

Problem Statement
• Extensive beds of invasive plants reported in
Lake Tapps
• Existing and potential interference with
beneficial uses

Photo: Kyle Langan, AquaTechnex

Management Goals
• Provide CWA tools to
efficiently and effectively
eradicate invasive plants
from Lake Tapps
• Identify locations and develop management
program for native plants
• Maximize beneficial uses and maintain long-term
water quality in Lake Tapps
Invasive Plants of Concern
• Eurasian watermilfoil
(Myriophyllum spicatum)

Photo credit: Toni Pennington

March 18, 2010 Preliminary Field
Visit

----- Known milfoil sites

Native Plants of Concern
• Northern watermilfoil
(M. sibiricum)

Photo credit: Adam Kleven, AquaTechnex

Eurasian Northern
watermilfoil watermilfoil
Invasive Plants of Concern
• Curlyleaf pondweed
(Potamogeton crispus)

Photo credit: Steve Wells

Photo credit: Steve Wells

Invasive Plants of Concern
• Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata)
• Class A Noxious weed (eradication required)
Invasive Plants of Concern
• Brazilian elodea
(Egeria densa)

Photo credit: CDFA

Photo credit: Toni Pennington
Native Plants of Concern
• Northern milfoil (Myriophyllum sibiricum)
• Common elodea (Elodea canadensis)
• Coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum)
• Nitella (Nitella sp.)

• Plant distribution and growth limited by:

– Changes in water level
¾ Floating-leaved plants

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

– Whole lake or spot treatments

• Cons
Photo credit: Terry McNabb, AquaTechnex
– Public perception
• Applicability to Lake Tapps
– Use in combination with other tools
 Aquatic Herbicides Approved for Use in WA to Control Eurasian
Active Trade Names
Ingredient
2,4-D Navigate® (granular)
Aqua-Kleen® (granular)
DMA*4IVM® (liquid)
Endothall Aquathol® K (liquid)
Aquathol® Super K (granular)
Fluridone Sonar® AS (liquid)
Sonar® SRP (granular)
Sonar® PR (granular)
Avast!® SC (liquid)
Whitecap® (liquid)
Triclopyr - Renovate® 3 (liquid)
TEA Renovate® OTF (granular)
Diquat Reward® (liquid)
* Ranges in days determined by application rate, see label for details
^ Restrictions depend upon specific use, season, or application rate
Watermilfoil
Selectivity/Notes
Selective for broad-leaved plants
(i.e., milfoil); fast-acting; destroys
entire plant
Non-selective; fast-acting;
destroys vegetative portion of
plant (e.g., does not kill roots)
Non-selective; slow acting;
inhibits formation of carotene (a
protective plant pigment)
Selective for broad-leaved plants
(i.e., milfoil); fast-acting; destroys
entire plant
Non-selective; fast-acting;
destroys vegetative portion of
plant (e.g., does not kill roots)
Management Uses and
Considerations
Both liquid and granular
appropriate for spot
treatments; may selectively
control native plants at label
rate; liquid formulation more
effective
Short-term control; appropriate
for spot treatment
Appropriate for areas of low
water exchange; used for
whole-lake treatment or in
isolated bays; not appropriate
for spot treatment < 5 acres
Appropriate for spot and
whole-lake treatments
Short-term control; appropriate
for spot treatment; efficacy
limited in turbid water and
dense algae blooms
Water Use Restrictions (Label) and
Advisories (Ecology)
Label: For drinking water, concentration must
be < 70 ppb; for irrigation, concentration
should be < 100 ppb; granular formulation
may not be used in waters with threatened or
endangered salmon runs
Label: 3 day fish consumption; irrigation and
stock watering restrictions 7-14 days^
Ecology: 24 hour swimming advisory
Label: Irrigation should be avoided for 30
days; no drinking, fishing, swimming, or
livestock/pet consumption restrictions;
potable water setback may be required^
Label: do not use for irrigation for 120 days or
when <1 ppb^; potable water setback may be
required^; no fishing, swimming, or
livestock/pet consumption restrictions
Ecology: 12 hour swimming restriction
Label: 1-3 days* drinking, 0 days fishing and
swimming, 1 day livestock/domestic animal
consumption, 1-3 days irrigation for turf and
landscape ornamentals, 5 days food crops
and production ornamentals
Applicable Tools for Lake Tapps
• Combination of Management Tools
– Environmental Manipulation – water level control
– Manual
– Chemical
• Timing of Management
– Multi-year Effort
• Prevention
• Adaptive Management
– Evaluation of management methods
– Long-term surveys of native, non-native and new species
Management Plan Draft Schedule

Feb Mar Apr May June July

‘10 ‘10 ‘10 ‘10 ‘10 ‘10

Vegetation Mapping x x

Plant index x

Public Meetings 31st x x

Materials for CWA

x x x x
Website/Newsletter

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

Photo: Kyle Langan, AquaTechnex