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 watermilfoil

Northern 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 Floating-leaved plants 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 – Public perception • Cons – Not applicable to eradication goals – Creates fragments – Requires off-site disposal • Applicability to Lake Tapps – None

Photo: Jeff Schardt

Photo: John Madsen

Drawing: Ann Bove

Chemical Control
• Products approved by EPA and Ecology • Formulated for applications in or around water • Pros – Aggressive – Whole lake or spot treatments • Cons – Public perception • Applicability to Lake Tapps – Use in combination with other tools

Photo credit: John Madsen

Photo credit: John Madsen

Photo credit: Terry McNabb, AquaTechnex

Aquatic Herbicides Approved for Use in WA to Control Eurasian Watermilfoil
Active Ingredient 2,4-D Trade Names Navigate® (granular) Aqua-Kleen® (granular) DMA*4IVM® (liquid) Selectivity/Notes Selective for broad-leaved plants (i.e., milfoil); fast-acting; destroys entire plant 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 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

Endothall

Aquathol® K (liquid) Aquathol® Super K (granular) Sonar® AS (liquid) Sonar® SRP (granular) Sonar® PR (granular) Avast!® SC (liquid) Whitecap® (liquid) Renovate® 3 (liquid) Renovate® OTF (granular)

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)

Fluridone

Triclopyr TEA

Selective for broad-leaved plants (i.e., milfoil); fast-acting; destroys entire plant

Diquat

Reward® (liquid)

Non-selective; fast-acting; destroys vegetative portion of plant (e.g., does not kill roots)

Short-term control; appropriate for spot treatment; efficacy limited in turbid water and dense algae blooms

* Ranges in days determined by application rate, see label for details ^ Restrictions depend upon specific use, season, or application rate

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 ‘10 Vegetation Mapping Plant index Public Meetings Materials for CWA Website/Newsletter Draft IAVMP Final IAVMP 31st x Mar ‘10 x Apr ‘10 x x x x x x x x x May ‘10 June ‘10 July ‘10

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