BARNES LAKE INTEGRATED AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2016

Prepared for City of Tumwater’s Barnes Lake Management District

Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc.

Note: Some pages in this document have been purposely skipped or blank pages inserted so that this document will copy correctly when duplexed.

BARNES LAKE INTEGRATED AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2016

Prepared for City of Tumwater’s Barnes Lake Management District Tumwater City Hall 555 Israel Road Southwest Tumwater, Washington 98501

Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1220 Fourth Avenue East Olympia, Washington 98506 Telephone: 360-754-7644

April 1, 2016

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The City of Tumwater wishes to acknowledge the significant contribution provided by the members of the Barnes Lake Steering Committee toward the completion of the 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan.

Barnes Lake Steering Committee: Gary Bodeutsch (Chair) Linnea Madison (Vice Chair) William Baxter Dana Day Bob Gillette Jody Keys Judith Loft Kathy Peterson Tom Sparks Cathy Weaver Dan Smith, Staff Representative

The Barnes Lake Steering Committee expressly thanks the Tumwater City Council for their support of the lake management district formation and management goals.

Tumwater City Council Pete Kmet, Mayor Joan Cathey Ed Hildreth Nicole Hill Neil McClanahan Tom Oliva Debbie Sullivan Eileen Swarthout

The LMD would also like to thank the City of Tumwater staff including John Doan, City Administrator; Jay Eaton, Public Works Director; and Ursula Euler, Finance Director; for their support of the LMD and assistance in providing for the routine management of this project, helping to build community among all the neighbors of Barnes Lake.

CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...... ES-1 1. The Problem, As Redefined By The Lake Management District In 2015 ...... 1 2. Lake Management District Goals ...... 3 3. Public Involvement Methods ...... 5 4. Watershed Characteristics ...... 7 5. Water Quality ...... 9 6. Aquatic Plant Community ...... 11 6.1. Aquatic Plant Map and Characterizations ...... 11 6.2. Plants Targeted for Control ...... 16 6.2.1. Fragrant Waterlily (Nymphaea odorata) ...... 16 6.2.2. Spatterdock (Nuphar polysepala) ...... 17 6.2.3. Watershield (Brasinea shreberi)...... 17 6.2.4. Swollen Bladderwort (Utricularia inflata) ...... 18 6.2.5. Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) ...... 19 6.2.6. Nightshade (Solanum sp.) ...... 21 6.2.7. Yellow Flag Iris (Iris pseudacorus) ...... 21 6.2.8. Purple Loostrife (Lythrum salicaria) ...... 22 7. Wildlife on Barnes Lake ...... 23 8. Beneficial Uses of Barnes Lake ...... 25 9. Barnes Lake Water Rights ...... 29 10. Vegetation Management History ...... 31 11. Aquatic Plant Control Options ...... 35 11.1. No Action ...... 35 11.1.1. Advantages and Disadvantages ...... 35 11.1.2. Suitability for Barnes Lake ...... 36 11.2. Herbicides ...... 36 11.2.1. Advantages and Disadvantages ...... 38 11.2.2. Permits and Costs ...... 38 11.2.3. Other Considerations ...... 39 11.2.4. Suitability for Barnes Lake ...... 41 11.3. Manual Methods ...... 42 11.3.1. Advantages and Disadvantages ...... 42 11.3.2. Permits ...... 43 11.3.3. Costs ...... 44 11.3.4. Other Considerations ...... 44 11.3.5. Suitability for Barnes Lake ...... 44 11.4. Diver Dredging ...... 44 11.4.1. Advantages and Disadvantages ...... 45 11.4.2. Permits ...... 45

i

pjj 15-06097-000_barneslakeiavmp2016.docx

11.4.3. Costs ...... 45 11.4.4. Other Considerations ...... 45 11.4.5. Suitability for Barnes Lake ...... 46 11.5. Bottom Screens ...... 46 11.5.1. Advantages and Disadvantages ...... 47 11.5.2. Permits ...... 47 11.5.3. Costs ...... 47 11.5.4. Other Considerations ...... 48 11.5.5. Suitability for Barnes Lake ...... 48 11.6. Grass Carp ...... 48 11.6.1. Advantages and Disadvantages ...... 50 11.6.2. Permits ...... 51 11.6.3. Costs ...... 51 11.6.4. Other Considerations ...... 51 11.6.5. Suitability for Barnes Lake ...... 52 11.7. Mechanical Methods ...... 52 11.7.1. Advantages and Disadvantages ...... 52 11.7.2. Permits ...... 53 11.7.3. Other Considerations ...... 53 11.7.4. Suitability for Barnes Lake ...... 53 11.8. Drawdown ...... 53 11.9. Nutrient Reduction ...... 54 12. Selected Treatment Option ...... 55 13. Integrated Treatment Plan ...... 57 13.1. Floating-Leaved Plant Management ...... 59 13.2. Emergent Plant Management ...... 60 13.2.1. Noxious Emergent Plants ...... 60 13.2.2. Native Emergent Plants ...... 60 13.3. Noxious Submerged Weeds ...... 61 13.3.1. Raking ...... 62 13.4. Floating Mat Management ...... 63 13.4.1. Aquamog Dredging ...... 65 13.4.2. DinoSix Dredging ...... 65 14. Public Outreach ...... 67 14.1. Exotic Plant Prevention ...... 67 14.2. Lakeside Stewardship Education ...... 68 14.3. Watershed Protection/Pollution Prevention ...... 69 15. Plan Elements, Costs, and Funding ...... 71 15.1. Source of Funding ...... 72 15.1.1. Barnes Lake Management District Assessments ...... 72 15.1.2. Grants ...... 73 15.1.3. Matching Funds ...... 73 16. Evaluation and Implementation ...... 75 16.1. Aquatic Plant Surveys ...... 75 16.2. Water Quality Monitoring ...... 76 16.3. Annual Evaluation ...... 76

ii

pjj 15-06097-000_barneslakeiavmp2016.docx

16.4. Implementation Plan ...... 77 16.4.1. Year 1 ...... 77 16.4.2. Year 2 ...... 77 16.4.3. Swollen Bladderwort Control Option ...... 77 16.4.4. Floating Mat and Sediment Dredging Option ...... 78 16.4.5. Ongoing Implementation...... 79 17. Summary and Conclusions...... 81 18. References ...... 83

APPENDICES

Appendix A 2013 Water Quality Monitoring Report Appendix B 2015 Barnes Lake Aquatic Plant Control Program Annual Report Appendix C Barnes Lake Water Rights Appendix D Beavers

iii

pjj 15-06097-000_barneslakeiavmp2016.docx

TABLES

Table 1. Physical Characteristics of Barnes Lake and Watershed...... 7 Table 2. Barnes Lake Aquatic Plant Survey – May 12, 2006...... 12 Table 3. Wildlife Survey Conducted by the Residents of Barnes Lake, 2014–2015...... 24 Table 4. Summary of Recent Aquatic Plant Control Activities ...... 31 Table 5. WDFW Requirements for Aquatic Noxious Weed and Beneficial Plant Control...... 43 Table 6. Preliminary Costs of Alternative Control Levels for the BLMD Steering Committee Meeting on October 7, 2015...... 58 Table 7. Barnes Lake Basic IAVMP Implementation Budget for 2016–2020...... 71 Table 8. Barnes Lake IAVMP Additional Option Costs...... 71 Table 9. Existing Barnes LMD Annual Assessment Schedule...... 72

FIGURES

Figure 1. Stormwater Infrastructure Surrounding Barnes Lake...... 8 Figure 2. Aerial Photos of Barnes Lake, 1990–2015...... 14 Figure 3. Aerial Photographs and Plant Density Map for Barnes Lake in 2015...... 15 Figure 4. Beneficial Use and Conservancy Areas of Barnes Lake...... 26 Figure 5. Proposed Location for Floating Rhizome Mat Deposit...... 64

iv pjj 15-06097-000_barneslakeiavmp2016.docx

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Barnes Lake lies within the City of Tumwater in the Deschutes River watershed in Thurston County, Washington. The 27-acre lake experiences dense growth of nonnative and native aquatic plants that inhibit the recreational usability and aesthetics of the lake. In 2006, members of the Barnes Lake community initiated a partnership with staff from the City of Tumwater to apply for an Aquatic Weeds Management Permit through the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) to address the prolific growth of fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea oderata) that covered most of the lake surface at that time. This action facilitated the development and implementation of the Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP), and the establishment of the Barnes Lake Management District (LMD). The LMD with the continued support of the City of Tumwater, provide the funding mechanisms necessary to implement ongoing monitoring, management and control. The density and coverage of fragrant waterlily is substantially less than it was when the 2007 IAVMP was implemented. The twice annual applications (spring and summer) of the herbicide glyphosate appears to have been an effective strategy for reducing the fragrant waterlily population, and inhibiting significant regrowth from the areas where it was removed. However, dealing with the floating rhizome and sediment mats resulting from the decaying biomass has been challenging, because shore side disposal sites and equipment access to the lake are limited. When the 2007 IAVMP was implemented, other nonnative, noxious and native nuisance weed species were well established in the lake. Examples of such species include the submerged noxious weed swollen bladderwort (Utricularia inflata), the emergent noxious weed reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacia), and two native floating-leaved plants spatterdock (native yellow waterlily Nuphar polysepala) and watershield (Brasinea shreberi). While these species were approaching nuisance levels, at the time, they seemed to have been largely out competed by fragrant waterlily. Since much of the fragrant waterlily has been removed, these plants have proliferated. Of particular concern are swollen bladderwort and watershield, which both have reached levels in many places that substantially impact recreational use. This update to the 2007 IAVMP details strategies for continued management of fragrant waterlily with the herbicide glyphosate and floating rhizome mats resulting from herbicide treatments, and the control of other native and nonnative species that have become problematic in recent years. The 2016 IAVMP is a planning document developed to ensure that the permit applicant (City of Tumwater) and the Barnes Lake LMD community have considered the best available information about the water body and the watershed prior to initiating control efforts. To tackle the difficult task of generating community awareness and action for an environmental issue, a core group of residents formed a steering committee, which includes one City of Tumwater staff member from the Water Resources Program. Members of the Barnes Lake LMD Steering Committee and City of Tumwater staff worked in partnership with Herrera Environmental Consultants (Herrera) to develop this IAVMP for Barnes Lake. It is often the goal of IAVMPs to eradicate invasive species and cease herbicide treatments, allowing the native plant community to self-manage. It is unlikely that this will be possible for Barnes Lake because it is shallow, highly productive, and extensively populated by multiple

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 ES-1

invasive species. Left alone, it is likely that floating leaved plants would recolonize the treated areas to a level that once again limits recreational use. Therefore, the goal of this IAVMP is to establish a maintenance level of control to meet recreational goals with an integrated approach that minimizes the use of herbicides to reduce the potential impacts of chemical inputs to the lake, and keep costs as low as possible. This 2016 IAVMP details a plan for management of the following aquatic plants: • Noxious and Native Floating-Leaved Plants – Treat all white waterlily and large stands of native floating leaved plants (spatterdock and watershield) outside conservation areas every year with glyphosate to maintain recreational access to open water habitat. • Noxious and Native Emergent Plants – Treat emergent noxious weeds (reed canarygrass, yellow flag iris, and nightshade) with glyphosate every year when observed during waterlily treatment to eradicate or keep populations low. Treat native emergent plants (smartweed, willow, and cattails) at a few locations where they interfere with lake access, as determined by residents. • Floating Waterlily Mats – Subject to property owner permission, tow floating mats to a nearby island with a boat and secure them to the island using hemp rope that will eventually degrade, but persist long enough for the mat to attach to the island from emergent plant growth. Alternatively, property owners may request mats to be towed to their shoreline for manual removal by the property owner or tenant. The aquatic plant community will be monitored every other year to evaluate general changes in the plant community and to detect the presence of new invasive species. Since the control strategy is shifting from attempted eradication to satisfactory control of noxious weeds, the presence of targeted plants such as fragrant waterlily does not alone indicate success or failure of the IAVMP to reach the desired results. Success will be largely determined by public perception of whether the desired beneficial uses of Barnes Lake are being maintained through the implementation of this IAVMP. A water quality monitoring program will be conducted every other year (when plant surveys are not conducted) to track long-term trends in water quality within the lake. Public education and awareness programs will be focused on exotic plant prevention, and providing general pollution prevention and best management practices information to lake residents. The Steering Committee and interested lake residents will be involved in development of the yearly plant control strategy and will be responsible for soliciting volunteers for surveys and plant control activities. This will ensure long-term involvement of lake residents in lake management decisions and activities. An annual report will be prepared documenting past and planned aquatic plant treatment activities, aquatic plant survey results, and public education and awareness activities. The following additional management options may be conducted depending on interest and available funding: • Detailed Plant Survey – Survey and map the distribution and density of all plant species in the lake and along the shoreline to better document plant community changes.

April 2016 ES-2 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

• Volunteer Training Workshop – Educate and train lake residents about ongoing plant management activities, and on how to identify and remove noxious aquatic plants. • Noxious Submerged Plant Control – Remove swollen bladderwort by raking, keeping abundance at a level that does not negatively impact the usability of the lake. If acceptable control cannot be achieved by raking, then treat the entire open water area with fluridone using the sustained-low-dose method. If the lake becomes infested by another noxious submerged plant such as Eurasian watermilfoil or Brazilian elodea, then use hand-pulling or an herbicide to eradicate the infestation. • Floating Mat and Sediment Dredging – Remove floating waterlily mats and lake sediments in selected areas covering a total area of approximately 1 acre to improve access to deeper waters of the lake.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 ES-3

1. THE PROBLEM, AS REDEFINED BY THE LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IN 2015

Barnes Lake is a private 27-acre lake located within the City of Tumwater in Thurston County that lies within the Deschutes River watershed. Many of the residents around the lake have enjoyed a long history of living on the lake and are dedicated to preserving the beauty and recreational value of the lake. Barnes Lake is a shallow water body, which is undergoing a natural process known as eutrophication, or the aging of a lake by the biological enrichment of its water. Prolific plant growth threatens to take over the surface of the lake completely. Due to years of accumulation of organic material from the decomposing vegetation the lake is becoming increasingly shallow. Over the course of the past 30 years, Barnes Lake has become overrun with a nonnative fragrant waterlily, a Class C noxious weed that was introduced by a homeowner prior to the 1970s. While efforts to control the fragrant waterlily infestation have been promising, other nonnative, noxious and native nuisance weed species also degrade the ecological and recreational benefits of the system. Swollen bladderwort, native spatterdock, and watershield have become well established around the shoreline and in the lake. Many of the plants that exist in the lake lack natural predators, are difficult to control, and are destructive to the natural environment. In essence, the ecosystem is out of balance. An overabundance of vegetation in Barnes Lake restricts residential recreational activities such as swimming, fishing, and non-motorized boating due to shallow water and clogged access ways on the west and northeast shorelines. Residents not living on the Barnes Lake shoreline have also been impacted by the excessive growth of cattails and other shoreline vegetation limiting sight lines and reducing the aesthetic value of living near the lake. The Steering Committee is concerned that aquatic vegetation will cover the surface of the lake, decreasing oxygen levels in the lake making it unusable to the resident wildlife. Fish and waterfowl avoid the infested areas, which encompass a majority of the lake’ surface area. Many of the wildfowl species abandon the area completely at the height of the vegetative growing season. A major fragrant waterlily control effort in 1993 resulted in the formation of large islands in the center of the lake and other floating masses around the lake. As a result of the sediment deposition and increased nutrient loads, cattails, willows, and other shrubs and trees have contributed to excessive growth of vegetation around the perimeter of the lake and continue to encroach deeper into the lake as conditions become favorable for their growth. In addition, decomposing organic materials in shallow-water areas have created conditions conducive to the formation of floating vegetative mats that now occur lake-wide. These floating mats form as root biomass decays, causing gas to become trapped within the root and mud lifting the mass to the surface. Mat removal has occurred at several properties around the lake with relatively good success. However, there is a high cost to this effort, and suitable properties are no longer available for disposal of root mats. The continuous efforts to control fragrant waterlily over the past 8 years seems to have diminished the development of these floating mats. There are numerous stormwater outfalls and overland runoff from lakeshore properties that may contain nutrients and other pollutants contributing to the decline of water quality and encouraging vegetative growth within Barnes Lake.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 1

2. LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GOALS

The health and appearance of the lake goes beyond being a natural habitat for fish, waterfowl and small wildlife. It has an economic factor that affects the value and quality of life for the homeowners of Barnes Lake and the surrounding community. With the unavoidable advent of urban residential expansion, demand for homes with unique environmental settings will increase. If the lake is permitted to devolve into a wetland, bog, or be completely obscured with vegetation, this has the potential to degrade the desirability and value of properties on Barnes Lake, reducing taxable assets for city and school funding. Due to the potentially serious impacts of inaction, and the strong concern of the Barnes Lake Community, the LMD is acting to adapt the existing control plan for the invasive, noxious and native, nuisance vegetation in Barnes Lake. The LMD Steering Committee will advise the Tumwater City Council on LMD activities to ensure a high-level of lake health while balancing the recreational, wildlife, water quality, and aesthetic needs of Barnes Lake. To accomplish its goal, the LMD is planning activities to accomplish the following goals: • Control invasive, noxious plants to the maximum extent reasonable • Control the native, nuisance vegetation in the existing infected areas, reducing the overall abundance of the plants • Maintain or enhance recreational and residential uses of the lake while minimizing the impact of control efforts on these uses • Protect water quality and fish and wildlife habitat using control methods that allow sustainable native plant and animal communities to thrive • Manage sediment appropriately and cost effectively through the reduction of sediment accumulation and possible removal of existing sediments and floating vegetation • Monitor water levels and assess options for maintaining optimal water levels for recreational, environmental, and aesthetic values • Conduct on-going studies to monitor the health of the lake: o Bathymetric survey (10-year cycle) o Biannual water quality monitoring o Semiannual aerial photographic survey and 5-year vegetation categorization o Wildlife survey updates (5-year cycle) • Encourage opportunities for lake resident education, including environmental best management practices and boat safety • Utilize cost effective treatment measures and minimize impacts to the Barnes Lake homeowner and environment Because the studies and plans necessary to determine the condition of the lake and identify potential solutions for improving conditions are to be conducted as components of this plan, the above goals are broadly defined. Detailed work plans will be developed annually for implementation of specific activities and recommendations based on these studies.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 3

3. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT METHODS

Public involvement and comment regarding activities undertaken by the LMD include regular Steering Committee meetings, attendance at City of Tumwater Council meetings and public hearings, and an annual LMD membership meeting hosted by the Steering Committee. The LMD was formed in 2005 through a petition to the City of Tumwater. It grew out of the Barnes Lake Conservancy, a community group organized in 2003 by residents who shared an interest in preserving and improving their lake. In 2004, members of the Conservancy petitioned the City of Tumwater to formally create the LMD to ensure a funding mechanism was available to promote LMD goals. Multiple public meetings were held in 2004/2005 as part of the formation process for the LMD. These meetings were conducted by the Tumwater City Council and public notices were sent to all affected parties including residents, commercial interests and local and state agencies. Participation and comment was invited on the goals identified in the petition. The first joint public meeting between the LMD and The Conservancy was conducted on February 28, 2006. It was devoted to providing general information on the lake, existing control measures, reviewing the identified problems impacting the lake, and agreeing on aquatic plant management goals and objectives. The meeting also provided an opportunity to review the original problem statement and the anticipated budget, and to solicit comments from the LMD membership and area residents. The LMD is now represented by an appointed Steering Committee that meets regularly throughout the year to develop and implement an Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan. All meetings of the LMD Steering Committee are open to the public. Outreach methods have been developed to encourage public involvement and to further develop a list of interested parties to whom notice of public meetings can be sent. The following outreach methods have been developed to encourage public involvement: • City of Tumwater website and LMD website • Regular LMD Steering Committee meetings, including posting of all minutes on website • Annual meeting of the LMD Membership • Informational material of relevant interest, e.g., wildlife and vegetation seen in and around the lake • Annual treatment summary report posted on the LMD website • Presentations of visual materials at meetings, such as historical before/after photographs or videos submitted by LMD members • Direction notification to LMD Membership by email • Direct notification to LMD Members to homes/mailboxes Interested stakeholders to whom notices of public meetings are sent include: • LMD Membership, including homeowners and renters within the Barnes LMD • Weiks Family Partnership

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 5

• Washington State Department of Transportation • Tumwater School District • City of Tumwater The LMD Steering Committee meets regularly and information of meeting dates are available to all members. Non-committee members that attend are always welcomed and given an opportunity in the meeting agenda for public comment and debate. Efforts have been made in particular to interest LMD members in attending the annual meeting, which is normally held in September/October. All members receive a postcard invitation to the event. Speakers on relevant issues have been invited and material of particular interest is made available and handed out. Regardless, attendance at the annual meeting is low, with approximately 20 to 25 participants, including the full Steering Committee.

April 2016 6 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

4. WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS

Barnes Lake is a shallow 27-acre lake, including small islands, located within the City of Tumwater in Thurston County. Barnes Lake lies completely within the Deschutes River watershed. The contributing area to Barnes Lake encompasses approximately 113 acres, bounded by Tumwater Hill to the north and a wetland complex to the west. Barnes Lake discharges through the southeast corner to the Deschutes River; however, a constructed berm restricts flow during the summer months and meters the flow during wetter periods. There are no obvious tributaries to the lake other than overland stormwater flow. Wetlands are found to the west of Barnes Lake, but it is unclear whether they are hydraulically connected. Barnes Lake has a total surface area of 27.09 acres and estimated volume of 122 acre-feet. In a water quality survey completed by Thurston County for the Barnes LMD, the maximum depth was reported to be between 2.0 and 3.0 meters (6.5 and 9.8 feet). The lake volume was estimated by assuming an average depth of 4.5 feet.

Table 1. Physical Characteristics of Barnes Lake and Watershed. Watershed Area 113 acres (estimated) Surface Area 27.09 acres Lake Volume 122 acre-feet (estimated) Maximum Depth 6.5 to 9.8 feet (estimated) Average Depth 4.5 feet (estimated) Shoreline Length 6,455 feet

Barnes Lake is a private lake, with no public access. The primary land use surrounding Barnes Lake is residential, although some mixed commercial and institutional facilities exist on the southern and eastern shores of the lake. Despite their location, the commercial and institutional facilities do not allow access to the lake’s shoreline, and activities are limited to the confines of their structures. The City of Tumwater maintains a public stormwater system surrounding Barnes Lake, which comprises the northern-most part of the Littlerock/Second Avenue subbasin. While not all stormwater from this subbasin is connected to Barnes Lake, there are 13 catch basins serving small tributary areas that do discharge directly to Barnes Lake through seven outfalls. All remaining catch basins discharge to the east in the Deschutes River. All privately-owned catch basins and other storm facilities were inventoried as part of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II program. All public and private stormwater infrastructure surrounding Barnes Lake is documented in Figure 1.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 7 " ? ?"B !2! ?"B !2! !2! !2! ?"B LINWOOD AVE

?"B ?"B ?"B

?"B .! .! DAISY LN ?"B ¨[ ?"B ¨[ !P ?"B ?"B

LAKE TERRACE DR

?"B ?"B

?"B .! ?"B

!y ¨[ Barnes ¨[

?"B .!

LAKE PARK DR Lake !2! ? ?!2"B! ?"B

?"B ?"B

Inlet to ¨[ Storm System ?"B .! Lake Outlet '4 ?"B ¨[ ?"B Berm with TV Flexible Leveler .! ?"B

City Stormwater ?"B Pond ?"B ?"B

!2! ?"B ?"!PB "B ?"B ? !2! !P

"B ? 2ND AVE !2! ?"B ¨¦§5 Legend !2! !2!?"B ¨[ Restoration Sites Storm Structures

?"B ?"B Structure Type Boat Launch Figure 1. Stormwater Infrastructure !y ?"B Catch Basin Surrounding Barnes Lake. B "! '4 B "B Lake Outlet?!2 InletB ?" ? B TV !P ?" ?"B ?" B !2! "B "B B " "B B ! ! ? ? ?" B ? ? ?" !2 !2 !2! ?" "B Manhole ?"B !2! ? !2! Lake Berm "B "B "B "B TROSPER RD B ? ? "B 2!! ? ? "B "B "B ?" ? ? ? ? ?"B Treatment Structure ?"B ?"B Storm Pipes ! "B Map!2 Date: 12/2/2015 ? ?"B .! Outlet ?"B!2! Parcels ?"B City of Tumwater Public Works !P Other or Unknown Map File: Barnes_Lake_Storm_Map_Dec_2015.mxd City Pond Photo: Summer 2012 ?"B!2! ?"B

5. WATER QUALITY

The LMD and the City of Tumwater have contracted with Thurston County’s Environmental Health Department to collect monitoring data consistent with their lakes program. Data have been collected in the summers (May through October) of 2006 and 2013. The data collected includes temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, conductance, phosphorus, nitrogen, clarity, and the identification of chlorophyll and algae. Thurston County maintains the data with their lakes program and submits a final report to the City at the end of each monitoring period. When monitoring began in 2006, Barnes Lake had an elevated trophic status (Thurston County 2013). Dissolved oxygen (DO) was very low; surface and bottom total phosphorus (TP) was typically about twice the state water quality guideline; and total nitrogen (TN) was also high. Visibility was very low (Secchi depth less than 1.5 meter) for most of the summer. Chlorophyll a, a measure of algal pigments, was high. The 2013 monitoring data indicate an improvement in almost all water quality parameters (Thurston County 2013). Dissolved oxygen was somewhat higher, but still below water quality standards for much of the summer. TN and TP values measured in 2013 were about half the measured values in 2006. Lake clarity also improved about two-fold compared to 2006 values due to reduced algae as measured by chlorophyll a concentrations. The 2013 water quality report (Thurston County 2013) compares the 2006 and 2013 monitoring data and is included in Appendix A. The causes of the improved water quality are not entirely understood, but may be related to the reduced abundance of aquatic plants from implementation of the 2007 IAVMP. The improvement of some parameters, such as dissolved oxygen, may be attributable to less decaying plant material resulting from the reduction of total plant biomass. Nutrient input was likely reduced by less plant biomass decay, and by less sediment recycling and release of nutrients resulting from the increased dissolved oxygen. There also could be more nutrient uptake from new growth of submerged aquatic plants like coontail and bladderwort. The Steering Committee remains committed to developing a better understanding of the impacts that management actions on the lake are having on water quality. As such, they have approved a plan to coordinate water quality monitoring on the lake with Thurston County, biannually, in 2016, 2018, and 2020. The same parameters monitored in 2006 and 2013 will be evaluated.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 9

6. AQUATIC PLANT COMMUNITY

Barnes Lake has a thriving community of native and nonnative aquatic and shoreline plants. These plants can be divided into three general categories: • Native – Beneficial • Native – Nuisance • Nonnative – Noxious The term “noxious weed” refers to those nonnative plants that are legally defined by Washington’s Noxious Weed Control Law (RCW 17.10) as highly destructive, competitive, or difficult to control once established. Noxious weeds have usually been introduced accidentally as a contaminant, or as ornamentals. Nonnative plants often do not have natural controls (i.e., herbivores, pathogens) or strong competitors to control their numbers as they may have had in their home range. WAC 16.750 sets out three classes (A, B, C) of noxious weeds based on their distribution in the state, each class having different control requirements. County Weed Boards are given some discretion as to setting control priorities for Class B and C weeds. The categorization of native plants is more subjective. Generally, native plants are considered to be beneficial because they often provide habitat and forage, compete with nonnative plants, and perform other ecological functions. Native plants become a nuisance when their growth is excessive and out of balance to the point if impacting the beneficial uses of the lake. The following subsections describe the current and recent plant community in Barnes Lake and a description of the plant community characterization efforts.

6.1. AQUATIC PLANT MAP AND CHARACTERIZATIONS

The first, recent, comprehensive aquatic plant survey of Barnes Lake occurred on May 12, 2006, by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Environmental Assessment Program. The survey was conducted by boat using a two-person crew. Each type of vegetation was characterized by scientific name, common name, and distribution. Since 2006, aerial surveys have been documented in annual reports (Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 2007–2015) that quantified plant coverage of the lake surface. Additional surveys by Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems were conducted to estimate the abundance and location of individual species to inform treatment efforts. These surveys focused primarily on the areal extent of aquatic plant growth. A detailed aquatic plant survey was conducted in 2015, where the extent of submersed aquatic plant coverage and the presence or absence of the four most-abundant submersed plant species at 20 locations throughout the lake were cataloged (Northwest Aquatic Eco- Systems 2015). The four submersed plant species include one nonnative plant (swollen bladderwort) and three native plants (coontail, waterweed, and pondweed). The 2006 survey conducted by Ecology identified 17 plant species present in the lake. The list of species and their distribution in 2006 is presented in Table 2. Three nonnative species were

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 11

conclusively identified: fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacia), and swollen bladderwort (Utricularia inflata). Two other potentially nonnative species were also identified: water starwort (Callitriche sp.) and nightshade (Solanum sp.), but positive identification at the species level could not be made. Although not identified during the 2006 survey, yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) and purple loosetrife (Lythrum salicaria) are two nonnative noxious weeds that were identified in subsequent surveys (D. Dorling, Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems, personal communication, October 2015).

Table 2. Barnes Lake Aquatic Plant Survey – May 12, 2006.

Scientific Name Common Name Distribution Comments Native/Nonnative Nymphaea Fragrant 5 Dense in water less than about Nonnative; Class C Noxious odorata waterlily 2.5 m.; Not flowering yet. Weed Utricularia inflata Swollen 3 Flower float forming, some with Nonnative; Quarantine bladderwort flower buds Class A Noxious Weed Phalaris Reed 2 Shore Nonnative; Class C Noxious arundinacia canarygrass Weed Callitriche sp. Water-starwort 1 Found in area cleared of lilies, Possibly nonnative north arm of lake depending on species Solanum sp. Nightshade 1 Along shore Possibly nonnative depending on species Nuphar Spatter-dock, 3 Blooming, leaves rising above Native polysepala yellow waterlily surface Polygonum sp. Smartweed 3 Shoreline, not blooming yet Native Salix sp. Willow 3 On islands Native Brasenia Watershield 2 Scattered among lilies Native schreberi Eleocharis sp. Spike-rush 2 Emergent species Native Typha latifolia Common cattail 2 On islands, along shore Native Ludwigia palustris Water purslane 1 Shallow water, north end Native Menyanthes Buckbean 1 Along east shore, blooming Native trifoliata Potamogeton sp. Thin-leaved 1 No seeds to id species, looks Native pondweed like P. pusillus Ranunculus Water buttercup 1 Not flowering, in cleared area, Native aquatilis north arm of lake Unknown Unknown 2 Shallow water plant with Unknown rounded opposite leaves, not blooming Unknown #2 Unknown 2 Long opposite leaves, may be Unknown Lysimachia thyrsiflora? Not flowering Distribution Values: 0. The distribution was not recorded (plant may not be submersed) 1. Few plants in only 1 or a few locations 2. Few plants, but with a wide, patchy distribution 3. Plants growing in large patches, co-dominant with other plants 4. Plants in nearly monospecific patches, dominant 5. Thick growth covering the substrate at the exclusion of other species

Fragrant waterlily, reed canarygrass, and yellow flag iris are Class C Noxious Weeds. Class C weeds are generally not required by law to be controlled and contained, but counties may designate a Class C weed for control in their county or in certain areas of their county.

April 2016 12 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

Fragrant waterlily, reed canarygrass, and yellow flag iris are not required to be controlled in Thurston County. Swollen bladderwort is listed by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) as an aquatic noxious weed, but is only on the monitor list (potential threat) and quarantine list (prohibited sale or distribution) in Washington State. Rigorous control efforts associated with implementation of the 2007 IAVMP have changed the composition of the plant community in Barnes Lake. At the time of the 2006 survey, fragrant waterlily was the overwhelmingly dominant plant species. It covered the majority of the lake surface, and choked out other aquatic vegetation in most places. Between 2006 and 2014, aerial photos and lake observations documented a decreased cover of floating-leaved plants consisting primarily of fragrant waterlily. Additionally, the amount of open water increased, particularly in nearshore areas. The reduced waterlily cover is evident when comparing the aerial photos of the lake from 1990 and 2013 (Figure 2). What the photos don’t show is the how the species composition has changed. As of 2015, there was very little fragrant waterlily left in the lake, while two other floating-leaved plants (spatterdock and watershield) had recolonized many of the areas previously occupied by fragrant waterlily. In June 2015, aquatic plant density was mapped using a sonar and GPS mapping system (Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 2015). The 2015 plant density map shows extensive coverage of the lake with medium (green) to high (red) density. Figure 3 compares the plant density map to an aerial photograph taken by USDA on an unknown date in 2015 and an oblique aerial photograph taken by Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems on May 29, 2015. Comparison of these maps shows that most of the open-water area on the aerial photographs is covered by medium density submerged plants. Swollen bladderwort was the dominant submerged plant present in the open water area. Examination of the oblique aerial photograph in Figure 3 reveals brown patches in the open water area that were comprised of swollen bladderwort, which had flowered near the water surface by the end of May 2015. Thus, swollen bladderwort became abundant throughout most of the open water area not colonized by floating-leaved plant species. Sonar-generated plant density maps are a new and useful tool for assessing overall plant abundance. However, plant density mapping has limited usefulness for assessing the effectiveness of a treatment because a treatment may be very effective at eliminating a target species, but may not result in any net decrease in overall vegetation density. In fact, this is the case for Barnes Lake. Implementation of the 2006 IAVMP has been fairly successful in reducing the abundance of fragrant waterlily, while the overall plant abundance is still high (see Figure 3). To truly assess effects of a treatment, detailed surveys measuring the cover and density of the target and all other plant species are needed. The plant composition has changed since Ecology conducted their survey in 2006. The abundance of waterlily has substantially decreased and the abundance of other plants has increased. Additional native submerged plant species that were not documented during Ecology’s survey have been identified since. The 2015 survey indicates that two native submerged plants, coontail (Ceratophyllum sp.) and waterweed (Elodea sp.), are now present at many locations throughout the lake (Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 2015). These plants may have been present in low numbers when the lake was surveyed in 2006, and have increased in abundance in response to the decrease in fragrant waterlily cover. Further detailed surveys are recommended to document the presence, abundance, and distribution of all plant species present in Barnes Lake. Aquatic vegetation surveys are further discussed in Section 16.1 of this document.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 13

1990 June 20 2003 May 31 2006 May 15

2008 July 24 2009 April 30 2011 August 24

2012 2013 May 5 2015 July 30 Figure 2. Aerial Photos of Barnes Lake, 1990–2015.

Aerial Photograph in 2015 ^

Plant Density in June 2015 >

Oblique Photograph to Northeast on May 29, 2015 Figure 3. Aerial Photographs and Plant Density Map for Barnes Lake in 2015.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 15

One concern with initiating, altering, or continuing plant control efforts is the potential to inadvertently impact rare or endangered plants. The Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) recently performed a search of their Natural Heritage Information System database for rare plant species, select rare animal species, and high quality wetland and terrestrial ecosystems in the vicinity of Barnes Lake. This search did not find any endangered, threatened, or sensitive plant species recorded for Barnes Lake (Jasa Holt, Washington State Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program, personal communication, January 2016).

6.2. PLANTS TARGETED FOR CONTROL

The following sections provide information about the plants that will be targeted for control in the 2016 IAVMP. Several of the photos and descriptions were excerpted from Ecology’s Aquatic Plant Management website (Ecology 2015a).

6.2.1. Fragrant Waterlily (Nymphaea odorata)

Fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata) is native to the eastern half of North America. It was most likely introduced into Washington during the Alaska Pacific Yukon Exposition in Seattle in the late 1800s. It has often been introduced to ponds and lakes because of its beautiful, large white or pink (occasionally light yellow), many-petaled flowers that float on the water’s surface, surrounded by large, round green leaves. The leaves are attached to flexible underwater stalks rising from thick fleshy rhizomes. Adventitious roots attach the horizontal creeping and branching rhizomes.

This aquatic perennial herb spreads aggressively, rooting in murky or silty sediments in water up to 7 feet deep. It prefers quiet waters such as ponds, lake margins and slow streams and will grow in a wide range of pH. Shallow lakes are particularly vulnerable to being totally covered by fragrant waterlilies. Fragrant waterlily spreads by seeds and by rhizome fragments. Fragrant Waterlily (Nymphaea odorata) A planted rhizome will cover about a 15-foot-diameter circle in 5 years. Fragrant waterlily has firmly established itself in Barnes Lake. When uncontrolled, the lily community forms dense monospecific stands that can persist until senescence in the fall. Mats of these floating leaves prevent wind mixing and extensive areas of low oxygen can develop under the waterlily beds in the summer. Waterlilies can restrict lakefront access and hinder swimming and other recreational activities. They may also limit native waterlily (spatterdock, Nuphar luteum) and watershield (Brasenia schreberi) with which it overlaps in distribution. These native floating-leaved species have expanded in Barnes Lake as a result of fragrant waterlily treatment implemented for the 2007 IAVMP.

April 2016 16 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

6.2.2. Spatterdock (Nuphar polysepala)

Spatterdock, a useful native plant, is a rooted, floating-leaved plant with bright yellow flowers commonly seen in Washington lakes and ponds. Its scientific name is Nuphar polysepala, and it is also commonly called the yellow pond or cow lily. Spatterdock can sometimes be confused with the fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata), a similar looking exotic plant that has been introduced in many Washington lakes. However, if they are blooming they can be easily distinguished, for the fragrant waterlily has showy white or sometimes pink many-petaled flowers. In early spring the spatterdock's leaves are below the surface, light green in color, and look like lettuce growing on the lake bottom. But by late spring the broad, dark green, heart- shaped leaves float on the water's surface or often stand above the water as the summer progresses.

The floating leaves are connected by long stalks to large horizontal roots in the sediments. The roots can be up to 6 inches in diameter and many feet long! The roots look something like palm-tree trunks, with knobby scars where leaves have grown. The bright yellow, ball-like flowers bloom from June to mid-August and also stand just above the water surface. They are composed of several broad fleshy yellow sepals, with many inconspicuous petals inside. In the center is a yellow flask-shaped seed pod. The flower emits a strong brandy-like odor which attracts pollinating insects. Spatterdock Spatterdock (Nuphar polysepala) reproduces by seeds and spreads by growth of its large fleshy roots. It will also grow from fragments of roots if the plant is broken up. Spatterdock is also a valuable plant for fish and wildlife habitat. Its large leaves provide shade, cover from predators, and a home for many tiny invertebrates which fish use for food. The seeds are eaten by ducks and other birds, and muskrat, beaver, and nutria will eat the roots. Deer have also been known to browse the flowers and leaves. When spatterdock is accompanied by other native aquatic plants, it is very beneficial to wildlife habitat and an important part of a lake ecosystem.

6.2.3. Watershield (Brasinea shreberi)

Watershield, also known as dollar pad or water target, is a native plant found in Washington's lakes and ponds. It goes by the scientific name Brasenia schreberi, named after two botanists (Brasen and Schreber) who collected and described plants in the late 1700s. It is found throughout Washington and other parts of the northwest, and also is common east of the Mississippi River and in other parts of the world. Watershield has long purplish stems that reach from trailing rhizomes in the sediment to the floating leaves at the surface. These stems are slightly elastic, so that when the water surface becomes wavy the leaves can bob up and down without breaking off. Each of the

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 17

leaves is up to 6 inches long by 3 inches wide with a green top and dark purple underside. The leaves attach to the stem directly in the middle, giving it a shield-like appearance. During midsummer the small dark purple flowers rise above the water surface an inch or two to bloom and set seed.

The most interesting feature of this plant is the thick coating of gelatinous slime that covers young stems and the underside of young leaves. This dense gel is secreted by special single-celled glandular hairs within the plant. It creates such a slippery surface that it can make grabbing onto the plant very difficult. This usually makes Brasenia a favorite with children (and some adults!). Watershield is sometimes confused with young leaves of the larger water lilies (either our Watershield (Brasinia schreberi) native yellow waterlily or the nonnative fragrant (white or pink) water lilies). However, water lilies have a split in the leaf from the edge to where the stem attaches. The leaves of water shield are completely oval, with no split. Brasenia is usually found in water from 2 to 6 feet deep growing on soft nutrient rich substrate. It prefers soft-water lakes, so is mostly found in Western and Northeastern Washington. It is a valuable plant for fish and wildlife; young fish like to hide among the stems, and waterfowl eat the seeds as well as the vegetation. Humans also have used watershield. Native American groups used the tuberous roots for food, and the Japanese use young leaves and stems in salads. The Japanese also have processed and used the plants gelatinous coating.

6.2.4. Swollen Bladderwort (Utricularia inflata)

Swollen bladderwort (Utricularia inflata), also known as big floating bladderwort, is a member of a group of free floating, rootless, carnivorous aquatic plants. It is native in the southeastern United States, but is increasingly being seen in some western Washington lakes where it is considered to be a nuisance, nonnative, and invasive plant. In 1998, it had been seen in several lakes in Mason, Kitsap, and Thurston Counties. Where present, it has been known to form dense beds of floating plants. Lake Limerick residents spent several thousand dollars harvesting this species each summer. In Washington, swollen bladderwort flowers from late May to July forming a wheel-like floating platform that supports a yellow snapdragon-like flower. These flowers stick up about 6 inches above the water surface. Washington's native bladderworts do not have this "floating wheel" to support their flowers, but when not flowering our native bladderwort and swollen bladderwort are very similar in appearance.

April 2016 18 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

Swollen bladderwort reproduces from small fragments and from seed. A Florida botanist reports that when plants become stranded on mud, they can produce long threadlike branches with each "thread" bearing a tiny tuber at its tip. When not in flower, swollen bladderwort floats below the water's surface. Bladderwort obtains its nutrients from the water and from tiny creatures that it captures in its seed-like bladders. These bladders are actually traps that use a Swollen Bladderwort (Utricularia inflata) vacuum to capture small invertebrates that trigger a trap door. Once inside the bladder, enzymes are secreted to digest the prey, providing the plant with nutrients. Swollen bladderwort has proliferated in Barnes Lake following lily removal. It is likely that increased light availability resulting from reduced waterlily canopy has created conditions for the swollen bladderwort to thrive. It has not been determined how these plants were introduced, nor is there good distribution data. Because of the interesting "spoke-like" flower platform and the yellow flowers, bladderwort may have been introduced as a water garden plant or aquarium plant. It may also be popular with people who cultivate carnivorous plants. Swollen bladderwort has been observed in isolated ponds where it is unlikely that boats visit. This plant might be spreading by waterfowl. A 1996 Sonar treatment in Lake Limerick, Mason County, appeared to control this species for about 2 years. Grass carp will consume swollen bladderwort, although it did not appear to be a preferred species in Silver Lake, Cowlitz County, Washington. Another technique used by Lake Limerick residents is to hire school kids to rake or hand pull each plant from the lake. Bladderwort management in Barnes Lake is a high priority for the LMD, given its rapid increase in abundance.

6.2.5. Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea)

A highly variable species, reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) is a rhizomatous perennial grass that can reach 3 to 6 feet in height. The sturdy, often hollow stems can be up to 0.5 inch in diameter, with some reddish coloration near the top. The leaf blades are flat and hairless, 0.25 to 0.75 of an inch wide. The flowers are borne in panicles on culms high above the leaves. The panicles are generally 3 to 6 inches in length. The species flowers in June and July. Reed canarygrass forms dense, highly productive single species stands that pose a major threat to many wetland ecosystems. The species grows so vigorously that it is able to inhibit and eliminate competing species. In addition, areas that have existed as reed canarygrass monocultures for extended periods may have seed banks that are devoid of native species. Unlike native wetland vegetation, dense stands of reed canarygrass have little value for wildlife. Few species eat the grass, and the stems grow too densely to provide adequate cover for small mammals and waterfowl. The species is considered a serious weed along irrigation banks and ditches because infestations can increase siltation. When in flower, the species produces abundant pollen and chaff, which aggravate hay fever and allergies.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 19

Although reed canarygrass is planted as a forage crop in some areas, the species poses a significant threat to the state’s wetlands. Reed canarygrass is extremely aggressive and often forms persistent, monocultures in wetlands and riparian areas. Infestations threaten the diversity of these areas, since the plant chokes out native plants and grows too densely to provide adequate cover for small mammals and waterfowl. The grass can also lead to increased siltation along drainage ditches and streams. Once established, reed canarygrass is difficult to control because it spreads rapidly by rhizomes.

Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) Reed canarygrass is a circumboreal species. While possibly native to North America, European cultivars have been widely introduced for use as hay and forage on the continent; there are no easy traits known for differentiating between the native plants and European cultivars. The species is rather common throughout most of southern Alaska and Canada, as well as all but the southeastern portion of the U.S. A wetland plant, this species typically occurs in soils that are saturated or nearly saturated for most of the growing season, but where standing water does not persist for extended periods. However, established stands can tolerate extended periods of inundation. Ideal conditions typically occur in roadside ditches, rights-of-way, river dikes and levees, shallow marshes, and meadows. Reed canarygrass is a perennial species. It spreads by seeds or by creeping rhizomes. The species will also produce roots and shoots from the nodes of freshly cut, well-jointed culms. It flowers from June through August in Washington. Glyphosate, Amitrol, Dalapon, and Paraquat have all been tried with some success. Maximum control depends on the timing of application. These herbicides provide control for up to 2 years at the most. After this period, reed canarygrass recolonizes a treated area from adjacent stands or from seed bank recruitment. However, only glyphosate (Rodeo®) is licensed for use in aquatic systems in Washington. Rodeo® application, followed in 2 to 3 weeks by prescribed burning has also been effective. The use of fire helps to ensure mortality by killing resprouts and germinants. Studies in the Midwest indicate that prescribed burning is effective in areas with an existing component of native plants, either above ground or in the soil seed bank. To be effective, burns should be conducted in the late spring, early to mid-summer, or early to mid-fall. Early spring burning stimulates the production of shoots. Heavy equipment has been used unsuccessfully in reed canarygrass removal. Rapid regrowth occurs from rhizomes and seeds that remain in the soil even after mechanical removal. Clipping back plants at ground level and covering them with opaque black plastic tarps can reduce but not eliminate populations. However, this method is not always effective because reed canarygrass shoots can grow up through most materials, and seasonal inundation may displace covering materials. Mowing may be a valuable control method, since it removes seed heads before seed maturation and exposes the ground to light, which promotes the growth of native species. Studies in Wisconsin indicated that twice-yearly mowings (in early to mid-June

April 2016 20 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

and early October) led to increased numbers of native species in comparison to reed canarygrass-infested plots that were not mowed.

6.2.6. Nightshade (Solanum sp.)

In Ecology’s survey, the species of nightshade found along the shores of Barnes Lake was not specifically identified due to similarity among the variants when they are not flowering and will need further identification during the flowering season. The 2007 IAVMP proposed to refine the identification during the flowering season, monitor the extent of nightshade distribution, and determine if the species falls into the nonnative, noxious weed category. This was not performed, but is intended to occur as part of the implementation of this IAVMP. In Washington, silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium) is listed as a Class A Noxious Weed. The silverleaf nightshade is a branched, deep-rooted, perennial herb, 1 to 4 feet tall. Slender, yellow spines occur on the stems or leaf ribs of the plant. The lance-shaped leaves are 1 to 4 inches long by 1 inch wide, with wavy margins; they are covered with short, silvery- white, star-shaped hairs that give the plant a dusky or silvery-gray color. The blue, violet or rarely white flowers have five fused petals, 0.75 inch across, with bright yellow stamens. Flowers grow on stalks in clusters or singly at the end of stems or branches. The fruit is yellow to brownish, juicy berries, 0.5 inch in diameter. Seeds are flat, brown and 1/10 to 1/5 inch long.

6.2.7. Yellow Flag Iris (Iris pseudacorus)

Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) is a Class C noxious weed that was identified by residents of Barnes Lake. Control is recommended but not required in Thurston County. When flowering, yellow flag iris is unmistakable with its showy yellow flowers colorfully displayed along the edge of water and in wetlands. In Washington, the flowers occur in late spring or early summer. Several flowers can occur on each stem, along with one Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) or two leafy bracts. The leaves are mostly basal and are folded and clasp the stem at the base in a fan-like fashion. Yellow flag iris is perennial, and will remain green during winter where the weather is mild. It has stout rhizomes and long, spreading roots. The plants spread rhizomatously and grow tightly bunched together. This is the only yellow flag iris found in Washington’s wet areas, but when not flowering it may be confused with cattail (Typha latifolia) or broad-fruited bur-reed (Sparganium eurycarpum). Yellow flag iris is native to Europe, Great Britain, North Africa and the Mediterranean region. It has been introduced in temperate areas nearly world-wide and occurs throughout the United States. Yellow flag iris will sicken livestock if ingested, and is generally avoided by herbivores (although muskrats will eat the rhizomes). Contact with the resins can cause skin irritation in humans.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 21

6.2.8. Purple Loostrife (Lythrum salicaria)

Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.) is a Class B noxious weed that is on the quarantine list and is required to be controlled by Washington State.

Purple loosestrife is an emergent aquatic plant that usually grows on moist or saturated soils. A mature, well-established plant often grows up to 10 feet tall and 5 feet wide. Each plant can contain 30 to 50 herbaceous stems that rise from a common rootstock. The purple- magenta colored, five- to six-petaled flowers grow on long spikes. Purple loosestrife seed production depends on plant age, size, and vigor. A 4- to 5-year-old plant with 30 stems reportedly produces an estimated 2,700,000 seeds. Seed maintains viability of over 80 percent for at least 3 years. Purple loosestrife is native to Eurasia and was first discovered in the Puget Sound region in 1929. Impacts on native vegetation have been dramatic. It is a vigorous competitor and can crowd other vegetation including native species. In a short period of time it will completely dominate a site. Impacts on wildlife have not been well studied; however, purple loosestrife appears Purple loosestrife to reduce waterfowl and aquatic mammal activity. (Lythrum salicaria L.)

April 2016 22 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

7. WILDLIFE ON BARNES LAKE

Barnes Lake and its surrounding habitats support a variety of fish, birds, and animals by providing nesting, forage, and cover. The lake is not regularly stocked, although LMD members have stated that at various times in the past 20 years, the lake has been stocked with bass. The mixed forest and wetland plant communities around the lake provide non-breeding habitat for a few Puget Sound lowland amphibian species, such as the Pacific chorus frog (Psudacris regilla). Mammals expected to make use of the lake and adjacent wooded areas include: opossum (Didelphus marsupialis), bats such as the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), Douglas squirrel (Damias doglasii), and raccoon (Procyn lotor). Aquatic mammals, including beaver and otters, have also been observed on the lake. Beaver impacts on lake water levels have resulted in the installation of a flexible leveler at the lake’s overflow along the berm. To date, the leveler has been effective at controlling water levels and appears to be accepted by the beaver. However, the beaver is impacting infrastructure downstream of the leveler, to which the City’s Public Works Department is planning to install WDFW-approved exclusionary measures. Information about beavers is provided in Appendix D. Cathy Weaver, LMD Steering Committee member, provided a wildlife survey list developed through neighborhood communications and Survey Monkey (Table 3). The Priority Habitats and Species Program of the WDFW was contacted to determine if any species or habitats of concern residing in Barnes Lake or in the immediate vicinity. According to staff at WDFW, no sensitive plant or animal communities are known to exist in the area, or are reliant upon Barnes Lake for protective habitat.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 23

Table 3. Wildlife Survey Conducted by the Residents of Barnes Lake, 2014–2015. Avian Common Name Resident Seasonal Observed Common Name Resident Seasonal Observed Bufflehead Duck Greenwing Teal Canvasback Duck Gulls (various) Chickadee Great Blue Heron American Coot Green-backed Heron Cormorant Anna Hummingbird Cedar Waxwing Rufous Hummingbird American Crow Jack Snipe Diver Duck Steller’s Jay Bald Eagle Lesser Scaup House Finch Mallard Flicker Merganser Common Red-Winged Goldeneye Blackbird American American Robin Goldfinch Canada Goose Western Sandpiper Sparrow Rufous-sided Towhee Starling Widgeon Green Swallow Wood Duck Tree Swallow Pileated Woodpecker Ring Necked Dove Duck Wilson’s Snipe Sharp-shinned Hawk Bushtit Western Scrub Jay Brown Creeper American Kestrel Kildeer Belted Kingfisher Osprey Mammalian Mammalian, continued Bats Muskrat Feral Cats Mice Fish, Miscellaneous Opossum Bass Raccoon Bluegill Rat Catfish Squirrel Crappie Deer Frogs Otter Salamander Beaver Toad Black Bear Mole Nutria

April 2016 24 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

8. BENEFICIAL USES OF BARNES LAKE

There are no public boating or boat access areas in Barnes Lake, and motorized boating and water skiing activities are not permitted due to shallow water and obstructions in the lake. Barnes Lake is a private lake, with no public access other than LMD stakeholders permitted on the lake for any purpose. Over the past 30 years, Barnes Lake has gradually become over-run with vegetation, which has reduced beneficial uses such as fishing, non-motorized boating, swimming, and aesthetics. Since treatments to control aquatic plants began in 2007, the LMD has made gradual progress in clearing floating-leaved vegetation from the lake. In the last few years, it appears that “open water” has increased significantly based on comparison of aerial photos (Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 2014). This increase in open water is shown in Figure 2 in Section 6. The residents living along the shoreline maintain private access to the lake and many others within the LMD have clear views to the lake. Many of the residents enjoy a long history of living on the lake and are dedicated to preserving the beauty of the lake, enhancing the ecosystem to support varied species of wildlife, and insuring the economic vitality of all properties within the LMD. Conservation areas are essential to the preservation of wildlife habitat, natural vegetation, and shall be maintained as such to meet compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The areal extent of the conservation areas is intended retain at least 40 percent of the littoral zone, and still allow access from the shoreline to the center of the lake even when there is extensive plant growth present. Figure 4 shows the location and extent of the conservation areas selected by the Steering Committee. The Washington State Department of Ecology Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit (Ecology 2011) provides LMD requirements for the assignment of conservation areas. State-listed Class A and Class B nonnative, noxious aquatic weeds are allowed 100 percent eradication throughout the entire lake. In addition, the LMD is permitted to control native, nuisance species within 60 percent of the littoral zone. The littoral zone is defined as the vegetated area from the shoreline to the maximum water depth where plant growth occurs. Given the deepest part of Barnes Lake is approximately 10 feet deep, and has historically maintained plant growth; the entire lake is managed as littoral zone. Delineation of the conservancy areas presented a unique challenge due to the wide spread integration of native (spatterdock and watershield) and invasive (fragrant waterlily) floating- leaved plants. The total area designated for conservation was determined assuming both species cover the area equally, with 100 percent eradication (9.1 acres) of the nonnative, fragrant waterlily, and 60 percent (5.5 acres) removal of the native spatterdock.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 25

Conservation Areas: 1 = Tumwater United Methodist Church Washington 2 = Washington State Department of Transportation 3 = Tumwater School District Administration 4 = Area 4 5 = Area 5 Figure 4. Beneficial Use and Conservancy Areas of Barnes Lake.

April 2016 26 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

The five selected conservation areas include the lake area adjacent to shorelines of the Tumwater United Methodist Church (Area 1), Washington State Department of Transportation (Area 2), Tumwater School District Administration (Area 3), and two small offshore areas located in the northern part of the lake (Areas 4 and 5) (see Figure 4). It is recommended that Area 1 be revised to include the north end of the island, and to remove the small space along the condominium shoreline to the southwest of Area 1. The overall area would remain the same if these changes are implemented. All of these areas include habitats that are integral to the lake ecosystem, such as bird nesting sites and fish rearing or spawning areas. However, floating vegetation covering the surface of the lake limits the beneficial uses for residents and some wildlife inhabiting Barnes Lake. Boaters and swimmers avoid the covered areas. Maintaining the health and appearance of Barnes Lake accomplishes more than simple stewardship of the natural habitat for fish, birds, and small wildlife. The lake also has an economic influence affecting property values and the quality of life for homeowners along the shores of Barnes Lake and the surrounding community. If the lake is permitted to diminish to a pond or to be completely obscured with vegetation, this will likely degrade property values around the lake.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 27

9. BARNES LAKE WATER RIGHTS

Water rights around Barnes Lake include both surface and groundwater rights for irrigation and domestic uses. No properties within the Lake Management District own or operate wells for domestic purposes, as all properties are served by the City of Tumwater’s water utility. There are eleven properties on Barnes Lake that have surface water rights associated with them. These rights were issued between 1946 and 1972. It is likely these water rights are invalid through a 5-year period of non-use. There is no known infrastructure in the lake to provide for legal surface water withdrawal, and all properties around the lake are public water customers. In the event some property owners may draw water from the lake, the LMD will ensure announcements are made to all lake residents so they are aware of any potential water use restrictions due to herbicide treatments. One announcement will be sent at the beginning of the summer with approximate dates of planned treatments, and subsequent announcements will be sent at least 10 (and at most 42) days prior to each treatment, with exact dates of treatment and use restrictions in accordance with the new Ecology permit (Ecology 2015b). The announcement must let water right holders know who to contact should this interfere with their rights. The Steering Committee may consider providing alternate water sources to effected properties should it be confirmed that their water source is the lake Appendix C documents all surface and groundwater water rights surrounding Barnes Lake.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 29

10. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT HISTORY

The residents of Barnes Lake have managed aquatic plants since the early 1980s with funds raised from neighbors and volunteer labor. The Barnes LMD was established in 2005 to ensure funds are available for long-term control of nuisance vegetation and eradication of invasive species and the lake continues to be actively managed with the support of all residents of Barnes Lake. A summary of aquatic plant management efforts undertaken by the LMD is shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Summary of Recent Aquatic Plant Control Activities

Nonnative Submersed Native Floating Emergent Plants Floating Mat Year Fragrant Waterlily Leaved Plants Plants (bladderwort) Removal 2007 Glyphosate Glyphosate Not targeted Not targeted No mats observed. treatments in July, treatments in July, August, and August, September, September and October 2008 Glyphosate Glyphosate Not targeted Not targeted New floating mats treatments in June, treatments in June, observed; no action July, August, and July, August, and taken for removal. September September 2009 Glyphosate Glyphosate Glyphosate Not targeted Rototilled, with treatments in April, treatments in April, treatment floating debris May, June, May, June, and disposed on September, and September, and selective shoreline, or left October October hand pulling floating. 2010 Glyphosate Glyphosate Not targeted Not targeted No removal Treatments in June, Treatments in June, attempted. July, and November July, and November 2011 Glyphosate Glyphosate Not targeted Not targeted Airboat and excavator treatments in June treatments in June used to move mats to and July and July shoreline disposal site. 2012 Glyphosate Glyphosate Not targeted Not targeted Airboat and excavator treatments in June treatments in June used to move mats to and July and July shoreline disposal site. 2013 Glyphosate and/or Glyphosate and/or Not targeted Not targeted Removed with triclopyr treatments in triclopyr treatments in excavator and June, July, and June, July, and disposed on private August August property. 2014 Glyphosate Glyphosate Not targeted Not targeted Water jet blasting. treatments in June treatments in June and July and July 2015 Glyphosate treatment Glyphosate treatment Not targeted Not targeted Water jet blasting. in May through July in May through July

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 31

Note: Activities do not include plant control (e.g., pulling, raking, bottom barriers, limited herbicide use) by lake residents or contractors hired by lake residents.

Two periods of plant control have occurred on Barnes Lake. Between 1983 and 2007, there were intermittent attempts to control the abundance of aquatic plants; primarily fragrant waterlily. Various methods including herbicides and mechanical cutting were utilized, but the frequency of control activities was too low to have a noticeable, long-lasting effect. Since 2007, annual control activities utilized herbicides for controlling fragrant waterlily and other nuisance floating-leaved plants. Nonnative emergent plants were also opportunistically targeted. In 2007, when the Barnes Lake IAVMP was developed the main concerns about the aquatic plant community in Barnes Lake were the overabundance of fragrant waterlilies and native spatterdock. The presence of swollen bladderwort was also a concern, but was planned to be addressed in future years. Other concerns included the encroachment of emergent vegetation into open water areas, degradation of shoreline habitat by noxious emergent plants (e.g., reed canarygrass and nightshade), preserving aquatic vegetation in conservancy areas, and informing individual homeowners on the proper methods for small-scale plant control efforts. Since 2007, the Barnes LMD Steering Committee monitored the different aquatic plant control methods used in the lake and worked with City of Tumwater staff to keep lake residents notified of plant management activities. As part of a comprehensive review of plant management techniques for the 2007 IAVMP, all control alternatives described and approved by Ecology were initially considered for use in Barnes Lake and are described in subsequent sections. These included the use of various herbicides, harvesting, rotovation, sediment dredging, stocking grass carp, and other techniques. The process for selection of the preferred control option(s) began with a review of the entire range of control alternatives typically available to Washington State residents. The advantages and disadvantages of each were described as well as a discussion of their appropriateness for use in the lake. The most feasible control alternatives were selected and combined to form different strategies that met some or all aquatic plant management goals. Two control methods for eradication of fragrant waterlily were considered for the 2007 IAVMP. These control methods included: • Annual applications of the systemic herbicide glyphosate by a contractor until eradication is achieved. • Continued small-scale harvesting by residents (Note: This technique was selected for further review even though lake residents understood that it did not meet the goal of fragrant waterlily eradication) No other control options were selected for the control of other vegetation in 2007. The primary goal of the LMD was to address the lily infestation in Years 1 and 2 (2007 and 2008) while developing a sound course of action for emergent vegetation and other known noxious and nuisance vegetation. Another important component of the recent vegetation management history of Barnes Lake since the 2007 IAVMP has been managing large, floating, decomposing waterlily root (rhizome) mats that appear 1 or 2 years after herbicide treatment. These “floating mats” form as root biomass decays, resulting in gas production that becomes trapped within the root and muck mass. If there is no means for the gas to escape, then the submerged root mat becomes buoyant, dislodges from the bottom, and floats to the surface. Once free-floating, the mats, wind aided, can float freely lake-wide. Some mats remain “free floaters” while

April 2016 32 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

others eventually lodge themselves to islands or the shoreline. The floating mats may also become colonized by native and nonnative emergent vegetation, which preserves the integrity of the mats, and can ultimately cause them to become permanent islands. The floating mats represent a large volume of material, about 400 cubic years of material each year that needs to be dealt with. Various options for dealing with the mats have been tried with mixed success. Detailed descriptions of the strategies can be found in the 2014 LMD annual report (Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 2014). Rototilling the mats was attempted in 2009 and was not very successful. Between 2009 and 2013, the mats were dragged on to private shoreline properties to fill low areas and plant with upland vegetation. This disposal method was somewhat labor intensive, but feasible and effective. However, this option is no longer available because there are no shoreline property owners willing to receive fill material. In 2014, a new mat removal strategy was attempted that employed the use of high pressure water jets sprayed from a 2- or 3-inch-diameter firehose through a type nozzle to ablate the mats. This “hydrojetting” technique was effective at breaking up the mats, and the sediment and most of the plant material rapidly sank to the lake bottom. However, buoyant plant debris floated to shore, creating a mess that required removal by some residents. Additional concerns with this strategy are the rapid nutrient release from the mats and the deposition of organic sediment throughout the lake, which ultimately could reduce water depth. It appears that the recurrent problem with floating mats has diminished. Since control efforts of floating-leaved plants have been largely successful, there is less biomass available to form the floating mats. Assuming that the abundance of water lilies (native and nonnative) is kept at current low levels, floating mats are not expected to be a large problem going forward. Watershield has increased its cover of the lake in response to the reduced fragrant waterlily cover, particularly in conservation areas where this native plant is not controlled. Dense stands of watershield have recently been treated outside conservation areas to maintain access to open water. Finally, swollen bladderwort abundance has increased to problematic levels over the past years. It is likely that its prevalence has increased in response to diminished competition for nutrients and light from the floating-leaved plants that have been largely controlled. There have been no efforts thus far to reduce or eliminate bladderwort.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 33

11. AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL OPTIONS This section outlines common methods used to control aquatic weeds. Much of the information in this section is taken directly from Ecology (1994), or was from Ecology’s Aquatic Plant Management website (Ecology 2015a) and was presented in the 2007 IAVMP (Tumwater 2007). Control/eradication methods discussed below include physical control methods, chemical treatments, and mechanical control methods, including bottom screens, diver dredging, biological control, rotovation, cutting, harvesting, and drawdown.

11.1. NO ACTION

The first option considered was the “No Action” option to let aquatic weeds continue to grow and do nothing to control them. This “no action” alternative would acknowledge the presence of the aquatic weeds but would not outline any management plan or enact any planned control efforts. Effectively, a “no action” determination would preclude any integrated treatment and/or control effort, placing the choice and responsibility of aquatic weed control with lakefront property owners. This management plan is primarily focused on the eradication of noxious weeds and the control of nonnative and native nuisance aquatic plants. Both noxious and nuisance plants have reduced the beneficial uses of the lake. Several different options to control (or eradicate) these plants are presented in this plan. However, the “no-action” alternative was examined in order to serve as a reference for all other proposed control techniques. It is very likely that all beneficial uses of the lake will continue to be further degraded if no aquatic plant control methods are implemented. Because the lake is eutrophic, a shallow lake with high nutrient conditions, the aquatic plants are able to absorb nutrients directly from the water column, making the likelihood of further plant growth certain. Therefore, the "no- action" alternative is not acceptable due to the further reduction of beneficial uses of the lake (boating, fishing, and swimming). Other negative environmental impacts include a definite degradation of the overall aesthetics. The fish communities may be impacted directly (e.g., lack of dissolved oxygen) or indirectly (i.e., changes in food web dynamics) with an overabundance of aquatic plants. Loss of open water may also restrict waterfowl use and habitat. Excessive aquatic plants also influence water quality by causing more pronounced temperature stratification and potentially a reduction in water circulation. Chemical parameters such as pH, alkalinity, and dissolved oxygen may also be impacted through alteration of biological processes such as photosynthesis, respiration, and decomposition.

11.1.1. Advantages and Disadvantages

The advantages of the No-Action Alternative are: • No treatment cost. • No herbicide concerns • No need for permits

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 35

Disadvantages of the No-Action Alternative include: • Quality of the lake will continue to decline • Recreational opportunities will decline • Fish and wildlife habitat will be reduced or impaired • Property values will decline.

11.1.2. Suitability for Barnes Lake

The fragrant waterlily infestation is currently low in coverage. Unless continued control measures are enacted, the coverage is likely to increase each future growing season until the entire littoral zone of the lake is dominated by fragrant waterlilies. Based on results of informal surveys of aerial photos by residents and City of Tumwater staff, the infestations of fragrant waterlily increased annually until the 2007 IAVMP was implemented. These historical observations indicate that these plants would increase again in the future if no actions are taken, degrading water quality and reducing the diversity of native aquatic plants. The “no action” alternative is not acceptable by members of the Barnes Lake community.

11.2. HERBICIDES

Aquatic herbicides are chemicals specifically formulated for use in water to eradicate or control aquatic plants. Aquatic herbicides are sprayed directly onto floating or emergent aquatic plants, or are applied to the water in either a liquid or pellet form. Systemic herbicides are capable of killing the entire plant by translocating from foliage or stems and killing the root. Contact herbicides cause the parts of the plant in contact with the herbicide to die back, leaving the roots alive and capable of regrowth (chemical mowing). Non-selective herbicides will generally affect all plants that they come in contact with. Selective herbicides will affect only some plants. To be approved for use in aquatic environments, an herbicide must pass stringent toxicity testing by the federal government. These tests are designed to assess impacts to the target population (plants) as well as non-target populations such as fish, aquatic insects, and other organisms. The tests also examine what happens to the chemical over the long term to ensure the chemical quickly breaks down into a nontoxic form or becomes unavailable for uptake by aquatic organisms. Washington State and Thurston County have set more stringent standards. Therefore, some of the aquatic herbicides approved for use in the United States are not approved for use in Washington, and some approved for use in Washington are not approved for use in Thurston County. Because of environmental risks from improper application, aquatic herbicide use in Washington State waters is regulated and has certain restrictions. The Washington State Department of Agriculture must license aquatic applicators. In addition, an Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit is required from Ecology for herbicide applications. This permit is a combined National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit. It covers the in-water and shoreline (including roadsides and ditch banks) treatment of native and noxious plants and algae. It also covers nutrient inactivation treatments. The permit allows the discharge of a specific list of aquatic labeled herbicides, algaecides, biological water clarifiers, adjuvants, marker dyes, and nutrient

April 2016 36 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

inactivation products into the freshwaters of Washington (Ecology 2015b). The permit has recently been revised and will take effect on April 1, 2016. Although there are a number of herbicides registered for aquatic use by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Ecology currently issues permits for 12 aquatic herbicides. A complete list of these herbicides as well as their mechanisms of action, appropriateness of use, and environmental and toxicity concerns is summarized in Table 3 of the Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit (Ecology 2015 b). Some of these aquatic herbicides are not approved for use in Thurston County due to toxicity, persistence, or bioaccumulation concerns that are summarized on Thurston County’s website (Thurston County 2015). Only herbicides known to be effective on the target species (noxious emergent weeds, fragrant waterlily, and swollen bladderwort) and approved for use in Thurston County were considered for this plan. A brief discussion of these herbicides follows below: • Glyphosate – (trade names for aquatic products with glyphosate as the active ingredient include Rodeo®, AquaMaster®, and AquaPro®). This systemic broad-spectrum herbicide is used to control floating-leaved plants like waterlilies and shoreline plants like purple loosestrife. It is generally applied as a liquid to the leaves. Glyphosate does not work on underwater plants such floating bladderwort. Although glyphosate is a broad spectrum, non-selective herbicide, a good applicator can somewhat selectively remove targeted plants by focusing the spray only on the plants to be removed. Plants can take several weeks to die and a repeat application is often necessary to remove plants that were missed during the first application. • Fluridone – (trade names for fluridone products include: Sonar® and Avast!®). Fluridone is a slow-acting systemic herbicide used to control underwater plants such as bladderwort. It may be applied as a pellet or as a liquid. Fluridone can show good control of submersed plants where there is little water movement and an extended time for the treatment. Its use is most applicable to whole-lake or isolated bay treatments where dilution can be minimized. It is not considered effective for spot treatments of areas less than 5 acres. It is slow acting and may take 6 to 12 weeks before the dying plants fall to the sediment and decompose. Although there is not too much of a treatment history in Washington, when used to manage bladderwort, fluridone is generally applied several times during the spring/summer to maintain a low, but consistent concentration in the water. Although fluridone is considered to be a broad-spectrum herbicide, different plants have different tolerances for fluridone. In some cases, if the target species is fairly susceptible to fluridone, damage to other beneficial plants can be minimized by keeping concentrations relatively low (Terry McNabb, Aquatechnex, personal communication, January 2016). For example, some native aquatic plants, especially pondweeds, are minimally affected by low concentrations of fluridone. • Triclopyr – (trade name Renovate3®). There are two formulations of triclopyr. It is the triethylamine salt (TEA) formation of triclopyr that is registered for use in aquatic or riparian environments. Triclopyr, applied as a liquid or in granular form, is a relatively fast-acting, systemic, selective herbicide. In Washington, it is most commonly used for used for the control of Eurasian watermilfoil. Triclopyr is very useful for purple loosestrife control since native grasses and sedges are unaffected by this herbicide. When applied directly to water, Ecology has imposed a 12-hour swimming restriction to minimize eye irritation. Triclopyr received its aquatic registration from EPA in 2003 and was allowed for use in Washington in 2004.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 37

11.2.1. Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages of herbicides include: • Aquatic herbicide application can be less expensive than other aquatic plant control methods. • Aquatic herbicides are easily applied around docks and underwater obstructions. • Aquatic herbicides generally provide a high level of control. • Many herbicides are fast acting. Disadvantages of herbicides include: • Some herbicides have swimming, drinking, fishing, irrigation, and water use restrictions. • Herbicide use may have unwanted impacts to people who use the water and to the environment. • Non-targeted plants as well as nuisance plants may be controlled or killed by some herbicides. • Depending on the herbicide used, it may take several days to weeks or several treatments during a growing season before the herbicide controls or kills treated plants. • Rapid-acting herbicides like Aquathol® may cause low oxygen conditions to develop as plants decompose. Low oxygen can cause fish kills. • To be most effective, generally herbicides must be applied to rapidly growing plants. • Some expertise in using herbicides is necessary in order to be successful and to avoid unwanted impacts. • Many people have strong feelings against using chemicals in water. • Some cities or counties may have policies forbidding or discouraging the use of aquatic herbicides.

11.2.2. Permits and Costs

An Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit is needed for any herbicide application. Although the permit does not currently require the development of and IAVMP, the City of Tumwater has recommended the Barnes LMD develop a plan. The City of Tumwater and the Barnes LMD will be required to monitor herbicide levels in the lake as part of the permit process. The requirement of monitoring of herbicide levels started in 2003, whether the chemical has been applied directly to the water or along the shoreline where it may have gotten into the adjacent surface water. The applicator must apply to Ecology for coverage under their permit every 5 years. The permit is approximately $500 and will be billed once the permit is approved. Ecology requires that a Discharge Management Plan and State Environmental Protection Act checklist be submitted with the permit application. There are no additional permit requirements from the City of Tumwater.

April 2016 38 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

Approximate costs for 1 acre of herbicide treatment (costs will vary from site to site): • Glyphosate: $250 • Fluridone: $900 to $1,000 • Triclopyr: $1,000

11.2.3. Other Considerations

The focus of the discussions below pertain to the toxicity and persistence of glyphosate and fluridone because the Steering Committee is considering only these chemical control options for the integrated treatment strategy for Barnes Lake. Triclopyr is more effective than glyphosate on some emergent noxious weeds such as purple loosestrife, but triclopyr is not proposed for use at Barnes Lake because emergent noxious weeds are being targeted incidentally during control of fragrant waterlily for which glyphosate is most cost effective. The EPA conducts very thorough risk assessments of all pesticides approved for use in the United States. These tests evaluate human exposure risks as well as risks posed to the environment resulting from persistence, accumulation, and mobility in the environment. Complete assessments are available from EPA or the pesticide manufacturers. The summaries below provide an overview of the risks based on recent reviews by Thurston County (2015).

11.2.3.1. Glyphosate

Thurston County completed a review of the potential environmental and human health hazards associated with glyphosate herbicide on April 1, 2015 (Thurston County 2015). The following summaries were excerpted from this review: • Mobility Summary: In an aquatic environment, glyphosate will disperse in the water and move freely until it contacts sediment or plant material, where it will be strongly bound. Mobility of this chemical in a water body is dependent on the water flow and clarity. Glyphosate will bind to suspended sediments and not move as easily. • Persistence Summary: Glyphosate in water is low in persistence hazard although it can be considered highly persistent in sediment. • Bioaccumulation Summary: Glyphosate has a low octanol/water coefficient so it is unlikely to accumulate in tissue because it is more likely to mix with water than bind with fat and tissue. Also, testing has shown it to be low in bioaccumulation hazard. • Ecotoxicity Summary: Toxicity testing of glyphosate has indicated that it is moderately toxic to birds, fish, and other aquatic organisms. It is considered practically nontoxic to mammals and bees. The worst-case exposure was the risk to a child swimming in water treated with a glyphosate herbicide—this risk assessment scenario was considered low in hazard. Glyphosate products specifically formulated to be used around water bodies typically contain water as their other ingredient, which decreases the acute toxicity hazards to all organisms when compared to the active ingredient alone or compared to most glyphosate products formulated to control weeds on land.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 39

• Acute Human Toxicity Risk Assessment: The short-term risk assessment scenario involves aquatic application at maximum allowable rate. The acute toxicity hazard to a child (or adult) swimming in treated water was determined to be low. • Chronic Human Toxicity Risk Assessment: Glyphosate has been classified as a probable human carcinogen and caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells. The EPA classified glyphosate as Group E—evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans. Chemical mutagenicity and classification as a probable human carcinogen are rated high in hazard by Thurston County's pesticide review criteria, whereas the EPA's classification is rated low in hazard. Glyphosate will be rated as conditional until the EPA and Health Canada finish the current re-registration process, and a final review of the most recent studies can be evaluated.

11.2.3.2. Fluridone

Thurston County completed a review of the potential environmental and human health hazards associated with fluridone herbicide on May 20, 2009 (Thurston County 2015). The following summaries were excerpted from this review: • Mobility Summary: The mobility hazard of aquatic herbicides used to control submerged weeds mostly relates to the specific water body and its flow, depth, clarity, etc. Potential mobility of fluridone is increased by its need to be at a certain concentration for 45 days, which often results in multiple applications and more dispersion. Fluridone is considered moderate in mobility hazard when introduced to a lake with little or no flow. • Persistence Summary: The primary route of degradation of fluridone is breakdown by sunlight, which can occur in fewer than 2 weeks in shallow water, but it is stable to hydrolysis and biological degradation. Binding to organic material and plant uptake are considered secondary routes of chemical elimination in a water body. Fluridone has a low vapor pressure and is unlikely to volatilize from water. Since fluridone requires 45 days of contact time to be effective, these products are expected to be at least a moderate persistence hazard (reach half of the applied concentration within 8 to 60 days). The persistence hazard of liquid formulations of fluridone is rated as moderate; for granular formulations the persistence hazard is rated as high. • Bioaccumulation Summary: Fluridone has a low octanol/water partition coefficient, which indicates that it has a low affinity for non-polar organic solvents, so it is unlikely to accumulate in fish or animal tissue. The calculated bioconcentration factor also indicates that fluridone is low in hazard for bioaccumulation. • Acute Toxicity Summary and Risk Assessment: Single-dose testing of fluridone implies that it is practically nontoxic to mammals and birds, and is considered moderately toxic to aquatic organisms and frogs. The worst-case human exposure assessments included treated water being used for drinking water, eating food irrigated with treated water, and swimming exposures. These potential exposures were evaluated individually and combined together. The swimming exposure assumed that the person is in the water for 3 hours per day. All the potential exposures were at least 15 times below the EPA calculated dose of concern. Thus, short-term exposures to fluridone from aquatic herbicide use are rated as low in hazard.

April 2016 40 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

• Chronic Toxicity Summary and Risk Assessment: Fluridone testing indicated no evidence of neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, or carcinogenicity. Reproductive and developmental toxicity testing did not indicate an increase susceptibility to rat or rabbit fetuses. The first adverse effect seen in long-term toxicity testing was an increased incidence of abnormal multiplication of liver cells. The only long-term exposures identified from the use of fluridone as an aquatic herbicide come from using treated water on food crops and drinking treated water. The risk of toxicity from these exposures is considered low in hazard. Since Thurston County does not spray any crops, the dietary exposure is not relevant for the County review but is presented to show the relatively low hazard of the chemical. The hazard for toxicity from long-term exposures to fluridone from aquatic herbicide use is considered low.

11.2.4. Suitability for Barnes Lake

Aquatic herbicides can provide an effective method for control and eventual eradication of noxious weeds. The two primary herbicide treatment alternatives best suited for Barnes Lake are continued glyphosate applications for control of floating leafed plants, and fluridone applications for control of swollen bladderwort. Application strategies are markedly different for these two herbicides. Glyphosate has proven to be an effective treatment method in Barnes Lake for fragrant waterlily and other floating leaved plants. Generally, glyphosate is the recommended herbicide for waterlily control because it can be applied directly to the floating leaves, unlike fluridone or endothall, which must be applied to the water. The application of glyphosate allows specific plants or areas of plants to be targeted for removal. Generally, two applications of glyphosate are needed. The second application later in the summer controls the plants that were missed during the first herbicide application. The control effectiveness of fragrant waterlily is easy to measure through visual surveys due to the floating leaves. Follow-up control methods (hand pulling and/or cutting) will focus specifically on the two target species and should also leave beneficial plants intact. With these constraints in place, native plant communities will have an opportunity to re-establish in the delineated conservancy areas. An experienced herbicide applicator can selectively target individual weed species and limit collateral damage to other species to a minimum. This is especially true when infestations are small so that large areas with a diverse plant distribution don’t have to be treated. A common drawback of using herbicides is the “uplifting” of mats of decomposing waterlily roots that can form large floating islands in the water body after the herbicides have killed the plants. This has been a recurrent problem in Barnes Lake, but it is presumed that the remaining waterlily rhizome biomass has been significantly reduced, and uplifting mats will be less of a problem in the future. (A plan for dealing with these mats has been included in the implementation strategy.) Fluridone has not been used in Barnes Lake before. However, if selected as a control method it is expected to be effective at reducing the presence of swollen bladderwort in the lake. Fluridone treatments rely on maintaining an effective concentration of the herbicide throughout the entire lake for a period of 6 to 8 weeks. Tests can be done by the herbicide manufacturer to determine the lowest effective concentration for the specific plant genotype in the lake. Because fluridone must be applied to the whole lake, it cannot be targeted to a specific area without the use of turbidity curtains, and will likely cause harm to desirable native plant communities as well.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 41

11.3. MANUAL METHODS

Manual methods include hand-pulling, cutting, raking, and cleanup, described as follows: • Hand-pulling aquatic plants is similar to pulling weeds out of a garden. It involves removing entire plants (leaves, stems, and roots) from the area of concern and disposing of them in an area away from the shoreline. In water less than 3 feet deep no specialized equipment is required, although a spade, trowel, or long knife may be needed if the sediment is packed or heavy. In deeper water, hand pulling is best accomplished by divers with SCUBA equipment and mesh bags for the collection of plant fragments. Some sites may not be suitable for hand pulling such as areas where deep flocculent sediments may cause a person hand pulling to sink deeply into the sediment. • Cutting differs from hand pulling in that plants are cut and the roots are not removed. Cutting is performed by standing on a dock or on shore and throwing a cutting tool out into the water. A non-mechanical aquatic weed cutter is commercially available. Two single-sided, razor-sharp stainless steel blades forming a “V” shape are connected to a handle, which is tied to a long rope. The cutter can be thrown about 20 to 30 feet into the water. As the cutter is pulled through the water, it cuts a 48-inch-wide swath. Cut plants rise to the surface where they can be removed. Washington State requires that cut plants be removed from the water. The stainless steel blades that form the V are extremely sharp and great care must be taken with this implement. It should be stored in a secure area where children do not have access. • Raking requires a sturdy rake for removing aquatic plants. Attaching a rope to the rake allows removal of a greater area of weeds. Raking literally tears plants from the sediment, breaking some plants off and removing some roots as well. Specially designed aquatic plant rakes are available. Rakes can be equipped with floats to allow easier plant and fragment collection. The operator should pull towards the shore because a substantial amount of plant material can be collected in a short distance. • Cleanup is required for all of the manual control methods because they create plant fragments. For control of species that spread by fragmentation such as Eurasian watermilfoil and swollen bladderwort, it is important to remove fragments from the water to prevent them from re-rooting or drifting onshore, if recolonization is a concern. Plants and fragments can be composted or added directly to a garden.

11.3.1. Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages of manual methods includes: • Many manual methods can be carried out by trained volunteers and shoreline residents. • Easy to use around docks and swimming areas. • The equipment is inexpensive. • Hand-pulling allows the flexibility to remove undesirable aquatic plants while leaving desirable plants. • These methods are environmentally safe.

April 2016 42 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

Disadvantages of manual methods includes: • As plants regrow or fragments recolonize the cleared area, the treatment may need to be repeated several times each summer. • Because these methods are labor intensive, they may not be practical for large areas or for thick weed beds. • Even with the best containment efforts, it is difficult to collect all plant fragments, leading to recolonization for some plants. • Some plants, like waterlilies, which have massive rhizomes, are difficult to remove by hand pulling. • Pulling weeds and raking stirs up the sediment making it difficult to see remaining plants. Sediment re-suspension can also increase nutrient levels in lake water. • Hand pulling and raking impacts bottom-dwelling animals. • The V-shaped cutting tool is extremely sharp and can be dangerous to use.

11.3.2. Permits

Manual removal of aquatic plants in Washington requires compliance with the Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet (WDFW 2015) for control of noxious weeds, or an individual hydraulic project approval (HPA) permit for control of native plants in a large area. Table 5 designates manual plant control activities that need authorization or an individual HPA permit from WDFW. Hand-pulling, raking, and mechanical cutting are two methods commonly used by residents that do not require an authorization or an individual HPA permit for control of aquatic noxious weeds.

Table 5. WDFW Requirements for Aquatic Noxious Weed and Beneficial Plant Control.

Aquatic Noxious Weeds Aquatic Beneficial Plants Pamphlet HPA Pamphlet HPA Pamphlet and WDFW Individual Pamphlet and WDFW Individual Control Method HPA Authorization HPA HPA Authorization HPAa Hand Pulling or Other X X Xb Hand Tools Bottom Barriers X Xb X Xb Weed Rollers X Xb X Mechanical Cutting X X and Harvesters Diver Dredges X Xb X Dragline and X X Clamshell Dredges Rotovators X X Source: WDFW 2015. a Applicants may apply for Individual HPAs for projects that exceed pamphlet limitations. b Prior authorization is needed from WDFW for projects that exceed specified thresholds.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 43

11.3.3. Costs

Hand-pulling costs up to $130 for the average waterfront lot for a hired commercial puller. A commercial grade weed cutter costs about $130 with accessories. A commercial rake costs about $95 to $125. A homemade weed rake costs about $85 (asphalt rake is about $75 and the rope costs 35-75 cents per foot).

11.3.4. Other Considerations

The community may need to invest money into buying the equipment and operation. Manual methods must include regular scheduled surveys to determine the extent of the remaining weeds and/or the appearance of new plants after eradication has been attained. This is a large time investment by lakeside residents.

11.3.5. Suitability for Barnes Lake

Diver hand-pulling is not recommended for floating leaved plants due to difficulties with root (rhizome) removal, and is not cost-effective for control of large areas of swollen bladderwort or other submersed plants due to diver expense and fragment release. However, diver hand- pulling may be an effective method for survey and removal of small areas of swollen bladderwort plants because it does not have roots and is easily removed. Cutting can be used to control small areas of fragrant waterlily or other floating-leaved plants, especially those close to the shoreline. Cutting of fragrant waterlily may be performed by lake residents without authorization or an individual HPA permit from WDFW. However, cutting of native floating-leaved plants (spatterdock and watershield) requires authorization from WDFW. Using this method out in the open water would require a stable boat (not canoe) and great care not to injure oneself or another passenger. Since repeated cutting over several seasons may be required to starve the roots, this would fit best as a supplement to other control methods. Raking can be used to control swollen bladderwort, especially in late spring when its flowers reach the water surface and before native submerged plants become abundant. Swollen bladderwort is easily removed by raking because it is not rooted in sediment, but raking will generate fragments that may become established in other areas if they are not properly contained. However, bladderwort is widespread throughout the lake already so fragmentation is not an issue. Residents may remove swollen bladderwort by raking without authorization or an individual HPA permit from WDFW because this submersed plant is a noxious weed.

11.4. DIVER DREDGING

Diver dredging (suction dredging) is a method whereby SCUBA divers use hoses attached to small dredges (often dredges used by miners for mining gold from streams) to suck plant material from the sediment. The purpose of diver dredging is to remove all parts of the plant including the roots. A good operator can accurately remove target plants, like fragrant waterlily, while leaving native species untouched. The suction hose pumps the plant material and the sediments to the surface where they are deposited into a screened basket. The water and sediment are returned back to the water column (if the permit allows this), and the plant

April 2016 44 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

material is retained. The turbid water is generally discharged to an area curtained off from the rest of the lake by a silt curtain. The plants are disposed of on shore. Removal rates vary from approximately 0.25 acres per day to 1 acre per day depending on plant density, sediment type, size of team, and diver efficiency. Diver dredging is more effective in areas where softer sediment allows easy removal of the entire plants, although water turbidity is increased with softer sediments. Harder sediment may require the use of a knife or tool to help loosen sediment from around the roots. In very hard sediments, some plants tend to break off leaving the roots behind and defeating the purpose of diver dredging.

11.4.1. Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages of diver dredging include: • Diver dredging can be a very selective technique for removing pioneer colonies of submersed noxious weeds. • Divers can remove plants around docks and in other difficult to reach areas. • Diver dredging can be used in situations where herbicide use is not an option for aquatic plant management. Disadvantages of diver dredging include: • Diver dredging is very expensive. • Dredging stirs up large amounts of sediment. This may lead to the release of nutrients and buried toxic materials into the water column. • Only the tops of plants growing in rocky or hard sediments may be removed, leaving a viable root crown behind to initiate growth. • In some states, acquisition of permits can take years.

11.4.2. Permits

Permits are required for many types of projects in lakes and streams. Diver dredging requires Hydraulic Project Approval from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Also diver dredging may require a Section 404 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers.

11.4.3. Costs

Depending on the density of the plants, specific equipment used, number of divers and disposal requirements, costs can range from a minimum of $1,500 to $2,000 per day.

11.4.4. Other Considerations

Diver dredging could be useful for spot control in subsequent years (coordinated with diver survey).

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 45

11.4.5. Suitability for Barnes Lake

Diver dredging removes the plant in its entirety. It removes the biomass above the sediment as well as roots and tubers in the sediment. This option is best used for a pioneering infestation of invasive submersed plants in soft sediments. Diver dredging could be used after initial herbicide applications to remove swollen bladderwort plants that were missed or unaffected by the herbicide. The soft organic sediments in Barnes Lake should make this method effective. However, permit costs may warrant having this work done as diver hand pulling because the roots should be largely removed from the loose sediments without the need for dredging. Diver dredging greatly disturbs sediments and can affect nutrient concentrations and algal production in the lake. Since other techniques for removal are more suitable, this should not be considered.

11.5. BOTTOM SCREENS

A bottom screen or benthic barrier covers the sediment like a blanket, compressing aquatic plants while reducing or blocking light. Materials such as burlap, plastics, perforated black Mylar, AquaScreen, and woven synthetics can all be used as bottom screens. An ideal bottom screen should be durable, heavier than water, reduce or block light, prevent plants from growing into and under the fabric, be easy to install and maintain, and should readily allow gases produced by rotting weeds to escape without “ballooning” the fabric upwards. Even the most porous materials, such as AquaScreen (plastic-coated glass fiber), will billow due to gas buildup. Therefore, it is very important to anchor the bottom barrier securely to the bottom. Unsecured screens can create navigation hazards and are dangerous to swimmers. Anchors must be effective in keeping the material down and must be regularly checked. Natural materials such as rocks or sandbags are preferred as anchors. The duration of weed control depends on the rate that weeds can grow through or on top of the bottom screen, the rate that new sediment is deposited on the barrier, and the durability and longevity of the material. For example, burlap may rot within 2 years, plants can grow on top of screen and fabric materials. Regular maintenance is essential and can extend the life of most bottom barriers. Bottom screens will control most aquatic plants; however, non- rooted species such as the bladderworts or coontail will not be controlled by bottom screens. In addition to controlling nuisance weeds around docks and in swimming beaches, bottom screening has become an important tool to help eradicate and contain early infestations of noxious weeds such as Eurasian watermilfoil and Brazilian elodea. These plants are not currently in Barnes Lake, but this method should be considered to handle early infestations of either plant. Pioneering colonies that are too extensive to be hand pulled can sometimes be covered with bottom screening material. Bottom screens can be installed by the homeowner or by a commercial plant control specialist. Installation is easier in winter or early spring when plants have died back. In summer, cutting or hand pulling the plants first will facilitate bottom screen installation. Research has shown that much more gas is produced under bottom screens that are installed over the top of aquatic plants. The less plant material that is present before installing the screen, the more successful the screen will be in staying in place. Bottom screens may also be attached to frames rather than placed directly onto the sediment. The frames may then be moved for control of a larger area.

April 2016 46 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

11.5.1. Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages of bottom barriers includes: • Installation of a bottom screen creates an immediate open area of water. • Bottom screens are easily installed around docks and in swimming areas. • Properly installed bottom screens can control up to 100 percent of aquatic plants. • Screen materials are readily available and can be installed by homeowners or by divers. • Because bottom screens reduce habitat by covering the sediment, they are suitable only for localized control. • For safety and performance reasons, bottom screens must be regularly inspected and maintained. • Harvesters, rotovators, fishing gear, propeller backwash, or boat anchors may damage or dislodge bottom screens. • Improperly anchored bottom screens may create safety hazards for boaters and swimmers. • Swimmers may be injured by poorly maintained anchors used to pin bottom screens to the sediment. • Some bottom screens are difficult to anchor on deep muck sediments. • Bottom screens interfere with fish spawning and bottom-dwelling animals. • Without regular maintenance, aquatic plants may quickly colonize the bottom screen.

11.5.2. Permits

Bottom screening in Washington requires Hydraulic Project Approval in accordance with restrictions specified in the Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet (WDFW 2015) for control of noxious weeds, or an individual HPA permit for control of native plants in a large area. Local jurisdictions may require shoreline permits.

11.5.3. Costs

Barrier materials cost $0.22 to $1.25 per square foot. The cost of some commercial barriers includes an installation fee. Commercial installation costs vary depending on sediment characteristics and type of bottom screen selected. It costs up to about $750 to have 1,000 square feet of bottom screen installed. Maintenance costs for a waterfront lot are about $120 each year.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 47

11.5.4. Other Considerations

None.

11.5.5. Suitability for Barnes Lake

Bottom barriers have been used in other lakes to control aquatic plants. Without constant upkeep and maintenance the long-term benefits of bottom barriers are minimal. Currently, infested areas are too spread out to use a bottom barrier without becoming cost prohibitive. Most of the lakeshore residences have only small infestations and the bottom barrier would just reduce habitat by covering the sediment. Barriers could be effective in localized areas, such as the Barnes Lake Condominium’s dock, to prevent re-infestation after initial control. Installing a bottom barrier at a dock can provide these benefits. Since there is not a swimming beach at Barnes Lake, individual docks seem the only appropriate place to install a bottom barrier to enhance the recreational potential of the lake.

11.6. GRASS CARP

The only biological control applicable to Barnes Lake is grass carp. The grass carp (Cteno pharynogodon), also known as the white amur, is a vegetarian fish native to the Amur River in Asia. Because this fish feeds on aquatic plants, it can be used as a biological tool to control nuisance aquatic plant growth. In some situations, sterile (triploid) grass carp may be permitted for introduction into Washington waters. Permits are most readily obtained if the lake or pond is privately owned, has no inlet or outlet, and is fairly small. The objective of using grass carp to control aquatic plant growth is to end up with a lake that has about 20 to 40 percent plant cover, not a lake devoid of plants. In practice, grass carp often fail to control the plants, or in cases of overstocking, all the submersed plants are eliminated from the water body. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife determines the appropriate stocking rate for each water body when they issue the grass carp stocking permit. Stocking rates for Washington lakes generally range from 9 to 25, 8- to 11-inch fish per vegetated acre. This number will depend on the amount and type of plants in the lake as well as spring and summer water temperatures. To prevent stocked grass carp from migrating out of the lake and into streams and rivers, all inlets and outlets to the pond or lake must be screened. For this reason, residents on water bodies that support a salmon or steelhead run are rarely allowed to stock grass carp into these systems. Once grass carp are stocked in a lake, it may take from 2 to 5 years for them to control nuisance plants. Survival rates of the fish will vary depending on factors like presence of otters, birds of prey, or fish disease. A lake will probably need restocking about every 10 years. Success with grass carp in Washington has been varied. Sometimes the same stocking rate results in no control, control, or even complete elimination of all underwater plants. Bonar (et. al. 2002) found that only 18 percent of 98 Washington lakes stocked with grass carp at a median level of 24 fish per vegetated acre had aquatic plants controlled to an intermediate

April 2016 48 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

level. In 39 percent of the lakes, all submersed plant species were eradicated. It has become the consensus among researchers and aquatic plant managers around the country that grass carp are an all or nothing control option. They should be stocked only in water bodies where complete elimination of all submersed plant species can be tolerated. Grass carp exhibit definite food preferences and some aquatic plant species will be consumed more readily than others. Experiments were conducted to evaluate the importance of 20 Pacific Northwest aquatic plant species as food items for grass carp. Grass carp did not remove plants in a preferred species-by-species sequence in multi-species plant communities. Instead they grazed simultaneously on palatable plants of similar preference before gradually switching to less preferred groups of plants. The relative preference of many plants was dependent upon what other plants were associated with them. The relative preference of grass carp for the 20 aquatic plants tested was ranked from high to low as follows: • Potamogeton crispus (curly leaf pondweed) and P. pectinatus (sago pondweed) • P. zosteriformes (flatstemmed pondweed) • Chara sp.(muskgrasses), Elodea canadensis (American waterweed), and thin-leaved pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.) • Egeria densa (Brazilian elodea) (large fish only) • P. praelongus (white-stemmed pondweed) and Vallisneria americana (water celery) • Myriophyllum spicatum (Eurasian watermilfoil) • Ceratophyllum demersum (coontail) • Utricularia vulgaris (bladderwort) • Polygonum amphibium (water smartweed) • P. natans (floating leaved pondweed) • P. amplifolius (big leaf pondweed) • Brasenia schreberi (watershield) and Juncus sp.(rush) • Egeria densa (Brazilian elodea) (fingerling fish only) • Nymphaea sp. (fragrant waterlily) • Typha sp. (cattail) • Nuphar sp. (spatterdock) Generally in Washington, grass carp do not consume emergent wetland vegetation or waterlilies even when the water body is heavily stocked or over stocked. A heavy stocking rate of triploid grass carp in Chambers Lake, Thurston County resulted in the loss of most submersed species, whereas the fragrant waterlilies, bog bean, and spatterdock remained at pre-stocking levels. A stocking of 83,000 triploid grass carp into Silver Lake, Washington resulted in the total eradication of all submersed species, including Eurasian watermilfoil, Brazilian elodea, and swollen bladderwort. However, the extensive wetlands surrounding Silver Lake have generally remained intact. In southern states, grass carp have been shown to consume some emergent vegetation (Ecology 2015a).

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 49

Grass carp stocked into Washington lakes must be certified disease free and sterile. Sterile fish, called triploids because they have an extra chromosome, are created when the fish eggs are subjected to a temperature or pressure shock. Fish are verified sterile by collecting and testing a blood sample. Triploid fish have slightly larger blood cells and can be differentiated from diploid (fertile) fish by this characteristic. Grass carp imported into Washington must be tested to ensure that they are sterile. Because Washington does not allow fertile fish within the state, all grass carp are imported into Washington from out-of-state locations. Most grass carp farms are located in the southern United States where warmer weather allows for fast fish growth rates. Large shipments are transported in special trucks and small shipments arrive via air. Here are some facts about grass carp: • Are only distantly related to the undesirable European carp, and share few of its habits. • Generally live for at least 10 years and possibly much longer in Washington State waters. • Will grow rapidly and reach at least 10 pounds. They have been known to reach 40 pounds in the southern United States. • Will not eat fish eggs, young fish or invertebrates, although baby grass carp are omnivorous. • Feed from the top of the plant down so that mud is not stirred up. However, in ponds and lakes where grass carp have eliminated all submersed vegetation the water becomes turbid. Hungry fish will eat organic material out of the sediments. • Have definite taste preferences. Plants like Eurasian milfoil and coontail are not preferred. American waterweed and thin leaved pondweeds are preferred. Waterlilies are rarely consumed in Washington waters. Bladderwort, which is a problem in Barnes Lake, may be somewhat preferred by grass carp (Ecology 2015a). • Are dormant during the winter. Intensive feeding starts when water temperatures reach 68°F. • Prefer flowing water to still waters (original habitat is fluvial). • Are difficult to recapture once released. • They may not feed in swimming areas, docks, boating areas, or other sites where there is heavy human activity.

11.6.1. Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages of grass carp include: • Grass carp are inexpensive compared to some other control methods and offer long- term control, but, since they are sterile, and some die-off is to be expected, they may need to be restocked at periodic intervals. • Grass carp offer a biological alternative to aquatic plant control.

April 2016 50 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

Disadvantages of grass carp include: • Depending on plant densities and types, it may take several years to achieve plant control using grass carp and in many cases control may not occur. • If the water body is overstocked, all submersed aquatic plants may be eliminated. Removing excess fish is difficult and expensive. • The type of plants grass carp prefer may also be those most important for habitat and for waterfowl food. • If not enough fish are stocked, less-favored plants may take over the lake. • Stocking grass carp may lead to algae blooms. • All inlets and outlets to the lake or pond must be screened to prevent grass carp from escaping into streams, rivers, or other lakes.

11.6.2. Permits

Stocking grass carp requires a fish-stocking permit from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Also, if inlets or outlets need to be screened, a Hydraulic Project Approval application must be completed for the screening project.

11.6.3. Costs

The recommended stocking rate for grass carp is about 24 fish per acre. Fish prices are variable depending on delivery method and supplier, but a conservative estimate is about $20 per fish. For stocking Barnes Lake at the recommended rate, the cost would be about $15,000.

11.6.4. Other Considerations

Other factors about grass carp to consider include: • Would not achieve immediate results—takes time and is not guaranteed to work • Community may have concerns with introduced species • Potential damage to the native plant community of the lake, which could result in the establishment of other aggressive plant species as pioneers • Concerns from fishermen about grass carp • Initial investment somewhat expensive • Can cause problems with algae blooms because of increased nutrient availability

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 51

11.6.5. Suitability for Barnes Lake

Grass carp could be a suitable solution to controlling the swollen bladderwort problem in Barnes Lake. Among the plants in Barnes Lake, grass carp are likely to feed preferentially on the bladderwort. However, once the bladderwort is consumed, it is possible that the carp would remove all the beneficial plants that support a healthy fish population. Without cover and the invertebrates associated with beneficial native aquatic vegetation, aquatic habitat and water quality would be degraded, and some species (invertebrates, fish, etc.) may be extirpated. Therefore, grass carp are not a preferred method for swollen bladderwort control in Barnes Lake. However, using grass carp as a management strategy for bladderwort may be considered in the future if adequate control is not achieved using preferred methods (raking or fluridone).

11.7. MECHANICAL METHODS

Mechanical methods include mechanical harvesters, mechanical weed cutters, rotovators, and mechanical dredging: • Mechanical harvesters are large machines, which both cut and collect aquatic plants. Cut plants are removed from the water by a conveyor belt system and stored on the harvester until disposal. A barge may be stationed near the harvesting site for temporary plant storage or the harvester carries the cut weeds to shore. The shore station equipment is usually a shore conveyor that mates to the harvester and lifts the cut plants into a dump truck. Harvested weeds are disposed of in landfills, used as compost, or in reclaiming spent gravel pits or similar sites. • Mechanical weed cutters cut aquatic plants several feet below the water’s surface. Unlike harvesting, cut plants are not collected while the machinery operates. • Rotovators use underwater rototiller-like blades to uproot fragrant waterlily plants. The rotating blades churn 7 to 9 inches deep into the lake or river bottom to dislodge plant root crowns that are generally buoyant. The plants and roots may then be removed from the water using a weed rake attachment to the rototiller head or by harvester or manual collection. • Mechanical Dredging: Mechanical dredging uses large, barge-mounted excavation or suction equipment to remove sediment and associated plant material from the lake bottom. Mechanical dredging may be a suitable waterlily control strategy and a method for preventing problems with waterlily rhizome mats. It is the only mechanical control strategy that will be discussed further.

11.7.1. Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages of mechanical dredging: • Increases lake depth • No chemical residue

April 2016 52 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

• Large areas can be treated • Eliminates problems with floating waterlily rhizome mats Disadvantages of mechanical dredging: • High Cost: Depending on the depth of material removed and area dredged, cost estimates range from about $30,000 to $200,000 per treatment. • Material Disposal: The material that is dredged needs to be disposed somewhere. Trucking and disposal at landfill or off-site facility can potentially equal the cost of treatment as more heavy equipment is involved and time is consumed. • Permits may be difficult to obtain. • Slow (only about 100 cubic yards, or about 1/16 of an acre removing 1 foot of sediment per day). • Dredging can release nutrients from the sediment.

11.7.2. Permits

Mechanical dredging requires an individual HPA permit from WDFW. Dredging represents a significant disturbance to the lake substrate requiring a detailed environmental evaluation to obtain permits.

11.7.3. Other Considerations

In the past, floating mats removed from the lake have been disposed on shore to restore shoreline property. Currently, there are not shoreline properties available for disposal of floating mats or sediment removed from the lake. As a result, dredged material would need to be loaded onto trucks and taken off site for disposal. This would represent a significant added cost. It also may be logistically difficult to maneuver heavy equipment to and from the lakeshore due to access restrictions. A rough cost estimate was obtained from Aquamog, a regional operator of sediment excavation equipment. While there are many cost considerations, removal of approximately 2 feet of sediment would cost about $45,000 per acre.

11.7.4. Suitability for Barnes Lake

Mechanical dredging may be a viable aquatic plant management solution for Barnes Lake if continued problems with fragrant waterlily and the associated rhizome mats persist. The added benefit would be an increased water depth in the areas that were dredged.

11.8. DRAWDOWN

Lowering the water level of a lake or reservoir can have a dramatic impact on some aquatic weed problems. Water level drawdown can be used where there is a water control structure

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 53

that allows the managers of lakes or reservoirs to drop the water level in the water body for extended periods of time. Water level drawdown often occurs regularly in reservoirs for power generation, flood control, or irrigation, with a side benefit being the control of some aquatic plant species. However, regular drawdowns can also make it difficult to establish native aquatic plants for fish, wildlife, and waterfowl habitat in some reservoirs. Drawdown is not a viable control strategy for Barnes Lake. The outlet from Barnes Lake has a permanent weir with limited drawdown capacities. Not only would drawdown be difficult to achieve, it would also cause significant damage to the ecosystem. The amount of drawdown required to impact fragrant waterlily would dry out the entire littoral zone of the lake. This would damage native plants and animals in the lake and have many negative consequences for residents living around the lake. Without a surface inflow to the system, returning the water level to a previous state would be both cost and time prohibitive.

11.9. NUTRIENT REDUCTION

At lakes in watersheds with identifiable sources of excess nutrients, a program to reduce nutrients entering the lake could possibly be an effective method of controlling aquatic vegetation. Sources of excessive nutrients might include failing septic tanks, other accidental or planned wastewater effluent, or runoff from agricultural lands. If nutrient reduction were enacted as the primary method of weed control, extensive research would be necessary to determine the current nutrient budget for the lake and surrounding watershed, whether nutrient reduction would result in target species reduction, and to identify and mitigate the natural and human-mediated nutrient sources. Nutrient reduction is not an appropriate control measure for the following reasons: • It is not an eradication method. • There is no evidence that there is significant point-source nutrient loading at Barnes Lake. • There is no evidence that reducing nutrient loads to the water column would impact fragrant waterlily or bladderwort growth • However, all lake residents should strive to reduce nutrient loading to their lake by practicing and implementing Best Management Practices.

April 2016 54 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

12. SELECTED TREATMENT OPTION

The BLMD currently has an annual operating budget of approximately $15,000. To this point, treatment efforts have been tailored to adhere to this budget. Some new treatment options discussed at Steering Committee meetings were well received, but would exceed the $15,000 annual budget to implement. In particular, some of the proposed options for rhizome mat and sediment removal were quite costly, but could potentially produce desirable, long lasting improvements to lake usability. Rather than ignore these options and settling on a treatment strategy based strictly on cost, this plan lays out a few different strategies representing high, medium, and low cost. This way, should the BLMD decide to seek further funding for aquatic plant management in the future, an implementation plan for the higher cost treatment methods would already be in place to streamline the process. In general, plant control strategies would be largely the same between the low, medium, and high cost options. Each strategy would use herbicide and/or mechanical methods for reducing populations of nuisance floating-leaved and submersed aquatic plants. Where the options would differ significantly in cost and level of effort is in the removal of plant material and associated sediments from the lake, as discussed in the following section. Two herbicides were considered for use in this plan: glyphosate and fluridone. Glyphosate will be used for continued treatment of floating-leaved plants and some shoreline emergent plants. Fluridone may be used for control of swollen bladderwort. The specific application strategy will be discussed in greater detail in the following section. Glyphosate was selected for continued control of floating leaved aquatic plants because the LMD has been satisfied with results of glyphosate applications over the past 10 years. Fluridone was selected because it is one of the few approved herbicides that is known to be effective for treating bladderwort; and recent treatments in nearby Lake Limerick, in Mason County seem to have been effective. Both glyphosate and fluridone are approved for aquatic use in both Washington State and Thurston County. Glyphosate is conditionally approved in Thurston County because there is a perceived high potential hazard for human toxicity and a moderate potential hazard for aquatic toxicity and environmental persistence hazard. In contrast, EPA characterizes glyphosate as slightly to moderately toxic to humans. Fluridone is approved for use in Thurston County because of its relatively low toxicity to mammals and aquatic life. Glyphosate is relatively inexpensive with application costs around $250 per acre. Fluridone is more expensive because an effective concentration needs to be maintained throughout the entire lake for 6 to 8 weeks. The cost of a fluridone application to Barnes Lake would likely be about $12,000 for treatment of the entire open water area (Terry McNabb, Aquatechnex, personal communication, December 2015).

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 55

13. INTEGRATED TREATMENT PLAN

The 2016 treatment plan includes an integrated approach to controlling nuisance aquatic vegetation to a low enough level to not impact recreation or wildlife. This plan is not designed with a goal to eradicate nonnative species based on the difficultly with meeting that goal over the past 7 years. Barnes Lake and its associated shoreline contain several listed noxious weed species for which control measures are needed to halt the spread of their invasions and reverse the degradation currently occurring. The two primary-target weed species are fragrant waterlily and swollen bladderwort. Noxious shoreline emergent plants (reed canarygrass, yellow flag iris, and nightshade) will also be treated where they are observed during waterlily treatment. Finally, spatterdock and watershield are two native floating leaved plants that will be targeted, if large stands are observed during treatment of fragrant waterlily, and if they are not located within the conservation areas. The plan includes the following elements: • Noxious and Native Floating-Leaved Plants – Treat all white waterlily and large stands of native floating leaved plants (spatterdock and watershield) outside conservation areas once every 2 years with glyphosate to maintain recreational access to open water habitat. • Noxious and Native Emergent Plants – Treat emergent noxious weeds (reed canarygrass, yellow flag iris, purple loosestrife, and nightshade) with glyphosate once every 2 years when observed during waterlily treatment to eradicate or keep populations low. Treat native emergent plants (smartweed, willow, and cattails) at a few locations where they interfere with lake access, as determined by residents. • Noxious Submerged Plants – Remove swollen bladderwort by raking, keeping abundance at a level that does not negatively impact the usability of the lake. If acceptable control cannot be achieved by raking, then treat the entire open water area with fluridone using the sustained low dose method. If the lake becomes infested by another noxious submerged plant such as Eurasian water milfoil or Brazilian elodea, then use hand-pulling or an herbicide to eradicate the infestation. • Floating Waterlily Mats – Tow floating mats to a nearby island with a boat and secure them to the island using hemp rope that will eventually degrade, but persist long enough for the mat to attach to the island from emergent plant growth. Dependent upon additional funding, remove floating waterlily mats and lake sediments in selected areas covering a total area of approximately 1 acre to improve access to deeper waters of the lake. It is often the goal of IAVMPs to eradicate invasive species and cease herbicide treatments, allowing the native plant community to self-manage. It is unlikely that this will be possible for Barnes Lake because it is shallow, highly productive, and extensively populated by multiple invasive species. Left alone, it is likely that floating leaved plants would recolonize the treated areas to a level that once again limits recreational use. Therefore, the goal of this IAVMP is to establish a maintenance level of control to meet recreational goals with an

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 57

integrated approach that minimizes the use of herbicides to reduce the potential impacts of chemical inputs to the lake, and keep costs as low as possible. Preliminary costs for three levels of control were presented to the BLMD Steering Committee at a meeting on October 7, 2015 (Table 6). Total annual costs were estimated at $11,000 for the low level, $98,500 for the medium level, and $136,375 for the high level. The LMD currently has a budget of $17,305 for aquatic vegetation management in 2016.

Table 6. Preliminary Costs of Alternative Control Levels for the BLMD Steering Committee Meeting on October 7, 2015.

Due to the high fertility of Barnes Lake, multiple vegetation management needs, and the cost of effective treatment options, the full level of control desired by the LMD cannot be achieved within the current budget. The treatment plan described below works within the LMD’s current budget to provide a reasonable level of plant control that is in line with the vegetation management priorities of the LMD. Specifically, the plan emphasizes floating- leaved plant control because the LMD has expressly requested that annual herbicide treatments continue over the maximum allowable extent of the littoral zone. The remaining available budget will be allocated towards emergent plant control, bladderwort control, plant surveys, water quality monitoring, public outreach, and administration. The four components of the treatment plan are separately described below. This represents a base plan that works within the current LMD budget. At some point the LMD may opt to allocate more resources towards plant management. Options for higher levels of control are also described that may be performed in addition to the base plan if more fund funds are available. Base plan and option costs are outlined in Section 15 (Plan Elements Costs and Funding).

April 2016 58 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

13.1. FLOATING-LEAVED PLANT MANAGEMENT

Maintaining the recreational uses and conserving valuable habitat drive the strategy for floating leaved plant management in Barnes Lake. When the 2007 IAVMP was developed, fragrant waterlily was the dominant aquatic plant species. It grew in large, monotypic stands often to the exclusion of other plant species. Its growth was so abundant and dense that it limited recreational use of the lake and degraded habitat for fish, mammals and birds. The goal of the 2007 IAVMP was complete eradication of the fragrant waterlily. Repeated, seasonal applications of glyphosate have reduced fragrant waterlily populations to low levels, however it is clear that eradication is not possible. In some areas native floating leaved plants (e.g., spatterdock and watershield) have recolonized areas where fragrant waterlily was once abundant. This is not necessarily bad, since these are more desirable native plants. However they do pose some of the same problems that the fragrant waterlily did, and need to be controlled. Sustained control is the management objective for fragrant waterlily and native floating leaved plants. Treatment will focus on maintaining the open area at the center of the lake, and several access pathways to the shoreline (see Figure 4). The desired level of control will be achieved through biennial herbicide treatments. All floating leaved plants will be sprayed within the treatment zones indicated on Figure 4. None of the native plants will be sprayed within the conservation areas that represent 40 percent of the littoral zone. All fragrant waterlilies will be sprayed where they are identified and accessible. Glyphosate was selected in 2007, and continues to be the herbicide of choice for fragrant waterlily and native floating-leaved plant treatment because of its effectiveness, low cost, and minimal environmental impact. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide that is absorbed by foliage and passed throughout the plant. Since it kills the rhizomes, it results in long-term control of the plant community. This herbicide has low toxicity to bottom-dwelling organisms, fish, birds, and other mammals and dissipates quickly; therefore it is considered to have a low environmental impact. Glyphosate can also be used to control plants inside of lake residents’ docks, providing easier access from the shoreline properties to open areas in the center of the lake. The cost of using glyphosate typically ranges from $250 to $350 per acre treated if at least 10 acres are treated. The treatment area in Barnes Lake varies depending upon the extent of plant coverage, but has recently been about 10 acres. Treatment of this area is estimated to cost approximately $6,000 in treatment years based on two treatments of 10 acres at $300/acre. Since treatment will occur annually, this results in an annual cost of about $6,000. For smaller treatment areas this unit cost does not apply because most applicators charge a minimum fee to cover costs such as public notification and plant surveys. The LMD may consider a higher level of control using dredging equipment for controlling floating-leaved plants over approximately 5 acres of the lake in an effort to deepen pathways from the shoreline to deeper waters of the lake. This option would also reduce floating rhizome mat production because the entire vegetative and root tissues of the plants would be removed, and would include removal of any residual floating mats. The dredging method is discussed further in the floating mat removal subsection below.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 59

13.2. EMERGENT PLANT MANAGEMENT

13.2.1. Noxious Emergent Plants

Reed canarygrass, yellow flag iris, and nightshade will continue to be controlled with glyphosate. Similar to the fragrant waterlily treatment strategy, the treatment level goal will be sustained control. The 2007 IAVMP called for complete eradication of the noxious emergent plants present at Barnes Lake, but this could not be achieved at the prescribed level of effort. Low lake water levels, sometimes made the plants difficult or impossible to access for treatment. Some shoreline residents also requested that herbicides not be used on their respective shoreline reaches. Even though eradication was not possible, the level of control achieved over the past few years is satisfactory to lake residents. Shoreline emergent plants will be treated twice during each summer using glyphosate herbicide, concurrent with fragrant waterlily treatments. The annual cost to treat invasive reed canarygrass, and yellow flag iris may be highly variable, but is not estimated to incur substantial additional costs above that estimated for the floating leaved plant treatments. Herbicide treatment will be applied by a licensed applicator under the strict requirements of the Ecology permit (Ecology 2015b). To adequately treat these plants, the contractor will need access to all interested lake front properties to conduct a survey and provide treatments, as necessary. The LMD Steering Committee will contact LMD members requesting permission for the contractor to enter the individual lake front properties. There are also some limitations imposed by the permit regarding the treatment of shoreline plants, as specified in Section 1 (A)(2)(d) of the permit (Ecology 2015b). Essentially, the permit allows for treatment of no more than 40 percent of emergent shoreline plants on individual lots. Lake residents will also be educated on what they can do to help make treatments more effective, and to prevent further spread of noxious emergent plants. Many people are under the impression that hand removal of emergent weeds can slow their spread. This is true, however if it is not done correctly, for plants like yellow flag iris, it can result in unintentional propagation of the plant. Current information indicates that the most effective way to remove these plants is with a glyphosate-based herbicide. Lake residents will be also advised to not cut yellow flag iris before treatment. Although cutting iris does not carry the same risks of unintentional propagation as pulling, it can reduce the effectiveness of herbicide treatments. The more surface area on the plant, the greater the absorption of the herbicide and the more effective the treatment. The cost for treating noxious shoreline emergent plants is expected to be fairly minimal, and is expected to add an additional $500 to the cost estimate of floating-leaved plant control.

13.2.2. Native Emergent Plants

Native emergent plants such as, smartweed, willow, and cattails are currently reducing beneficial uses in the lake in a few locations. Cattails are found on each of the established islands as well as along the shorelines. Herbaceous plants found along the shorelines, such as willow and alder, also contribute to the reduction in beneficial uses for the lake residents. These plants have begun to encroach into the lake’s littoral zone and are starting to impede

April 2016 60 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

resident access. The cattails, willow, and alder are also accelerating filling of the littoral zone. This is occurring due to two mechanisms: through trapping sediment in the water column and their annual contribution of material to the lake bottom through plant decay. The selected strategy to control native emergent plants is to use glyphosate to control them in areas where lake access, beneficial uses, and aesthetic values are being impaired while leaving a buffer zone of emergent plants to support fish and wildlife habitat. Prior to treatment, a detailed aquatic plant survey and GPS mapping effort would be conducted to identify the overall abundance and density of the emergent plant species in the lake and areas where their presence is impairing beneficial use of the lake. Glyphosate would be applied only to sections of the lake where the native vegetation is impeding access, and will not be applied in the conservancy areas. The acceptable treatment areas will be determined by the City of Tumwater, the LMD Steering Committee, and Ecology by comparing a current plant survey with prior qualitative survey results. Where native emergents are restricting access to the lake in front of residents’ homes, glyphosate can be used to maintain access for views, non-motorized boating, and swimming. This control will not occur unless specific permission is obtained from the property owners. Controlling the native emergents should take place at the same time the floating-leaved plants are treated (i.e., twice per summer, on a biennial basis). Areas where glyphosate will be used should be flagged prior to treatment. Care should be taken by the applicators to avoid collateral damage to non-targeted native vegetation. The applicator should cover desirable plants adjacent to treatment areas to minimize damage to non-target vegetation. Areas with State-listed sensitive plants, if any arise, should be identified and placed off limits prior to control of emergent vegetation. Spot control of targeted native emergents using glyphosate is likely to last up to 3 years before they grow back and re-treatment is necessary. It is estimated that up to 1 acre of native emergent plants will be sprayed in a treatment season at an approximate cost of approximately $500 and will take place every 2 years, as needed, during the permitted period. This cost may be defrayed through private contracts with lakeside residents.

13.3. NOXIOUS SUBMERGED WEEDS

Swollen bladderwort is a relatively new invasive aquatic plant species in Washington, and there is not much precedent for treatment. Therefore, the strategies that will be used in Barnes Lake are somewhat experimental and may need to be adjusted to achieve the desired results. The goal of treatment will be to control bladderwort to a level where it doesn’t limit the beneficial uses of the Lake because complete eradication would be extremely difficult. At this point, the risks, and almost certain impacts to the native plant community, of chemical control methods for bladderwort in Barnes Lake do not outweigh the potential benefits. Raking will be attempted first, to see if an acceptable level of control can be reached without resorting to chemical treatments. If raking cannot produce satisfactory results, then whole-lake treatments using the herbicide fluridone may be attempted. Currently, there is no budget available for bladderwort control by a contractor using either the raking or fluridone method. Therefore, a limited amount of control may be performed by lakeside residents using the raking method at no cost to the LMD. In addition, the LMD may seek additional funding for swollen bladderwort control, or use some of the current budget allocated for controlling floating leaved plants.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 61

A new infestation of another noxious submerged weed (e.g., Eurasian watermilfoil or Brazilian elodea) if discovered in Barnes Lake may require additional methods and resources to eradicate the new infestation before it invades other parts of the lake. The control method may vary depending on the extent of the infestation. Hand-pulling is effective for small infestations, while herbicide treatment are be more cost-effective needed for large infestations. A strategy should be developed depending on the species and extent of the infestation. Resources allocated for swollen bladderwort control or other management activities may be diverted to eradication of a new infestation to ensure success.

13.3.1. Raking

Bladderwort, because it is a free floating macropyhyte, may be easily pulled or raked. This is especially true when it is flowering, and the flower stalks extend above the surface (J. Parsons, Washington Department of Ecology Botanist, personal communication, November 2015). It is thought that an acceptable level of control that keeps bladderwort from impacting beneficial uses can be achieved by raking. Raking is not a preferred method for removing some aquatic plants like Eurasian watermilfoil due to concerns over fragmentation. Since bladderwort is free floating and already exists throughout the lake, spreading by fragmentation is not a concern. Raking will need to be conducted for at least one season to determine the level of effort and associated cost to keep bladderwort populations at an acceptable level. Bladderwort will be raked first when it flowers in late May, and then throughout the season as needed. When the bladderwort is flowering in late May, this is the best time to rake and to remove as much biomass from the lake as possible. The method below describes the process as it would be executed by a three-person team with one boat; the minimum that would be needed for the first raking period. The described method can easily be scaled up and modified to accommodate a larger crew for maximum productivity and efficiency. A two-person crew in a stable boat or barge (boat crew) would use an aquatic plant rake (e.g., “the lake rake”) to pull bladderwort. The pulled bladderwort would be hauled into the boat. The boat would be loaded with as much plant material as can safely be carried, and brought to shore. Once the shoreline is reached, the material would be offloaded. The boat crew would return to pulling bladderwort. Meanwhile, a person on the shore (shore crew) would load the deposited plant material onto a truck either by hand, or using a small front loader such a skid-steer. The material would then be trucked to Thurston County Waste and Recovery Center where it would be composted or disposed of properly. Periodic raking of bladderwort will probably be needed to keep bladderwort levels low. This would best be accomplished on an as-needed basis, and is not expected to be needed more than three times per year. The need for raking is probably best determined by a lakeside resident who can consistently monitor the bladderwort growth and address problems in a timely manner. Raking is relatively labor intensive, but can be performed by any able-bodied person. The cost of raking is not well defined due to variable labor costs and uncertain plant growth habits. For the first raking event, a large crew is recommended to make sure that as much plant material as possible is removed in a reasonable amount of time. A volunteer labor crew, youth conservation group, or community restitution crew are options for a cost-effective team. If volunteer or untrained crews are used, it is recommended that a consultant or contractor, trained in aquatic plant management, is onsite to oversee the operation. For ongoing

April 2016 62 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

bladderwort management throughout the summer, employing a trained high school student could be relatively inexpensive. The total cost to control bladderwort by raking is difficult to estimate, but it is likely that raking and disposal costs would probably be around $4,000 to $10,000 per year, including plant disposal costs to achieve a reasonable level of control.

13.3.1.1. Fluridone

If after a year or two, raking does not produce satisfactory reductions in swollen bladderwort populations, then a fluridone herbicide may be used. Based on relatively little local experience, fluridone is the preferred herbicide for controlling swollen bladderwort, and a single treatment can provide at least 2 years of control. As described above, fluridone is a non-selective systemic herbicide. Fluridone treatments intended to control bladderwort are also likely to damage other plant communities in the lake. Fluridone treatment requires maintaining an effective concentration throughout the entire lake for 6 to 8 weeks. Target concentrations of fluridone for treating bladderwort are not well established. For other aquatic plants such as Brazilian elodea, a target concentration of fluridone is 20 parts per billion (ppb). Bladderwort is likely less hardy than Brazilian elodea and might be effectively treated with a lower concentration. Using the lowest effective concentration is recommended to prevent damaging native plants as much as possible. The effective target concentration will be established by sending samples of bladderwort recovered from Barnes Lake to SePro Corporation (the producers of Sonar AS and Genesis). They will perform an assay where they will subject the plants to different concentrations of fluridone so that they can make dosage recommendations specific to plants in Barnes Lake. During vigorous growth in late spring, a state licensed herbicide applicator will treat the lake with fluridone to reach the target concentration established through the bio-assays. Following this initial treatment, the lake will be treated twice again at about 2-week intervals to bring the concentration back up to the target concentration. The contractor will use FasTest assays to measure the fluridone concentration in the lake to determine the application amount prior to each follow-up treatment. After the third addition of fluridone, the treatment is complete and plant die-off is expected over the following weeks. There are several costs associated with fluridone treatments. The herbicide sensitivity assay costs about $750. The initial and two supplemental treatments would cost about $11,800, and the FasTest assays to assess the fluridone concentration in the lake are each about $100. Therefore the total cost for a fluridone treatment is likely to range from about $12,000 to $13,000.

13.4. FLOATING MAT MANAGEMENT

Removal of rhizome mats has been a large task in previous years. It has also been difficult to find an affordable, desirable solution for dealing with the mats. Because fragrant waterlilies have been maintained at a low level for the last few years, it is thought that most of the rhizome mats attributable to fragrant waterlily have already floated and decomposed and, therefore, will not be a significant problem in the coming years. Watershield does not have the same large rhizome structure that fragrant waterlily does, so floating mats are not as much of a problem with this species. Decomposing spatterdock rhizomes can result in similar

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 63

floating mats as fragrant waterlily, but since there is a relatively low abundance of spatterdock in the treatment areas, it is not expected to be a problem. Should only a small number of rhizome mats arise, they will be incorporated into one of the existing islands, rather than be removed from the lake or broken up by hydrojetting. When a sizeable mat is observed, it will be pushed or towed by a boat to one of the existing islands. A proposed location for deposit of rhizome mats is the offshore edge of the southeast island, as shown in Figure 5. Wooden stakes will be placed in both the island and the rhizome mat. A hemp or other natural fiber rope will tightly attach the mat to the island, so that wind and wave action will not dislodge it. Ultimately, the mat may sink or emergent vegetation may permanently attach the mat to the island, and result in more shoreline habitat. The stakes and rope will degrade over time, so they do not have to be removed. The cost for floating mat management is estimated to be $1,000 per year.

Proposed Floating Mat Deposit Site

Figure 5. Proposed Location for Floating Rhizome Mat Deposit. Should more extensive problems with rhizome mats occur, other solutions will need to be considered. There is currently no viable option for shore disposal or long-term staging for material removed from the Lake. As a result, any option will need to consider shore staging, transportation, and disposal costs. Hydrojetting has been used in the past as a low-cost option for rhizome mat management. High-pressure water is used to break up the mats and dislodge the decaying material. The smaller pieces either sink or drift to shore. This option was not considered for this plan due to concerns about the potential impacts to water quality and because residents have been unhappy with the decaying debris washing up on the shoreline. Dredging is a potential solution for removing rhizome mats from the lake at a higher level of control and cost than the planned island deposit method. This option may also be used to

April 2016 64 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

remove mats before they have a chance to float to the surface and cause problems, and to increase water depth for access from shore to deeper waters. Two alternative dredging methods considered and described below include the Aquamog and DinoSix. A shore staging area for dewatering and storage of dredging materials is not currently available, and would need to be identified for either method.

13.4.1. Aquamog Dredging

The Aquamog is owned and operated by Aquatic Environments, Inc. of California. The Aquamog has many configurations, but the one most suitable for removing sediment and rhizome mats is essentially a toothed clamshell bucket on a dredge-mounted excavator arm. Material removed by the Aquamog may be loaded onto a small barge or directly deposited on shore, and then offloaded into a truck where it would be hauled off site. Dredging using the Aquamog machine is expensive. An estimate obtained for Aquamog indicated that dredging 2 feet of material from the lake bottom would cost approximately $45,000 per acre not including hauling and disposal cost, which often doubles the project cost according to the Aquatic Environments representative. The amount of material removed from a depth of 2 feet in 1 acre is equivalent to 3,227 cubic yards. The Aquamog machine works at a rate of about 1 acre every 2 weeks. The cost of planning and obtaining permits needed to perform this type of work is estimated to be about $10,000. Thus, the total cost for dredging and disposal of 3,227 cubic yards from 1 acre is estimated to be approximately $100,000.

13.4.2. DinoSix Dredging

In 2014, the LMD obtained a cost estimate from Sediment Removal Solutions of Michigan for removing approximately floating rhizome mats using a DinoSix. The DinoSix is a hydraulic dredge with a rotating cutterhead. The DinoSix pumps the dredged material directly into a 105-foot by 25-foot geotextile bag located on shore. The bag needs to be placed on a flat surface and would fill to a height of approximately 3 feet, containing approximately 3,000 cubic yards of material and representing approximately 2 feet of material from 1 acre. The bag needs to be drained for a period of 3 to 4 months before the dry material can be removed from the bags and hauled off site. It was estimated by Sediment Removal Solutions that the geotextile bag would be filled in 5 days at a cost of approximately $30,000. Assuming an equivalent cost for disposal and $10,000 for planning and permitting, the total cost for dredging and disposal of approximately 3,000 cubic yards from 1 acre with the DinoSix is estimated to be approximately $70,000. The DinoSix is recommended over the Aquamog for dredging due to the lower cost. In addition, the DinoSix is expected to have fewer water quality impacts during hydraulic dredging than mechanical removal by the Aquamog.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 65

14. PUBLIC OUTREACH

The public outreach program for Barnes Lake consists of three parts; the exotic plant prevention plan (under development), lakeside stewardship education, and watershed protection/pollution prevention for protecting the lakes' water quality.

14.1. EXOTIC PLANT PREVENTION

All watershed residents should be sent copies of an exotic plant prevention brochure. A group of lake homeowners should be trained to identify invasive plants and perform periodic volunteer surveys of the lakeshore. There are a number of other nonnative plants that are more destructive and difficult to control than the fragrant waterlily currently in Barnes Lake. Other nonnative, highly invasive plants of concern that are already present in Washington State include Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), parrotfeather (Myriophyllum aquaticum), Brazilian elodea (Egeria densa), hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana), and water hyacinth (Eichhorinia crassipes). These plants grow in the littoral zones of lakes, ponds, or rivers. A pro-active program to prevent their introduction or detect them before they become widespread is critical. Shoreline (emergent) noxious plants are also destructive and difficult to control. Examples of these plants include yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and garden loosestrife (Lysimachia vulgaris). To be effective this program should include both a source control component (prevention) and a detection program. The objective of source control is to prevent nonnative aquatic plants from entering the lake. The objective of the detection program is to be able to quickly identify noxious plants in the lake before they become widespread and more costly to control. Lake residents should also receive informative brochures or newsletter articles on an annual basis reminding them of plant invasion problems and the importance of keeping their own properties free of such plants. It is also recommended that the lake community develop a public information campaign. Simply having volunteers hand out exotic plant identification cards for a few hours will emphasize the importance of the effort. Early detection is the next step to protect against new infestations. While an infestation is still small, there are options for control that are much less expensive than the whole-lake treatment methods. Early detection, if done properly, requires both a trained group of lake volunteers and periodic surveys to assess the plant community. The main purpose of these surveys is to search for nonnative aquatic plants. However, it will also provide a means for monitoring the native plant communities and determining where future control efforts should be focused. Volunteers would be trained each year in plant identification and survey techniques and each would be given the responsibility for surveying a certain section of shoreline once a month during the growing season. Their purpose would be to note any substantial changes in the plant community and to look for new invasions of nuisance species.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 67

The primary advantage of controlling small infestations is that it reduces the chance that a large area would need to be controlled by a more intensive and expensive technique. Drawbacks of controlling small infestations are the high costs associated with hand pulling. Costs for hand pulling by contract divers range from $500 to $2,500 per day depending upon plant type, acreage, and density. Although the volunteer survey program should have no long- term cost, an annual training workshop is recommended at a cost of approximately $5,000 if sufficient funds are available. If possible, this workshop should be repeated in the spring of each year to train new volunteers on exotic plant survey and removal, and address past and planned treatments by the contractor as described below for lakeside stewardship education. The exotic plant control plan complements the plan for the eradication of fragrant waterlily. The surveys would be relied upon to detect new infestations of existing noxious weeds and allow immediate removal of the plants. If another exotic plant is found, immediate action should be taken and a survey should be planned for later in the same year to ensure there were no surviving colonies. If the area infested is too large to control by hand pulling, or if after two follow-up surveys the exotic plant is still found, bottom barriers would be placed in all areas where the plant was detected. Treatment with herbicide is recommended as a final resort if these efforts do not result in eradication of a new exotic plant infestation. These additional surveys, bottom barrier installation, and herbicide treatments are contingency elements to the overall aquatic plant control plan for the lake.

14.2. LAKESIDE STEWARDSHIP EDUCATION

Each lakeside resident should be provided with educational material about how to reduce the amount of pollutants entering the lake from their property, as well as about things they should do to help retain a complex, diverse, and therefore healthier lake environment. Lakeside property owners should be provided with information about problems associated with typical urban type landscapes around lake shorelines. This should include information on the drawbacks of using ornamental turf (lawns), and the benefits of adding shoreline plants and diversified lawn plantings which create habitat structure for birds and wildlife. Some important considerations for proper stewardship of lakeside property are described here. Informative brochures or newsletter articles should be used to educate lakeside property owners about best management practices (BMPs). Some examples of stewardship ideas include: • Encourage native plants and grasses for landscaped areas in nearshore zones to decrease the amount of fertilizers, pesticides, and other pollutants entering the water body. • Establish a "pollutant free zone" within 50 feet of the shoreline. Try to keep all pollutants; private herbicide applications, painting projects, landscape fertilizers, and etc., away from this zone. • Plant a shoreline buffer of shrubs and tall grasses, preferably native species. This one small activity will cause multiple environmental benefits. If properly designed, it will keep geese and other waterfowl from moving onto lawn areas. The vegetation will help filter out pollutants from landscaped areas before they reach the lake. It will

April 2016 68 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

provide protection from shoreline erosion, and it will provide habitat for the many wildlife species that utilize nearshore areas. • Preserve natural "structure" that exists along the shoreline and in the shallow nearshore area, or if necessary, clean up only a narrow strip alongside the dock area. If a tree along the shoreline finally falls in, leave it. Add structure in the form of tree tops, twig bundles, and rocks to diversify and naturalize the nearshore area and attract more fish and wildlife. • Allow emergent vegetation and other plants to colonize some portion of waterfront area. Public education and involvement should also include volunteer workshops described above for exotic plant prevention. In the spring of each year, the Steering Committee should participate with other potential volunteers in a half-day workshop to describe plant survey results from the past year, the plant control strategy for the present year (e.g., when, where, and what control measures will be used), and review exotic plant identification and removal techniques. During the workshop, a schedule should be agreed upon for volunteer surveys and removal of new exotic plants species. At this time everyone should be trained or retrained on plant identification, survey, and removal techniques. Since much lake related public education information is already contained in available brochures, there is little cost associated with developing the information. A $500 per year cost has been included for development and reproduction of brochures, with an additional $250 for mailing and postage.

14.3. WATERSHED PROTECTION/POLLUTION PREVENTION

Over the long term, the quality of Barnes Lake may be most impacted by development activity in the watershed. Recommendation of watershed protection measures is beyond the scope of this plan; however lake residents should be aware of the potential impacts and take a pro-active role to ensure protection of their lake. Lake residents need to monitor watershed related activities to ensure that appropriate BMPs are being carried out in nearby commercial and residential developments. This should include; tracking where activities are occurring, reviewing permit applications to ensure proper BMPs have been included, reporting violations to permit conditions or water quality standards, and generally keeping informed about the watershed problems.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 69

15. PLAN ELEMENTS, COSTS, AND FUNDING

Table 7 outlines the tasks and estimated costs of implementation of the basic plant control plan on an annual basis. Implementation of this plan will span the permitting period of 5 years, at a total estimated cost of $86,500. As additions are made to the management program, this plan will be updated to reflect the new information and budget forecast.

Table 7. Barnes Lake Basic IAVMP Implementation Budget for 2016–2020.

Annual Task 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Average Plant Survey $0 $2,925 $0 $2,925 $0 $5,850 $1,170 Floating-Leaved Plant $4,975 $6,000 $4,975 $6,000 $4,875 $26,825 $5,365 Treatment Emergent Plant Treatment $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $2,500 $500 Floating Mat Management $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $2,000 $400 Water Quality Monitoring $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $15,000 $3,000 Annual Report $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $12,500 $2,500 Public Outreach $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $2,500 $500 Printing Costs $350 $350 $250 $250 $250 $1,450 $290 Administration and $1,900 $1,950 $2,000 $2,050 $2,100 $10,000 $2,000 Miscellaneous Total $15,725 $15,725 $15,725 $15,725 $15,725 $78,625 $15,725 Contingency/Inflation $1,575 $1,575 $1,575 $1,575 $1,575 $7,875 $1,575 (10%) Grand Total $17,300 $17,300 $17,300 $17,300 $17,300 $86,500 $17,300 Survey/Treatment/Monitor $12,050 $12,000 $12,050 $12,000 $11,950 $60,050 $12,010 Contingency Subtotal Report/ Outreach/ $5,250 $5,300 $5,250 $5,300 $5,350 $26,450 $5,290 Admin. Subtotal

Table 8 provides cost estimates for options of more detailed plant surveys, swollen bladderwort control, and floating mat/sediment dredging that may be added to the basic plan presented in Table 7.

Table 8. Barnes Lake IAVMP Additional Option Costs.

Recommended Item Event Cost Frequency Five-Year Cost Detailed Plant Survey (mapping of the $10,000 Every other year $20,000 distribution and density of all plant species) Volunteer Training Workshop $5,000 Every year $25,000 Lake-Wide Bladderwort Raking $4,000 to $8000 Every year $20,000 to $40,000 Bladderwort Fluridone Treatment $12,500 Every other year $25,000 Dino Six Sediment Dredging (1 acre) $70,000 Every 10 years $70,000

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 71

15.1. SOURCE OF FUNDING

Beginning in 2006, the LMD began to collect assessments for project implementation. These assessments are the primary source of funding available for lake management activities. While the bulk of the funding will continue to come from this source, the City of Tumwater provides management oversight and other mechanisms to ensure funding for treatments are available to the LMD. Additionally, grant funding may become available for activities relating to education, outreach, and clean-up activities. Volunteer labor from LMD residents may also be utilized to help control costs of vegetation management. The following sections discuss sources of funding for aquatic plant control related activities. It is important to understand that the Barnes Lake LMD is the only group that funds large-scale annual plant control and water quality monitoring. Public agencies are not currently funding these annual activities and the LMD has been collecting assessments for this work since 2006.

15.1.1. Barnes Lake Management District Assessments

Barnes Lake LMD members are assessed an annual fee which is used to fund lake management activities. Public hearings were conducted during the formation of the management district to determine member support for the formation and assessment fees. The LMD has been in existence since 2005 and is authorized to exist for 30 years, expiring in December 2035. Under Resolution R2005-013, approved by the Tumwater City Council on April 19, 2005, the roll of rates and charges was authorized, assessing each property in the management district a fee based on the property’s classification (Table 9).

Table 9. Existing Barnes LMD Annual Assessment Schedule.

Total Revenue Property Class Rate No. of Properties Per Class Residential w/Frontage $240 26 $6,240 Undeveloped Residential w/Frontage $120 3 $360 Public/Commercial $480 3 $1,440 Condo w/View $192 21 $4,032 Condo w/o View $96 50 $4,800 Residential w/View $77 5 $385 Undeveloped Residential w/View $48 1 $48 Totals 109 $17,305

Some areas of the lake (e.g., lands covered by water or parcels used exclusively for private roads or utilities) are exempt from LMD fees. The LMD currently collects approximately $17,305 in assessments each year to fund lake management activities. Approximately half of these funds is used for aquatic plant survey and treatment, and the remaining half is used for reporting, water quality monitoring, public outreach, and administrative costs. Any funds not used in a given year are rolled over to the following year and are held as a contingency fund for unanticipated lake management efforts. The contingency fund was $14,645 at the end of 2015.

April 2016 72 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

The Tumwater City Council approved an ordinance that sets rates and charges for the Barnes Lake LMD. The current annual assessments collected by the LMD will fund most of the yearly plant control related activities proposed in this plan. If more funds are needed, the LMD Steering Committee has the authority to recommend raising assessment rates as needed, for the duration of the LMD. Barnes Lake is a private lake used only by lake residents and LMD members. Some members may be experienced in the organization of fund-raising activities such as raffles and benefits, which could become annual events in the area. Additionally, LMD members may make private donations to further the goals of the LMD or support special projects, as deemed appropriate by the LMD Steering Committee. These options represent additional potential sources of funding for lake management activities.

15.1.2. Grants

As Barnes Lake is a private lake, there are currently no state grant options for funding management activities. In the event members opt to open the lake to public use, public grants would be available through the Washington’s Aquatic Weed Management Fund (AWMF). There is a competitive process for awarding these grant funds that begins with a written application. The annual application period begins October 1 and closes on or about November 1 of each year. Workshops are held before or during the application period to explain the application process and general program requirements. Application guidelines, criteria, and other information about this program are detailed on Ecology’s Aquatic Plants and Lakes website, under Aquatic Weed Grants. Limits have been set on the size of grants that are available. • The maximum grant amount for general aquatic weed management is $75,000. • Local match requirement of 25 percent, this equates to a project cost of $100,000. • Planning grants are limited to $30,000. With the local match requirement, this equates to a project cost of $40,000. • The maximum grant amount for early infestation grants is $50,000. Limits have also been set on the amount of funds available to each public body during each funding cycle. The ceiling amount per public body is $75,000 for general aquatic weed management projects and $75,000 for early infestation projects. Funding for implementation of an IAVMP is expected to be used over a 5- to 10-year period and does not occur annually.

15.1.3. Matching Funds

The City of Tumwater does not provide matching funds to the private Lake Management District, but does provide project administration and staff support. The City charges the LMD $1,440 annually for assessment collection and account management, which is part of the administration and miscellaneous cost presented in Table 7. Currently, there is no charge for services provided by City staff for their extensive support and technical expertise. The City reviews these charges every 2 years as part of its regular budget cycle, and increases may be incurred at any time.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 73

16. EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

Several different plant control-related monitoring and evaluation needs are identified for Barnes Lake. These include: • Plant surveys • Water quality monitoring • Annual evaluation of lake management activities. These evaluation activities are described separately below, followed by an implementation plan for the 2016 IAVMP.

16.1. AQUATIC PLANT SURVEYS

Ongoing surveys and mapping will be necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment strategies and to inform future treatments, and detect infestations by new invading plants. Based on the experience of the past 8 years, it is clear that the plant community in Barnes Lake is in flux. It is critical that frequent and thorough surveys be conducted to document these changes and to detect new problems. A GPS/GIS survey and mapping effort will be performed by the treatment contractor once every 2 years as a regular component of the long-term surveillance and treatment program. In addition, it is recommended that the contractor provide a map of all treatment areas for each treatment year. Ideally, this survey effort would identify all plant species present in the lake, and their relative abundance at each location. However, the limited budget will only allow for basic plant species observations and overall plant density observations as performed in 2015. Additional surveys may also be performed by the contractor to map the treatment area and assess the effectiveness of the treatment efforts. Surveys just before and several weeks after herbicide applications may be used to determine the immediate effectiveness of the treatments. Aquatic plant maps and an explanatory report should be prepared and provided to the residents of Barnes Lake as part of an education and awareness program. It is recommended that a detailed survey of all the plant communities be incorporated into the noxious/nuisance and emergent vegetation survey efforts. This detailed survey would include mapping of the density and distribution of all aquatic plant species. A detailed survey at the peak of the growing season in late August or September may be used to assess plant recovery and help plan treatment needs for the following year. A detailed survey map and report is included as an additional option at a cost of approximately $10,000 to be implemented if funding is available (see Table 8).

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 75

16.2. WATER QUALITY MONITORING

The Ecology permit only requires monitoring of dissolved oxygen immediately before herbicide treatment and between 7 and 14 days after treatment. This water quality monitoring is to occur at the surface and bottom of the lake at two stations located in the center and at the edge of the treatment area(s), and is to occur at the same time of day for pre- and post-treatment monitoring. This monitoring will be conducted by the herbicide applicator and that expense is included in the treatment cost estimate. Monitoring for herbicide residues is not required by the Ecology permit. Monitoring for glyphosate residue is not necessary and will not be conducted. Monitoring of fluridone residue is necessary to determine follow-up treatment amounts, and it will be conducted by the contractor at an expense included in the treatment cost estimate. Water quality monitoring by the Thurston County’s Environmental Health Department will be continued (see Section 5). The City of Tumwater will continue to contract for this monitoring to occur every 2 years beginning in 2016 at a cost of $5,000 for each monitoring year.

16.3. ANNUAL EVALUATION

A complete evaluation should be completed on an annual basis that describes which elements of the management plan have been implemented, relates the existing plant community to established goals, and makes recommendations for the next year’s activities. This evaluation should begin with a description of which elements of the plan have been fully implemented, those that have not, and why. It should also include a summary of the plant survey results, both those obtained by volunteers and those by professionals. These results should be used to determine whether goals have been met. The community should also be asked for input on their satisfaction with plant and lake conditions. For example, it is possible that the goals will be met, but that some people will remain dissatisfied. Although it is unlikely that the needs of all stakeholders will be met, an effort should be made to track concerns, especially if they are widespread. This information should be used to decide on the following: • Has there been a dramatic increase or decrease in the amount of nuisance plants in the lake? • Have any other noxious aquatic plants been identified? • Should other control tools (bottom barriers, for example) be considered? • Is it necessary to implement a back-up plan? • Is funding adequate for the control measures in place? Over the long-term, adequate annual evaluations can make the difference between project success and failure. It is estimated that writing an evaluation would cost approximately $2,500 per year with a summary of the report published in a newsletter (Table 5, Section 15). The herbicide applicator would be tasked with writing the treatment report.

April 2016 76 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

16.4. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

16.4.1. Year 1

Implementation for the Year 1 (2016) of this IAVMP will be similar to the continued implementation of the existing 2007 IAVMP. As a result, many of the mechanisms for implementing an IAVMP are already in action. Barnes Lake residents have already secured a long-term funding source (i.e., the LMD) and established a committee to oversee plan implementation. Activities in the first year of this plan will focus directly on aquatic plant control. The LMD has decided to continue using the services of Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems for herbicide applications to control floating-leaved and emergent plants. The City of Tumwater staff should work with the LMD Steering Committee to obtain bids from contractors for management activates related to bladderwort control, which may involve coordinating volunteer or community service crews, and potentially contracting with a licensed herbicide applicator.

16.4.2. Year 2

In Year 2 (2017) and all following odd years (2019 and 2021), the herbicide treatments for fragrant waterlilies and emergent plants need to be scheduled. Permission should be obtained from residents prior to treatment for floating-leaved or emergent plants that need to be sprayed from the shoreline.

16.4.3. Swollen Bladderwort Control Option

Swollen bladderwort control by large-scale raking or lake-wide fluridone treatment are options that may be implemented at varying levels depending on interest and available contingency funds. A raking program should include the following components: • Secure a consultant or contractor to coordinate/oversee a raking event in May • Coordinate/hire a volunteer crew to provide labor for the May raking event • Make arrangements to transport plant material to a disposal facility • Conduct additional raking events as needed, using the same crew if large amounts need removal, or using one staff or lakeshore residents to perform periodic bladderwort raking throughout the summer if only small amounts need removal The LMD will need to decide collectively whether to continue using raking as a control strategy, or whether a more impactful chemical control strategy should be utilized. If it is decided that chemical control (i.e., fluridone treatment) is necessary and desirable, the following steps are recommended: • Secure necessary permits • Hire a qualified state licensed herbicide applicator to perform and monitor the fluridone treatments

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 77

• Send samples to SePro Corp. for sensitivity assay to determine target concentration to be maintained for treatment duration • State licensed herbicide applicator will perform first application bring fluridone concentration throughout the lake

o FasTest assay will be performed after 2 weeks to determine how much fluridone needs to be added to “bump” the concentration back up to the target • State licensed herbicide applicator will add a second dose of fluridone to bring lake- wide concentrations up to the target dose

o FasTest assay will be performed after 2 weeks after the second treatment to determine how much fluridone needs to be added to “bump” the concentration back up to the target • State licensed herbicide applicator will add a third dose of fluridone to bring lake-wide concentrations up to the target dose Annual surveys and mapping of swollen bladderwort should be performed before and after the raking or fluridone treatment events. Each survey should produce a map of swollen bladderwort cover and density, the removal or treatment locations, and the amount (mass/volume) of plants removed from the lake by raking. An annual evaluation that details the raking or treatment activities should be included in the annual report.

16.4.4. Floating Mat and Sediment Dredging Option

Floating mat and sediment dredging are options that may be implemented at varying levels depending on interest and available contingency funds. A dredging program using the DinoSix equipment should include the following components: • Identify an acceptable shore site for staging equipment and storing dredged materials • Secure a consultant or contractor to develop and implement a plan for sediment dredging and disposal • Obtain all necessary permits • Prepare the shore site by leveling an area for the geotextile bag, and providing access to the lake for equipment and personnel • Survey mat locations and sediment elevations in the dredging area before dredging • Conduct sediment dredging and water quality monitoring • Survey mat locations and sediment elevations in the dredging area after dredging • Transport dewatered sediments and geotextile bag to a disposal site(s) • Restore the shore site to its original or an improved condition

April 2016 78 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

16.4.5. Ongoing Implementation

Each year the LMD Steering Committee will need to evaluate the past year’s progress. At the very least they will need to determine what management activities should be continued and/or whether herbicide treatments are necessary. The Steering Committee should also review annual evaluations from past years to determine if long-term aquatic plant management goals are being met. Other items to be considered on an annual basis include lakeside resident education and volunteer programs. The implementation of the plan will follow the process outlined below: • Review proposed plan and develop an annual work plan with specific tasks. The IAVMP will guide this process. • Assign tasks to Steering Committee members. • Issue a Request for Proposals for weed survey and control work, as necessary. After the first round of lake treatments (2 years), contracts for services should be reviewed annually. • Secure necessary permits. Permit application will be coordinated with the contracted applicator. • Develop and implement a community education plan. • Apply herbicide treatment. Application will be completed as prescribed in IAVMP, unless consultation with Ecology and the applicator leads to defensible changes in the plan. • Conduct follow-up surveys. Professional contractors and community members who have received adequate training can complete this work, with community participation under supervision of City of Tumwater staff. • Apply follow-up herbicide treatment if necessary. Follow-up surveys will determine the extent to which this work is necessary. • Conduct diver surveys and hand-pulling/raking as necessary. Professional contractors and community members who have received adequate training can complete this work, with community participation under supervision of City of Tumwater staff.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 79

17. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The Barnes Lake LMD has been active in working to control aquatic plants since its inception in 2005. This updated Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan for Barnes Lake serves as an aquatic plant management guide for lake residents and City of Tumwater for the currently authorized permitting period. The original 2007 plan was developed through a public involvement process following guidelines set by Ecology. During the plan development process lake residents reviewed plant management goals and objectives, control methods, and selected a preferred aquatic plant control strategy. This strategy was designed to address both native nuisance plants and noxious plants at the lake. The current plan was developed to update the goals, objectives, and strategy based on current lake conditions and community interest. The nonnative submerged plants at Barnes Lake impede beneficial uses such as swimming, non-motorized boating, and fishing. Native and nonnative floating leaved plants also inhibit recreational use of the lake. The noxious aquatic weeds, swollen bladderwort, fragrant waterlily, and invasive shoreline emergent plants also threaten beneficial uses and fish and wildlife habitat. Their abundance and distribution need to be continuously monitored and controlled as feasible. Without some sort of action plan, the areal coverage of these aquatic plants is likely to continue increasing and further impede beneficial uses of the lake. This 2016 IAVMP details a plan for management of the following aquatic plants: • Noxious and Native Floating-Leaved Plants – Treat all white waterlily and large stands of native floating leaved plants (spatterdock and watershield) outside conservation areas every year with glyphosate to maintain recreational access to open water habitat. • Noxious and Native Emergent Plants – Treat emergent noxious weeds (reed canarygrass, yellow flag iris, and nightshade) with glyphosate every year when observed during waterlily treatment to eradicate or keep populations low. Treat native emergent plants (smartweed, willow, and cattails) at a few locations where they interfere with lake access, as determined by residents. • Floating Waterlily Mats – Subject to property owner permission, tow floating mats to a nearby island with a boat and secure them to the island using hemp rope that will eventually degrade, but persist long enough for the mat to attach to the island from emergent plant growth. Alternatively, property owners may request mats to be towed to their shoreline for manual removal by the property owner or tenant. The aquatic plant community will be monitored every other year to evaluate general changes in the plant community and to detect the presence of new invasive species. Since the control strategy is shifting from attempted eradication to satisfactory control of noxious weeds, the presence of targeted plants such as fragrant waterlily does not alone indicate success or failure of the IAVMP to reach the desired results. Success will be largely determined by public perception of whether the desired beneficial uses of Barnes Lake are being maintained through the implementation of this IAVMP.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 81

A water quality monitoring program will be conducted every other year (when plant surveys are not conducted) to track long-term trends in water quality within the lake. Public education and awareness programs will be focused on exotic plant prevention, and providing general pollution prevention and best management practices information to lake residents. The Steering Committee and interested lake residents will be involved in development of the yearly plant control strategy and will be responsible for soliciting volunteers for surveys and plant control activities. This will ensure long-term involvement of lake residents in lake management decisions and activities. An annual report will be prepared documenting past and planned aquatic plant treatment activities, aquatic plant survey results, and public education and awareness activities. The following additional management options may be conducted depending on interest and available funding: • Detailed Plant Survey – Survey and map the distribution and density of all plant species in the lake and along the shoreline to better document plant community changes. • Volunteer Training Workshop – Educate and train lake residents about ongoing plant management activities, and how to identify and remove noxious aquatic plants. • Noxious Submerged Plant Control – Remove swollen bladderwort by raking, keeping abundance at a level that does not negatively impact the usability of the lake. If acceptable control cannot be achieved by raking, then treat the entire open water area with fluridone using the sustained low-dose method. If the lake becomes infested by another noxious submerged plant such as Eurasian watermilfoil or Brazilian elodea, then use hand-pulling or an herbicide to eradicate the infestation. • Floating Mat and Sediment Dredging – Remove floating waterlily mats and lake sediments in selected areas covering a total area of approximately 1 acre to improve access to deeper waters of the lake.

April 2016 82 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

18. REFERENCES

Bonar, S.A., B. Bolding, and M. Divens. 2002. Effects of Triploid Grass Carp on Aquatic Plants, Water Quality, and Public Satisfaction in Washington State. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:98–105. Ecology. 1994. A Citizen's Manual for Developing Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plans. First edition. Washington Department of Ecology, Water Quality Financial Assistance Program, Olympia, Washington. January 1994. Available online at: . Ecology. 2004. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Permitted Use of Triclopyr. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Publication No. 04-10-018 revised. May 2004. Available online at: . Ecology. 2011. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit. National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System and State Waste Discharge General Permit. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. February 2011. Ecology. 2015a. Aquatic Plant Management website. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Available online at: Ecology. 2015b. Draft Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit. National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System and State Waste Discharge General Permit. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. January 2015. Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems, 2007. Barnes Lake 2007 Aquatic Plant Control Program Annual Report. Prepared for Barnes Lake Improvement District by Northwest Aquatic Eco- Systems. Tumwater, Washington. 2007. Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems, 2009. Barnes Lake 2009 Aquatic Plant Control Program Annual Report. Prepared for Barnes Lake Improvement District by Northwest Aquatic Eco- Systems. Tumwater, Washington. 2009. Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems, 2010. Barnes Lake 2010 Aquatic Plant Control Program Annual Report. Prepared for Barnes Lake Improvement District by Northwest Aquatic Eco- Systems. Tumwater, Washington. 2010. Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems, 2011. Barnes Lake 2011 Aquatic Plant Control Program Annual Report. Prepared for Barnes Lake Improvement District by Northwest Aquatic Eco- Systems. Tumwater, Washington. 2011. Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems, 2012. Barnes Lake 2012 Aquatic Plant Control Program Annual Report. Prepared for Barnes Lake Improvement District by Northwest Aquatic Eco- Systems. Tumwater, Washington. 2012. Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems, 2013. Barnes Lake 2013 Aquatic Plant Control Program Annual Report. Prepared for Barnes Lake Improvement District by Northwest Aquatic Eco- Systems. Tumwater, Washington. 2013.

April 2016 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016 83

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems, 2014. Barnes Lake 2014 Aquatic Plant Control Program Annual Report. Prepared for Barnes Lake Improvement District by Northwest Aquatic Eco- Systems. Tumwater, Washington. 2014. Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems, 2015. Barnes Lake 2015 Aquatic Plant Control Program Annual Report. Prepared for Barnes Lake Improvement District by Northwest Aquatic Eco- Systems. Tumwater, Washington. 2015. Thurston County. 2013. 2013 Barnes Lake Water Quality Report. Prepared by Thurston County Environmental Health Division. Thurston County. 2013 Thurston County. 2015. Integrated Pest Management – Aquatic Herbicide Reviews website. Thurston County Public Health and Social Services, Olympia, Washington. Available online at: . Tumwater. 2007. City of Tumwater’s Barnes lake Management District Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan, 2007. City of Tumwater, Washington. 2007. WDFW. 2015. Plants and Fish, Rules for Aquatic Plant Removal and Control. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Second Edition. July 2015.

April 2016 84 Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

APPENDIX A

2013 Water Quality Monitoring Report

2013 Barnes Lake Water Quality Report Prepared by Thurston County Environmental Health Division

growth have decreased, although the lake is PART OF Budd Inlet WATERSHED still in a eutrophic condition. Dissolved oxygen has improved but is still low. LENGTH OF LAKE: 0.33 miles MAJOR ISSUES: MAXIMUM DEPTH: 10 feet . Low dissolved oxygen is an impediment GENERAL DESCRIPTION: to sustaining a fishery in this lake, although conditions have improved since Barnes Lake is located within the City of Tumwater. 2006. The approximate altitude of the lake is 156 feet. It is a very small, private lake with no surface inlet. Surface . Aquatic plant growth impairs recreational flow out of the lake occurs via a bermed outlet uses of the lake by lake residents without structure during periods of high water. on-going plant management activities.

GENERAL WATER QUALITY: (Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor) FUNDING FOR 2013 MONITORING:

Fair – Water quality has improved since 2006. The Barnes Lake – Lake Management District lake water is clearer. Nutrients levels and algae managed by the City of Tumwater.

Page 1 of 14 WATER QUALITY MONITORING METHODS

Water quality monitoring of Barnes Lake was conducted once per month from May through October 2013 as part of the Barnes Lake – Lake Management District. Barnes Lake was previously monitored for the lake management district in 2006. There was one sampling site located in open water approximately mid- lake. The lake was accessed off Lake Terrace Drive by row boat.

Field measurements were made for the following parameters: • Temperature • pH • Dissolved Oxygen • Conductivity These parameters were measured at one meter increments from the surface to the bottom of the lake using a Yellow Springs Instrument multi-parameter field instrument. Water clarity was measured using a secchi disk, which is a standard black and white quadrant disk lowered into the water until it is just visible.

Water samples were collected and analyzed for the following: • Total Phosphorus • Total Nitrogen • Chlorophyll a • Algae species (present and dominant)

The nutrients (total phosphorus and total nitrogen) were sampled near the surface and near the bottom. Bottom samples were collected using a Kemmerer sampler. Chlorophyll a and algae samples were taken as composite samples from the warm surface layer or the photic zone (the surface area where sunlight can penetrate).

MONITORING RESULTS:

Profile graphs of temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity data are shown on the following page. Barnes Lake is very shallow, less than 3 meters (10 feet) deep. Thermal stratification is when there are two distinct layers of water in the lake, a warmer upper layer and a cooler lower layer. During 2013 the lake was thermally stratified from May through August, although the difference in temperature between surface and bottom in July and August was only 2 to 3 degrees Celsius. pH and conductivity in Barnes Lake are lower than most Thurston County lakes, although pH was slightly higher in 2013 than in 2006. In 2006 the median surface pH was 6.5, and it was 7.1 in 2013.

Dissolved oxygen concentrations in Barnes Lake are low. The dissolved oxygen water quality standard for warm water fish is a lowest 1-day minimum of 6.5 mg/l. Dissolved oxygen levels in late summer and fall were between 0 and 6 mg/l throughout the water column. In spring and early summer, dissolved oxygen was slightly higher, although the highest measurement was still only 7.9 mg/l. Despite the low levels, 2013 was better than in 2006 when concentrations ranged from 0 to 5.3 with some months at extremely low levels.

Page 2 of 14

June 18, 2013 May 21, 2013 Temperature, pH, Dissolved Oxygen Temperature, pH, Dissolved Oxygen 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 0

1 1

2 2

Depth (meters) Depth (meters) 3 3 20 30 40 50 60 20 30 40 50 60 Conductivity Conductivity

TEMP pH D.O. COND TEMP pH D.O. COND

July 24, 2013 August 20, 2013

Temperature, pH, Dissolved Oxygen Temperature, pH, Dissolved Oxygen 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 0

1 1

2 2

Depth (meters) Depth (meters) 3 3 20 30 40 50 60 20 30 40 50 60 Conductivity Conductivity TEMP pH D.O. COND TEMP pH D.O. COND

September 19, 2013 October 15, 2013

Temperature, pH, Dissolved Oxygen Temperature, pH, Dissolved Oxygen 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 0

1 1

2 2

Depth (meters) Depth (meters) 3 3 20 30 40 50 60 20 30 40 50 60 70

Conductivity Conductivity

TEMP pH D.O. COND TEMP pH D.O. COND

Page 3 of 14 May 25, 2006 June 21, 2006 Temperature, pH, Dissolved Temperature, pH, Dissolved Oxygen Oxygen 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 0

1 1

2 2 Depth (meters) Depth (meters)

3 3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Conductivity Conductivity Temp pH Temp pH DO Conductivity DO Conductivity

July 26, 2006 August 16, 2006 Temperature, pH, Dissolved Oxygen Temperature, pH, Dissolved Oxygen 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 0 1 1

2 2 Depth (meters) Depth (meters) 3 3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Conductivity Conductivity Temp pH Temp pH DO Conductivity DO Conductivity

September 20, 2006 October 12, 2006

Temperature, pH, Dissolved Temperature, pH, Dissolved Oxygen Oxygen 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 0

1 1

2 2 Depth (meters) 3 Depth (meters) 3 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 Conductivity Conductivity Temp pH Temp pH DO Conductivity DO Conductivity

Page 4 of 14 WATER CLARITY

Below is a graph comparing monthly water clarity in 2006 and 2013. The water clarity in 2013 was improved over 2006. In 2013, water clarity ranged from 1.5 to 2.5 meters (5 to 8 ft), with a season average of 2.1 meters (7 ft). In 2006, water ranged from 0.6 to 1.7 meters (2 to 6 ft) with a season average of only 0.9 meters (3 ft). The accepted water clarity standard for public swimming beaches is 4 feet (1.2 meters). In 2013, the standard was met every month, which was an improvement over 2006 when it failed every month but May. Barnes Lake Water Clarity 0

-0.5

-1

-1.5 2006

meters 2013 -2

Bathing Beach Standard -2.5

-3 May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct

NUTRIENTS

The amount of nutrients, phosphorus and nitrogen, in the lake water is a major factor in the amount of algae growth in the lake. The state water quality standard for surface phosphorus in Puget Sound lowland lakes is 0.020 mg/L. A graph comparing 2006 and 2013 average phosphorus concentrations at the surface and near the bottom is shown on the next page.

In 2006, total phosphorus concentrations in surface samples averaged 0.042 milligrams per liter (mg/L). In 2013, the concentration was down to 0.025 mg/L. Phosphorus concentrations are typically higher at a lake bottom because phosphorus is stored and released from the lake sediments. 2013 bottom phosphorus concentrations were also less than half of concentrations measured in 2006, 0.032 and 0.068 respectively.

Page 5 of 14 Total Phosphorus 0.080 0.070

0.060 0.050 0.040 0.030

mg/L phosphorus 0.020

0.010 Water QualityStandard 0.000 Surface TP Bottom TP

2006 2013

While there was not as great a difference in total nitrogen levels between 2006 and 2013 as with phosphorus, it was lower in 2013. Average surface nitrogen was 0.60 mg/L in 2006 and 0.45 mg/L in 2013. Average bottom nitrogen was 0.91 mg/l in 2006, and down to 0.58 mg/L in 2013.

Total Nitrogen 1.000

0.800

0.600

0.400 mg/L nitrogen

0.200

0.000 Surface TN Bottom TN

2006 2013

Page 6 of 14 CHLOROPHYLL AND ALGAE

Chlorophyll a is the green pigment in plants and is used as a measure of the amount of algae growth in the water. In 2013 the average chlorophyll was less than half of that in 2006; 10 versus 25 µg/L (see graph below). In July, August and September of 2006, very high chlorophyll production was measured at 49, 25, and 45 µg/L. The highest concentration measured in 2013 was only14 µg/L, in July.

The algae species present and dominant in 2013 was also different from 2006, which could be a response to changes in water quality and habitat conditions. However, not enough is known about the individual algae species to draw further conclusions about the species composition difference. Chlorophyll a 30

25

20

15

10 µg/L chlorophyll µg/L chlorophyll a

5

0 2006 2013

TROPHIC STATE

The Carlson trophic state indices (TSI) are used to express the degree of productivity, or plant and algae growth, in a lake. Average summer total phosphorus and chlorophyll a concentrations and secchi disk measurements are used each used to calculate a trophic state index for each parameter. TSI from 0 to 40 indicate an oligotrophic, or low productivity, lake with clear water and little plant and algae growth. TSI of 41 to 50 indicate a mesotrophic, or moderately productive lake. TSI greater than 50 indicate a eutrophic, or highly productive lake. Characteristics of a eutrophic lake include poor water clarity and excessive aquatic plant and algae growth.

In Barnes Lake, 2013 TSI’s for chlorophyll a, total phosphorus, and secchi disk visibility were 53, 51, and 50 respectively. These are lower than 2006 indices of 62, 58, and 61, indicating an improvement in water quality. 2006 indices were all in the mid- eutrophic range. In 2013they were at or near the lower limit of the eutrophic range, indicating a reduction in nutrients and algae growth and better water clarity. On the next page is a graph comparing 2006 TSIs with 2013 TSIs.

Page 7 of 14 Barnes Lake Trophic State Indices 70 Eutrophic 60

50 Mesotrophic 40

30 Oligotrophic 20

10

0 TSI (Chl a) TSI (TP) TSI (Secchi)

2006 2013

Page 8 of 14 Thurston County Water Resources Annual Report - 2013

Barnes Lake @ Mid-lake Site ID# BUDBNL010 Date Time Bottom Bottom Sur Bott Sur Bott Secchi Chl a Phae a Water Lake Notes Depth Sample TP TP mg/L TN TN mg/L m ug/L ug/L m Depth mg/L mg/L m 05/21/2013 10:00:00 AM 2.8 2.0 0.026 0.034 0.514 0.515 2.53 3.5 2.3 #7 yellow-orange Chl a & algae composite @ 0.5 & 1.5M. 06/18/2013 10:00:00 AM 2.7 2.0 0.027 0.033 0.480 0.519 2.23 3.7 1.5 #7 yellow-orange Chl a & algae composite @ 0.5 & 1.5 M. 07/24/2013 9:30:00 AM 2.4 2.0 0.025 0.033 0.344 0.901 1.55 14 2 #7 yellow-orange Chl a & algae composite @ 0.5 & 1M. 08/20/2013 10:30:00 AM 2.6 2.0 0.027 0.040 0.401 0.480 1.91 9.1 2.5 #7 yellow-orange Chl a & algae composite @ 0.5 & 1M. 09/19/2013 8:30:00 AM 2.2 2.0 0.026 0.025 0.558 0.564 1.96 27 8.1 #7 yellow-orange Chl a & algae composite @ 0.5 & 1M. 10/15/2013 9:50:00 AM 2.7 2.0 0.018 0.024 0.398 0.488 2.20 4.8 4.2 #7 yellow-orange Chl a & algae composite @ 0.5 & 1M. Summary for 'Site Description' = Barnes Lake @ Mid-lake (6 detail records) Averages: Sur TP 0.025 Secchi 2.06 Chl a 10.4

Page 9 of 14 Thurston County Water Resources Annual Report - 2006

Barnes Lake @ Mid-lake Site ID# BUDBNL010 Date Time Bottom Bottom Sur Bott Sur Bott Secchi Chl a Phae a Water Lake Notes Depth Sample TP TP mg/L TN TN mg/L m ug/L ug/L m Depth mg/L mg/L m 05/25/2006 11:15:00 AM 3 2.5 0.029 0.037 0.485 1.440 1.75 3.2 1.8 #8 orange Chl a & algae composite @ 0.5+1.5M 06/21/2006 11:30:00 AM 3.1 2.5 0.023 0.049 0.437 0.534 1.09 15 4.9 #8 yellow-orange Chl a & algae composite @ 0.5+1.5m 07/26/2006 10:30:00 AM 2.6 2.0 0.034 0.077 0.617 0.806 0.63 49 10 #10 brown Chl a & algae composite @ 0.5 & 1 M. 08/16/2006 11:15:00 AM 2.4 2.0 0.047 0.087 0.682 0.946 0.70 25 8.9 #10 brown Chl a & algae composite @ 0.5 & 1 M. 09/20/2006 12:00:00 PM 2.2 1.5 0.065 0.079 0.730 0.889 0.57 45 6.7 #10 brown Chl a & algae composite @ 0.5 & 1M. Cloudy. 10/12/2006 10:00:00 AM 2.1 1.5 0.055 0.076 0.616 0.822 0.79 11 7.6 #10 brown Chl a & algae composite @ 0.5 & 1M. Summary for 'Site Description' = Barnes Lake @ Mid-lake (6 detail records) Averages: Sur TP 0.042 Secchi 0.92 Chl a 24.7

Page 10 of 14 Algae data: Barnes Lake @ Mid-Lake

Type Description Dominant in Sample

05/21/2013 CP Cryptomonads

DF Ceratium species

DT Diatoms species

EU Euglena species

EU Trachelomonas species

GR Ankyra species

GR Elakatothrix species

06/18/2013 BG Anacystis species

BG Microcystis species

DF Ceratium species

DT Aulacoseira species

DT Navicula species

DT Stephanodiscus niagarae

EU Trachelomonas species

GR Closterium species

GR Staurastrum species

07/24/2013 DF Ceratium species

YL Dinobryon species

08/20/2013 BG Aphanizomenon species

CP Cryptomonads

DF Ceratium species

EU Trachelomonas species

YL Dinobryon species

Barnes Lake @ Mid-Lake Page 1 of 2

Page 11 of 14 Type Description Dominant in Sample

09/19/2013 DF Ceratium species

EU Trachelomonas species

GR Kirchneriella species

GR Nephrocytium species

YL Dinobryon species

10/15/2013 BG Aphanizomenon species

CP Cryptomonads

DF Ceratium species

DT Diatoms species

EU Trachelomonas species

GR Cosmarium species

GR Elakatothrix species

GR Nephrocytium species

GR Scenedesmus species

YL Dinobryon species

Key: BG = Blue green EU = Euglenophyte CP = Cryptophyte GR = Green DF = Dinoflagellate YL = Yellow DT = Diatom

Barnes Lake @ Mid-Lake Page 2 of 2

Page 12 of 14 Algae data: Barnes Lake

Type Description Dominant in Sample

05/25/2006 BG Anabaena species

BG Coelosphaerium species

DF Ceratium species

EU Euglena species

EU Trachelomonas species

GR Ankyra judayi

GR Oocystis species

GR Sphaerocystis schroeteri

YL Dinobryon species

YL Mallomonas species 06/21/2006 CP Chroomonas species

DF Ceratium species

EU Trachelomonas species

GR Sphaerocystis schroeteri

YL Synura species 07/26/2006 BG Aphanocapsa species

BG Oscillatoriaceae species

CP Cryptomonas species

CP Rhodomonas (Pyrenomonas)s

DF Ceratium species

EU Euglena species

EU Phacus species

GR Botryococcus species

GR Closterium species

GR Palmellaceae species

YL Chrysopyte-sp

Barnes Lake Page 1 of 2

Page 13 of 14 Type Description Dominant in Sample

08/16/2006 BG Aphanocapsa species

CP Cryptomonas species

CP Rhodomonas (Pyrenomonas)s

DF Ceratium species

EU Phacus species

GR Closterium species

YL Chrysopyte-sp

YL Dinobryon species 09/20/2006 BG Anabaena species

BG Aphanocapsa species

CP Cryptomonas species

CP Rhodomonas (Pyrenomonas)s

DF Ceratium species

EU Euglena species

EU Phacus species

GR Botryococcus species

GR Closterium species

YL Chrysopyte-sp 10/12/2006 BG Aphanocapsa species

CP Cryptomonas species

DF Ceratium species

EU Euglena species

EU Phacus species

YL Chrysopyte-sp

Key: BG = Blue green EU = Euglenophyte CP = Cryptophyte GR = Green DF = Dinoflagellate YL = Yellow DT = Diatom

Barnes Lake Page 2 of 2

Page 14 of 14 APPENDIX B

2015 Barnes Lake Aquatic Plant Control Program Annual Report

Barnes Lake 2015 Aquatic Plant Control Program

Prepared by: Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 855 Trosper Road SW #108-313 Tumwater, WA 98512 360-357-3285 [email protected] www.nwaquaticecosystems.com

Prepared for:

Barnes Lake Improvement District Tumwater WA 98512

Project Overview

As has traditionally been provided, this 2015 report includes background information and historical information necessary for a reviewer to fully understand and evaluate the program’s progress since 2007. Much of the background information provided is identical to previous reports. This approach allows viewers to review only one report and obtain a thorough understanding of the Barnes Lake Management District’s goals and direction. Floating weed control operations are still ongoing. The physical removal of surfaced floating mats was terminated at the conclusion of the 2014 season. The inability to secure acceptable disposal and staging areas for the removal process terminated those efforts. Experimentation with the use of high pressure water jets to break apart the floating mats was continued into 2015. Opinions from various board members directed at the fact that water jetting did not remove sediment from the system may curtail further use of that alternative. A review of the current IAVMP and an update to the IAVMP is currently in progress and should be completed shortly.

Barnes Lake is dominated by the floating plant Nymphaea Odorata which is a Class C noxious weed in Washington State. Class C noxious weeds are not mandated by state law for control but a Class C classification allows jurisdictions to enforce control if locally desired. Local residents, with the assistance of the City of Tumwater, formed a lake management taxing district affording property owners the ability to collect funds and provide a means to financially support the group’s control effort. Since 2007, the management district has undertaken a control program utilizing chemical means to combat the noxious weed problem. As water level declines during the summer, many of these non-main lake basin bottom sediments become exposed or support shallow water depths rendering restricted access.

Control activities have resulted in the formation of floating islands that now occur lake- wide. These “floating mats” form as root biomass decays resulting in gas production that becomes trapped within the root and muck mass. If there is no means for the gas to escape, then the submerged root mat becomes buoyant, dislodges from the bottom and floats to the surface. Once free-floating, the mats, wind aided, can float freely lake-wide. Some mats remain “free floaters” while others eventually lodge themselves to the shoreline.

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 2

Mat removal was first attempted during 2009 utilizing small rototillers. This method proved to be a frustrating, time consuming, labor intensive process. As areas appeared vacant, new floating mats surfaced or were wind driven into areas previously cleared. Budget concerns associated with the costs of removing the mats in this fashion terminated the effort in late May of 2009.

Much discussion occurred that was directed at the means to remove the mats. Northwest Aquatic Ecosystems recommended two alternatives. One method utilized a piece of equipment called the “Cookie Cutter” and the other type of equipment called the Aqua Mog. Local homeowners suggested purchasing a small dredge, utilizing a helicopter to haul the mats out of the lake and possibly scooping the mats out with a weed harvester. Other project concerns were related to the ability of the Local Improvement District to fiscally support the suggested efforts and how to dispose of the mats once removed.

One unique property attribute for residents abutting Barnes Lake is the lack of shoreline access. This provides residents with a peaceful private setting but at the same time prevents access for the movement of construction and large barge type equipment. The shallow nature of the shoreline, limited slope grade, soft muck bottom and unstable soft shoreline banks also contribute to the site’s poor access-related problems. In an effort to secure unrestricted yearly access, an agreement was entered into between the Barnes Lake Improvement District and a shoreline property owner to construct a small scale boat launch. This would then provide access to and from the lake necessary to operate larger equipment. Subsequent to the initiation of environmental studies and permitting, the site was sold. Once targeted as a potential launch site, the parcel was then incorporated into a larger development of the adjacent land parcel and was designated as a wetland mitigation site. Classified as a wetland and wetland buffer, the proposed site is no longer available as a launch and staging area for their project.

Much of the 2015 effort continued along the same protocols as 2014. Lake spraying consisted of surface applications to the lily pads. Equipment assisted efforts were not conducted during 2015 that physically removed floating mats from the lake. Mats were however positioned along several property shorelines and removed manually by the property owner.

Established Lake Management Plan

Prior to the adoption of the current control program, the Management District formulated a lake management plan for Barnes Lake. The Barnes Lake Local Improvement District researched current technologies available to the homeowners and adopted a plan of control that incorporated herbicide use as the means to reach the goals of the district. The plan can be downloaded at: http://www.ci.tumwater.wa.us/BLMD/BLMD%20Aquatic%20Veg%20Mgmt%20Plan. pdf

As noxious species have been removed from the system, native plants now provide many of the same concerns to lake users that noxious species once posed. As the shift to a more

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 3 diverse dense native macrophyte species occurs, the LMD now is focusing on the management of submerged and floating native and non-native species in conjunction with non-native lily pad control. This shift in the lake management approach has forced the LMD to update their original IAVMP to incorporate the new associated lake concerns.

Established Lake Use Zones

Lake use zones have been established throughout the lake basin as a result of the lake management plan. The zones defined control strategy within specific areas of the lake in relation to the degree of anticipated recreational use. Three zones were established consisting of the following criteria (map #1):

Beneficial Use Areas - This designation comprises the majority of the lake-use component selected for recreational and other lake activities. In general, the area is located approximately 50 feet from the shoreline and extends outward to the lake center. Floating plant control within this area is restricted to Nymphaea Odorata only.

Beneficial High Use Areas – All of the residential shorelines are constituents of this classification. Within this classification, all floating plants have been targeted for control. Control of the entire floating plant community within this designated area promotes full access and recreational use to the shoreline resident.

Identified Conservancy Areas – The majority of the floating islands and all of the non- residential shoreline and adjacent open water areas have been given this classification. Five such designated sites have been established throughout the lake. These areas are identified as supporting a diverse waterfowl population. Targeted plants within the identified conservancy area are limited to Nymphaea Odorata.

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 4

Lake Use Zones

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 5 Nymphaea Odorata Treatments 2015

The 2015 effort relied solely on boat mounted spray equipment. Equipment was mounted on a 16 foot Airgator airboat that allowed access to nearly 100% of the targeted sites during the application on May 29, 2015. As the season progressed, future applications undertaken on June 16, June 18, June 26, and July 3 experienced historical access problems related to low water levels that were particularly noted in the extreme northern lake area, extreme southern lake area adjacent to the Department of Transportation building and sections of the western shoreline. All equipment was removed from the lake on July 3, 2015. Herbicide spray mixture consisted of a glyphosate based product. Herbicide, surfactant and clean lake water were mixed on board in two twenty five gallon spray tanks. Once mixed, the resulting 1.25 % solution was then discharged through a hand held spray gun. The application team consisted of a boat operator and licensed applicator.

Problem Access Sites

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 6 Brasenia Control

The ever increasing range of the floating brasenia during 2014 continued into the 2015 season. As plant densities increased, similar problems related to the Nymphaea Odorata also became issues with the brasenia population. Board approval was obtained to include this species in the treatment protocol. Spraying of this species was accomplished on June 17, June 18, June 26 and July 3 in conjunction with other services being provided during those time frames. Brasenia spraying incorporated the same equipment, materials and concentrations utilized during other floating plant control activities (Nymphae Odorata).

Water Jet Mat Blasting

With the loss of shoreline staging areas for future mat removal operations, the experimental use of a water jet system was again visited. The mat blasting process consisted of a three inch trash pump utilizing lake water and a 3/8 inch discharge nozzle. Water jet blasting occurred on June 26 and again on July 3.

The pump intake was modified to try and account for the problems noted during 2014 associated with the clogging of the intake screen from submersed aquatic plants. These plants were drawn into the intake screen as a result of the volume of water required to operate the pump at maximum output. Although the modified intake did provide some relief from the intake clogging problem eventually weed clogging occurred. Some lake areas heavily infested with weed growth were not candidates for the water jetting of the mats. 1. The process is both effective and financially reasonable at accomplishing the task at hand. No site restoration expenses are necessary. 2. The process does not remove either the root mass or the sediment component of the mat. Board members are hesitant to further promote this removal process unless the sediment from the blasting can be removed from the lake similar to dredging. 3. The process is extremely messy within the confines of the boat to the equipment and the nozzle operator.

Muck Removal 2015

No machine assisted mat removal was approved for use during 2015. The inability to obtain suitable disposal sites, restoration expenses and general operational expenses curtailed this component of the program. Limited manual mat removal was undertaken by a number of lakefront residents. During these events mats were pushed up to the property via the airboat and the property owner then manually removed the debris from the lake.

Truck Mounted Spray Sites

Similar to 2014 three properties that had limited access during 2015 from the water were again sprayed using truck mounted spray equipment. Equipment

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 7 was staged in an area that was capable of supporting light duty equipment. From this location hose was pulled out into the soft muck exposed lake bottom to a point where the applicator was approximately knee deep in muck. From this location, spraying commenced.

Mat Removal Options Update

No new methodologies have been identified by Northwest Aquatic Eco-systems that meet the budgetary and/or environmental goals of the LMD. Perhaps new information will be discovered as the updated Aquatic Management Plan for Barnes Lake is finalized.

Aerial Surveys

Historically, during the season, it has proven to be difficult to coordinate weather conditions, plane availability and schedules in order to perform aerial reconnaissance of the lake area. In the past, photographs provided during the fly overs provided valuable insight into lake conditions as a result of the spraying operations. During 2012, 2013 and 2014 a battery powered plane equipped with a 35 mm digital camera was contracted to secure the aerial images of the lake. This approach allowed the contractor to perform the task when weather conditions were most favorable. Aerial surveys were performed on May 29 and November 15. The November survey was performed later in the season than anticipated due to the new regulations governing such flights in or around airports. Our

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 8 contractor was also working on projects in the Anacortes area that needed to be completed. Our late season survey was unable to capture the lake at historical low levels. Pictures of the fly overs can be viewed on a cd or on the City of Tumwater web site.

Electronic Macrophyte Survey

Barnes Lake was electronically surveyed on May 18, 2015. Individual data points were collected on May 29, 2015. At the time of the survey, weed growth was extremely dense with bladderwort flowering throughout a majority of the lake. Our mapping protocol utilizes state of the art Bio Base mapping technology. The system produces three map types consisting of a bathymetric contour of the treatment site, a sediment composition profile and a macrophyte density map. All maps are GIS friendly and can be exported into any GIS system. Maps are color coded so they are easily understood by any viewer. During the survey, a number of sampling points were recorded. At each sampling point a metal rake head was thrown into the water and then drawn back into the boat. Plants collected on the rake head were identified and recorded.

Technology utilizes specialized transducers that electronically collect thousands of data points as the survey boat transects the treatment site. Data is recorded and viewed onboard. As viewed on screen, the imaging identifies the lake bottom and growth within the water column. When using the structure scan component of the technology at low boat speed, individual plants can be identified. Once reviewed in house, the data is then downloaded and processed. The survey also produces a video of the lake bottom that can be viewed at any time identifying weed densities along any point of the boat track made during the survey.

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 9

Blue – 0 Percentage Macrophyte Growth Red – 100 Percent macrophyte Growth

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 10

Lake Sampling

SS Veg Latitude Longitude Date Type 1 BCE 47.00408 -122.914 5/29/2015 2 BC 47.00374 -122.914 5/29/2015 3 BC 47.00251 -122.914 5/29/2015 4 BC 47.00237 -122.915 5/29/2015 5 B 47.00222 -122.915 5/29/2015 6 BC 47.00243 -122.916 5/29/2015 7 B 47.00266 -122.916 5/29/2015 8 BE 47.00303 -122.917 5/29/2015 9 P 47.00329 -122.918 5/29/2015 10 P 47.00351 -122.918 5/29/2015 11 P 47.00414 -122.918 5/29/2015 12 B 47.00535 -122.918 5/29/2015 13 BE 47.00506 -122.918 5/29/2015 14 B 47.00469 -122.918 5/29/2015

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 11 15 B 47.00444 -122.917 5/29/2015 16 BE 47.00518 -122.917 5/29/2015 17 BC 47.00638 -122.916 5/29/2015 18 B 47.00597 -122.916 5/29/2015 19 BE 47.00505 -122.916 5/29/2015 20 B 47.00468 -122.915 5/29/2015

B-Bladderwort, C-Ceratophylum, E-Elodea, P- Pondweed

Data is mathematically evaluated producing a number of key tools that allows for easy assessment of the macrophyte community as referenced through the water column.

BVp Biovolume (Plant): Refers to the percentage of the water column taken up by vegetation when vegetation exists. Areas that do not have any vegetation are not taken into consideration for this calculation.

BVw Biovolume (All water): Refers to the average percentage of the water column taken up by vegetation regardless of whether vegetation exists. In areas where no vegetation exists, a zero value is entered into the calculation, thus reducing the overall biovolume of the entire area covered by the survey.

PAC Percent Area Covered: Refers to the overall surface area that has vegetation growing.

Depth PAC Avg BVpAvg BVw

0-1m 94.4 51.1 53.8 1-2m 94.6 42.8 43.3 2-3m 97.2 29.4 30.8 3-4m 98.1 30.5 31.4 4-5m 98.2 33.1 32.8

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 12

Data strongly suggests that over 95% of the lake bottom at the time of the survey supported macrophyte growth. Volume of biomass throughout the entire water column averaged 38 %.

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 13 Sediment Composition

Cream - Soft Muck Bottom, Red – Hard Sediment Bottom

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 14 Bathymetric Mapping (3 foot contour profile)

Note – Depth data may have been compromised due to heavy weed growth.

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 15 IAVMP Update

The original Barnes Lake IAVMP was written to address noxious weed species, specifically the fragrant water lily. There are no means to control problematic native submerged species under the current IAVMP. Native species can quickly recolonize those areas where noxious species once existed. In particular, Barnes Lake has seen a considerable increase in the native floating plant brasenia. Eventually this species may pose the same type of recreational problems similar to those of the fragrant water lily. In addition to the potential brasenia problem the submersed species bladderwort, coontail, elodea and numerous pondweeds are also increasing in range throughout the lake.

Plans for updating the IAVMP to meet the LMD’s current needs are now in progress. A consultant has been selected to coordinate the information and section updates currently being completed by the LMD membership. Once obtained, the consultant will finalize the IAVMP and provide additional information directed at long term program costs, control alternatives directed at both native and non-native floating plant and submersed plant control. One component of the consultant’s scope of work will be to review and recommend viable financially responsible alternatives to the floating muck issues. The timeline to complete the task is early 2016.

Pre-Treatment & Day of Treatment Notification

Notices were mailed to all of the property owners within the lake management district by the City of Tumwater (attachment #1). Such mailing complied with the NPDES permit and was sent approximately two weeks prior to the first planned treatment. In addition to the mailing notice, notices were hand-delivered to property owners abutting the lake prior to any application (attachment #2). Common areas around the lake were also posted.

Recommendation for 2015

1. With the current updating of the IAVMP recommendations for 2015 and future year recommendations will be included in this revised document. Discussions will need to be directed at these recommendations once available for review. 2. Continue use of the aerial imaging of the lake using the drone aircraft. 3. The main component of the lily pad spraying project has been completed. Efforts should focus on maintaining those areas previously treated in conjunction with the spraying of the floating mats. Use of the truck mounted sprayer should be considered to access those areas where boat mounted spraying is limited. 4. Continue to allow residents the ability to develop shoreline property access by establishing brush free access points along residential shorelines. Once access points are identified and cleared, areas can then be sprayed to promote unobstructed access to the main water body. 5. Residents dissatisfied with the results of any spraying event should inform the contractor about their disappointment. Comments need to be voiced prior to the removal of spray equipment so that action, if needed, can be taken to correct the shortfall.

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 16 6. Continue providing the LMD with the early season residential treatment notice so that it may be sent to the property owners with other LMD pertinent information.

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 17

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment #1- Residential Notice

Herbicide Treatment Business and Residential Notice

Distribution Date: 5-XX-15

Barnes Lake will be treated with aquatic herbicide(s) on /or between May 7 through October 30 as required. It is anticipated that numerous sprayings will be required during the summer as weather permits. Notices of applications will be hand delivered to each property owner no longer than 48 hours prior to treatment. Notices will state any water use restrictions or advisories. Specific treatment dates for macrophyte control will be determined by the weather and lake level.

Product(s) planned for use:

Glyphosate (floating plant control) – Do not apply within ½ mile of an active potable water intake. Fluridone (floating plant control)– Do not use within 1320 feet of any operating potable water intake if concentrations are at or exceed 20 ppb. No irrigation for 30 days. Renovate (floating & submersed plant control) - Ecology recommends no swimming for 24 hours, no use for irrigation for 120 days 2,4-D (floating & submersed plant control) - No use for drinking for 28 days, no domestic animal or livestock watering for 24 hours, no irrigation until 2,4-D concentrations are below 100 ppb Imazapyr (floating plants control) - Ecology recommends no swimming for 24 hours

Location of Treatment(s): Not to exceed 50% of the lakes littoral zone (native species). Project targets total eradication of fragrant water lily.

If you are withdrawing water for potable or domestic water use, livestock watering, or irrigation, and have no alternate water source, please contact the applicator Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems at 360-357-3285 or [email protected] to arrange an alternate water supply. If you would like to request additional notification prior to treatment, or have further questions, please contact Northwest Aquatic EcoSystems using the information above.

This herbicide treatment is regulated under a permit (NPDES) issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Permit # WAG 994137

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 18 Attachment #2 - Shoreline Posting CAUTION Glyphosate will be applied under permit to these waters on XX-XX-XX to control noxious lily pad (Nymphaea odorata) growth.

There are no swimming or recreational restrictions or advisories when using this product.

Fishing restrictions: None Drinking Water Restrictions: None Irrigation Restrictions: None Domestic Animal & Stock Watering Restrictions: None

For more information contact the applicator: 360-357-3285 Northwest Aquatic EcoSystems

Or the Department of Ecology at 360-407-6300

THIS SIGN MUST REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL 2 DAYS AFTER APPLICATION

nwaquaticecosystems.com

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 19 Attachment #3 – Application Records

State of Washington Department of Agriculture Olympia, Washington 98504

PESTICIDE APPLICATION RECORD (Version 3) NOTE: This form must be completed same day as the application and it must be retained for 7 years. (Ref. RCW 17.21)

1. Date of Application-Year: 2015 Month: May Date: 29 Time: 10:00

2. Name of person for whom the pesticide was applied: Barnes Lake Improvement District, City of Tumwater Firm Name (if applicable): Street Address: 555 Israel Road City: Tumwater 98512

3. Licensed Applicator's Name (if different from #2 above Douglas Dorling Firm Name): Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 4426 Bush Mountain Drive SW. Olympia, WA. 98512 360-357-3285 License # 375

4. Name of person who applied the pesticide (if different than #3 above):

License No(s). if applicable:

5. Application Crop or Site: Barnes Lake

6. Total Area Treated (acre, sq. ft., etc.): acre

7. Was this application made as a result of a WSDA Permit ? No

8. Pesticide information (please list all information for each pesticide in the tank mix):

a) Product Name b) EPA Reg. No. c) Total Amount of d) Pesticide e) Concentration Pesticide Applied Pesticide Applied Applied/Acre (or Applied ppm in Area Treated other measure)

Glyphosate 81927-8 1.25 gal 1 gal 1.25% Cygnet Plus 999720 .5 gal Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 20 9. Address or exact location of application NOTE: If the application made to one acre or more of Agricultural land, the field location must also be shown on the map on page two of this form. Barnes Lake, Tumwater, WA 98512

10. Date: 6-29-15 11. Name of person making application: Douglas Dorling

12. License No: 375 13. Apparatus License. Plate No.: E-578

14. Start: 10:00 Stop: 4:00

15. Acres completed : 1.25

16. Wind Direction: SW Wind Velocity: 0-05

17. Temperature: 70

Location of Application (If the application covers more than one township or range, please indicate the township & range for the top left section of the map only): Township: T18N Range: E OR W (please indicate) 02W

Section(s): 34 County: Thurston

PLEASE NOTE: The map is divided into 4 sections with each section divided into quarter-quarter sections. Please complete it by marking the appropriate section number(s) on the map and indicate as accurately as possible the location of the area treated.

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 21 State of Washington Department of Agriculture Olympia, Washington 98504

PESTICIDE APPLICATION RECORD (Version 3) NOTE: This form must be completed same day as the application and it must be retained for 7 years. (Ref. RCW 17.21)

2. Date of Application-Year: 2015 Month: June Date: 17 Time: 9:00

2. Name of person for whom the pesticide was applied: Barnes Lake Improvement District, City of Tumwater Firm Name (if applicable): Street Address: 555 Israel Road City: Tumwater 98512

3. Licensed Applicator's Name (if different from #2 above Douglas Dorling Firm Name): Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 4426 Bush Mountain Drive SW. Olympia, WA. 98512 360-357-3285 License # 375

4. Name of person who applied the pesticide (if different than #3 above):

License No(s). if applicable:

5. Application Crop or Site: Barnes Lake

6. Total Area Treated (acre, sq. ft., etc.): acre

7. Was this application made as a result of a WSDA Permit ? No

8. Pesticide information (please list all information for each pesticide in the tank mix):

a) Product Name b) EPA Reg. No. c) Total Amount of d) Pesticide e) Concentration Pesticide Applied Pesticide Applied Applied/Acre (or Applied ppm in Area Treated other measure) Glyphosate 81927-8 1.5 gal 1.00 gal 1.0% Cygnet Plus 99972-0 .5 gal

9. Address or exact location of application NOTE: If the application made to one acre or more of Agricultural land, the field location must also be shown on the map on page two of this form. Barnes Lake, Tumwater, WA 98512

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 22

10. Date: 6-16-15 11. Name of person making application: Douglas Dorling

12. License No: 375 13. Apparatus License. Plate No.: E578

14. Start: 9:00 Stop: 4:00

15. Acres completed : 1.5

16. Wind Direction: SW Wind Velocity: 0-5

17. Temperature: 78

Location of Application (If the application covers more than one township or range, please indicate the township & range for the top left section of the map only): Township: T18N Range: E OR W (please indicate) 02W

Section(s): 34 County: Thurston

PLEASE NOTE: The map is divided into 4 sections with each section divided into quarter-quarter sections. Please complete it by marking the appropriate section number(s) on the map and indicate as accurately as possible the location of the area treated.

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 23 State of Washington Department of Agriculture Olympia, Washington 98504

PESTICIDE APPLICATION RECORD (Version 3) NOTE: This form must be completed same day as the application and it must be retained for 7 years. (Ref. RCW 17.21)

2. Date of Application-Year: 2015 Month: June Date: 18 Time: 9:00

2. Name of person for whom the pesticide was applied: Barnes Lake Improvement District, City of Tumwater Firm Name (if applicable): Street Address: 555 Israel Road City: Tumwater 98512

3. Licensed Applicator's Name (if different from #2 above): Douglas Dorling Firm Name): Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 4426 Bush Mountain Drive SW. Olympia, WA. 98512 360-357-3285 License # 375

4. Name of person who applied the pesticide (if different than #3 above):

License No(s). if applicable:

5. Application Crop or Site: Barnes Lake

6. Total Area Treated (acre, sq. ft., etc.): 1 acre

7. Was this application made as a result of a WSDA Permit ? No

8. Pesticide information (please list all information for each pesticide in the tank mix): a) Product Name b) EPA Reg. No. c) Total Amount of d) Pesticide e) Concentration Pesticide Applied Pesticide Applied applied/Acre Applied ppm in Area Treated other measure) Glyphosate 81927-8 1 gal 1.00 gal 1.0% Cygnet Plus 99972-0 .25 gal

9. Address or exact location of application NOTE: If the application made to one acre or more of Agricultural land, the field location must also be shown on the map on page two of this form. Barnes Lake, Tumwater, WA 98512

10. Date: 6-18-15 11. Name of person making application: Douglas Dorling

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 24 12. License No: 375 13. Apparatus License. Plate No.: E578

14. Start: 9:00 Stop: 3:30

15. Acres completed : 1

16. Wind Direction: SW Wind Velocity: 0-5

17. Temperature: 80

Location of Application (If the application covers more than one township or range, please indicate the township & range for the top left section of the map only): Township: T18N Range: E OR W (please indicate) 02W

Section(s): 34 County: Thurston

PLEASE NOTE: The map is divided into 4 sections with each section divided into quarter-quarter sections. Please complete it by marking the appropriate section number(s) on the map and indicate as accurately as possible the location of the area treated.

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 25 State of Washington Department of Agriculture Olympia, Washington 98504

PESTICIDE APPLICATION RECORD (Version 3) NOTE: This form must be completed same day as the application and it must be retained for 7 years. (Ref. RCW 17.21)

3. Date of Application-Year: 2015 Month: June Date: 26 Time: 12:30

2. Name of person for whom the pesticide was applied: Barnes Lake Improvement District, City of Tumwater Firm Name (if applicable): Street Address: 555 Israel Road City: Tumwater 98512

3. Licensed Applicator's Name (if different from #2 above Douglas Dorling Firm Name): Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 4426 Bush Mountain Drive SW. Olympia, WA. 98512 360-357-3285 License # 375

4. Name of person who applied the pesticide (if different than #3 above):

License No(s). if applicable:

5. Application Crop or Site: Barnes Lake

6. Total Area Treated (acre, sq. ft., etc.): 1acre

7. Was this application made as a result of a WSDA Permit ? No

8. Pesticide information (please list all information for each pesticide in the tank mix):

a) Product Name b) EPA Reg. No. c) Total Amount of d) Pesticide e) Concentration Pesticide Applied Pesticide Applied Applied/Acre (or Applied ppm in Area Treated other measure)

Glyphosate 81927-8 1 gal 1 gal 1.0% Cygnet Plus 99972-0 .25 gal

9. Address or exact location of application NOTE: If the application made to one acre or more of Agricultural land, the field location must also be shown on the map on page two of this form. Barnes :Lake Tumwater, WA. 98512, WA 98512

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 26 10. Date: 6-26-15 11. Name of person making application: Douglas Dorling

12. License No: 375 13. Apparatus License. Plate No.: E578

14. Start: 12:30 Stop: 3:30

15. Acres completed : 1

16. Wind Direction: SW Wind Velocity: 0-5

17. Temperature: 82

Location of Application (If the application covers more than one township or range, please indicate the township & range for the top left section of the map only): Township: T18N Range: E OR W (please indicate) 02W

Section(s): 34 County: Thurston

PLEASE NOTE: The map is divided into 4 sections with each section divided into quarter-quarter sections. Please complete it by marking the appropriate section number(s) on the map and indicate as accurately as possible the location of the area treated.

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 27 State of Washington Department of Agriculture Olympia, Washington 98504

PESTICIDE APPLICATION RECORD (Version 3) NOTE: This form must be completed same day as the application and it must be retained for 7 years. (Ref. RCW 17.21)

3. Date of Application-Year: 2015 Month: August Date: 18 Time: 10:30

2. Name of person for whom the pesticide was applied: Barnes Lake Improvement District, City of Tumwater Firm Name (if applicable): Street Address: 555 Israel Road City: Tumwater 98512

3. Licensed Applicator's Name (if different from #2 above): Douglas Dorling Firm Name): Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 4426 Bush Mountain Drive SW. Olympia, WA. 98512 360-357-3285 License # 375

4. Name of person who applied the pesticide (if different than #3 above):

License No(s). if applicable:

5. Application Crop or Site: Barnes Lake

6. Total Area Treated (acre, sq. ft., etc.): .25 acre

7. Was this application made as a result of a WSDA Permit ? No

8. Pesticide information (please list all information for each pesticide in the tank mix): a) Product Name b) EPA Reg. No. c) Total Amount of d) Pesticide e) Concentration Pesticide Applied Pesticide Applied Applied/Acre Applied ppm in Area Treated or other measure)

Glyphosate 81927-8 25 ozs 1 gal 1.0% Cygnet Plus 99972-0 7 ozs

9. Address or exact location of application NOTE: If the application made to one acre or more of Agricultural land, the field location must also be shown on the map on page two of this form. Barnes :Lake Tumwater, WA. 98512, WA 98512

10. Date: 8-18-15 11. Name of person making application: Douglas Dorling Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 28

12. License No: 375 13. Apparatus License. Plate No.: E578

14. Start: 10:30 Stop: 12:30

15. Acres completed : 1

16. Wind Direction: SW Wind Velocity: 0-5

17. Temperature: 83

Location of Application (If the application covers more than one township or range, please indicate the township & range for the top left section of the map only): Township: T18N Range: E OR W (please indicate) 02W

Section(s): 34 County: Thurston

PLEASE NOTE: The map is divided into 4 sections with each section divided into quarter-quarter sections. Please complete it by marking the appropriate section number(s) on the map and indicate as accurately as possible the location of the area treated.

Northwest Aquatic Eco-Systems 29 APPENDIX C

Barnes Lake Water Rights

Water Right Tracking System Department of Ecology WR Document List Sorted By Priority Date Report

Reported By: ODAV461 Report Date: 8/25/2014

File # Cert # Person Stat Doc Priority Dt Purpose Qi UOM Qa Ir Acres WRIA County TRS QQ/Q Src's 1stSrc G2-200306CL PAULSEN BRUCE G. A Claim S DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-161001CL REED JAMES A A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-153748CL STEPHENSON MARIE T A Claim S NR GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-151576CL GARRETT KENNETH M A Claim S IR,DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-145311CL WHEELER CHARLES T A Claim S ST,IR GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-142121CL SCHOTH DELBERT H A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-132385CL SMITH GERALDINE E A Claim L NR GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-128470CL CLEVELAND ROBERT L A Claim L ST,IR GPM 5 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-122547CL SIMPSON BUDDY C A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-121487CL SMITH HARLAN D A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-115652CL INC A Claim L NR GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 SAND POINT G2-114547CL EBERSOLE DONALD W A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-114659CL WATSON KAROLA A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-111200CL OTTUM BYRON E A Claim S IR,DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-111802CL MARSHALL GEORGE W A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-111803CL MARSHALL GEORGE W A Claim L IR GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-102792CL LYKE LEROY L A Claim S IR,DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-101797CL TROSPER ROBERT W A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 SAND POINT G2-092562CL TIEDE GARRY R A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-088571CL HOFFMAN D. M. A Claim S IR,DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-087142CL PREMO EUGENE A Claim S IR,DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-083728CL GARD PAUL A. A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-079302CL TOZIER PERRY A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-078253CL DREES LEO W. A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 UNDER GROUND G2-073560CL DODGE WILSON H. A Claim S DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-069190CL PERSOON GERALD L. A Claim L ST,DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-069226CL MUGARTEAUI JOSEPH H A Claim L DG GPM 14 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-068418CL ELKINS MAY C. A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-068439CL IRVING ANTHONY T. A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-066951CL MCKINLAY JAMES D. A Claim S DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-064982CL HEISER RAYMOND B. A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-065005CL FARRINGER KENT M. A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-062537CL HARDCASTLE WILLIAM A. A Claim S DG GPM 11 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-059683CL WAWRINOFSKY MELVIN R. A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-059684CL WAWRINOFSKY MELVIN R. A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-058848CL GRATE MICHAEL R. A Claim S DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-056748CL STRINGER BENJAMIN F. A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 A WELL G2-057260CL DUNN ROBERT C. A Claim S DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-055221CL SANDERS ROBERT P. A Claim S DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-054569CL GOULD LEON E. A Claim S ST,DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-054570CL GOULD LEON A Claim S ST,DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-054299CL ABRAMS HAL B. A Claim S DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-052910CL DEROSIA MARTHA L. A Claim S ST,DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-053604CL ANDERSON HAROLD F. A Claim S ST,DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 Well G2-050498CL FRY HARVEY A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-048645CL ANDERSON EDWIN G. A Claim S DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-043374CL LYON LLOYD N. A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-042025CL CURTIS HERMAN E. A Claim S DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-040718CL WARNER DONALD V. A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-039646CL BROWN WILLIAM HARLON A Claim S DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-037628CL KIMBEL ALLAN L. A Claim S DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1

This data may not be complete or accurate.Validity of water rights documented by statements of claims can only be determined in Superior Court. Ecology cannot guarantee the validity of the water rights documented by Permits and Certificates 1

Water Right Tracking System Department of Ecology WR Document List Sorted By Priority Date Report

File # Cert # Person Stat Doc Priority Dt Purpose Qi UOM Qa Ir Acres WRIA County TRS QQ/Q Src's 1stSrc G2-033764CL THOMPSON BURYL A Claim S ST,DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-032956CL IIAMS ROSE L. A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-029278CL MIX NYLE L. A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-027467CL FENNEL HENRY A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-019973CL PETERSON MINNIE A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-020069CL DORNING MAY R. A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-009765CL PUCKETT ELIZABETH A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-001779CL ELLIOTT THEODORE A Claim L DG GPM 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 G2-*04272CWRIS 2889 Olympic Memorial Gardens Inc A Cert 4/2/1956 IR,DG 25 GPM 15.6 5 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 SW/SW 1 WELL G2-*06862CWRIS 4886 SNYDER L P / D A Cert 9/9/1963 DM 60 GPM 22.5 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL G2-00889CWRIS HENDRICKSEN C A & E A Cert 8/27/1970 RE,IR 110 GPM 11 2 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 NE/SW 1 WELL G2-22006CWRIS O'BRIEN JOHN E A Cert 3/13/1974 DM 195 GPM 25.7 13 THURSTON 18.0N 02.0W 34 1 WELL TOTAL RECORDS: 63

SELECTION CRITERIA

Region Southwest

WR Class Groundwater Status Active

TRS 18N 02w 34

This data may not be complete or accurate.Validity of water rights documented by statements of claims can only be determined in Superior Court. Ecology cannot guarantee the validity of the water rights documented by Permits and Certificates 2

APPENDIX D

Beavers

Beavers

Beavers (Castor canadensis) are the largest living rodents in North America, with adults averaging 40 pounds in weight and measuring more than 3 feet in length, including the tail (Fig. 1). These semi-aquatic mammals have webbed hind feet, large incisor teeth, and a broad, flat tail.

Once among the most widely distributed mammals in Washington, beavers were eliminated from much of their range in the late 1800s because of unregulated trapping. With a Figure 1. Beavers are the largest living rodents in North decline in the demand for beaver pelts, and with America. proper management, they became reestablished (Drawing by James R. Christensen.) in much of their former range and are now common in many areas.

Beavers are found where their preferred foods are in good supply—along rivers, and in small streams, lakes, marshes, and even roadside ditches containing adequate year-round water flow. In areas where deep, calm water is not available, beavers that have enough building material available will create ponds by building dams across creeks or other watercourses and impounding water.

Beavers dams create habitat for many other animals and plants of Washington. In winter, deer and elk frequent beaver ponds to forage on shrubby plants that grow where beavers cut down trees for food or use to make their dams and lodges. Weasels, raccoons, and herons hunt frogs and other prey along the marshy edges of beaver ponds. Migratory waterbirds use beaver ponds as nesting areas and resting stops during migration. Ducks and geese often nest on top of beaver lodges since they offer warmth and protection, especially when lodges are formed in the middle of a pond. The trees that die as a result of rising water levels attract insects, which in turn feed woodpeckers, whose holes later provide homes for other wildlife.

Facts about Washington’s Beavers Food and Feeding Habitats • Beavers eat the leaves, inner bark, and twigs of aspen (a favorite food), alder, birch, cottonwood, willow, and other deciduous trees. Beavers also eat shrubs, ferns, aquatic plants, grasses, and crops, including corn and beans.

• Coniferous trees, such as fir and pine, are eaten occasionally; more often, beavers will girdle and kill these trees to encourage the growth of preferred Figure 2. The beaver’s incisors food plants, or use them as dam building material. (front teeth) are harder on the • Beavers have large, sharp, upper and lower incisors, which are used to cut front surface than on the back, and so the back wears faster. This trees and peel bark while eating. The incisors grow their entire lives, but are creates a sharp edge that enables a worn down by grinding them together, tree cutting, and feeding (Fig. 2). beaver to easily cut through wood. • Fermentation by special intestinal microorganisms allows beavers to digest (Photo by Russell Link.) 30 percent of the cellulose they ingest. (Drawing by Jenifer Rees.)

Figure 3. Like many rodents, beavers construct nesting dens for shelter and for protection against predators. These may be burrows in a riverbank or the more familiar lodges built in the water or on the shore (shown here). However, the basic interior design varies little and consists of one or more underwater entrances, a feeding area, a dry nest den, and a source of fresh air.

• When the surface of the water is frozen, beavers eat bark and stems from branches they have anchored to the bottom of the waterway for winter use (Fig. 3). They also swim out under the ice and retrieve the thick roots and stems of aquatic plants, such as pond lilies and cattails.

• Food caches are not found consistently where winters are comparatively mild, such as in the lowlands of western Washington. Beaver Dams • Beavers flood areas for protection from predators, for access to their food supply, and to provide underwater entrances to their den. Flooded areas also wet the soil and promote the growth of favored foods.

• Beavers living on water bodies that maintain a constant level (e.g., lakes, large rivers) do not build dams.

• Dams are constructed and maintained with whatever materials are available—wood, stones, mud, and plant parts (Fig. 3). They vary in size from a small accumulation of woody material to structures 10 feet high and over 165 feet wide.

• The feel and sound of flowing water stimulate beavers to build dams; however, they routinely let a leak in a dam flow freely, especially during times of high waters.

• Beavers keep their dams in good repair and will constantly enlarge the dams as the water level increases in their pond. A family of beavers may build and maintain one or several dams in their territory.

• In cold areas, dam maintenance is critical. Dams must be able to hold enough water so the pond won’t freeze to the bottom, which would eliminate access to the winter food supply. Lodges and Bank Dens • Depending on the type of water body they occupy, beavers construct freestanding lodges or bank dens.

• Lodges and bank dens are used for safety, and a place to rest, stay warm, give birth, and raise young.

• Freestanding lodges are built in areas where the bank or water levels aren’t sufficient for a safe bank den.

• Lodges consist of a mound of branches and logs, plastered with mud. One or more underwater openings lead to tunnels that meet at the center of the mound, where a single chamber is created.

• Bank dens are dug into the banks of streams and large ponds, and beavers may or may not build a lodge over them (Fig. 3). Bank dens may also be located under stumps, logs, or docks.

• One family can have several lodges or bank dens, but will typically use only one den during winter. Reproduction and Family Structure • A mated pair of beaver will live together for many years, sometimes for life.

• Beavers breed between January and March, and litters of one to eight kits (average four) are produced between April and June. The number of kits is related to the amount of food available (more food, more kits), and the female’s age.

• The female nurses the kits until they are weaned at 10 to 12 weeks of age.

• Most kits remain with the adults until they are almost two years old. (Some leave at 11 months and a few females may stay until they are three years of age.) The kits then go off on their own in search of mates and suitable spots to begin colonies, which may be several miles away.

• Beavers live in colonies that may contain 2 to 12 individuals. The colony is usually made up of the adult breeding pair, the kits of the year, and kits of the previous year or years.

• Populations are limited by habitat availability, and the density will not exceed one colony per ½ mile under the best of conditions. Mortality and Longevity • Because of their size, behavior, and habitat, beaver have few enemies.

• When foraging on shore or migrating overland, beavers are killed by bears, coyotes, bobcats, cougars, and dogs.

• Other identified causes of death are severe winter weather, winter starvation, disease, water fluctuations and floods, and falling trees.

• Humans remain the major predator of beavers. Historically, beavers have been one of the most commonly trapped furbearers. In Washington, from 1991 to 2000, an annual average of 5,289 beavers were trapped. However, the average for the past three years has dropped to just over 1,000, due to the passing of Initiative 713.

• Beavers live 5 to 10 years in the wild. Viewing Beavers

Beavers are nocturnal, but are occasionally active during the day. They do not hibernate, but are less active during winter, spending most of their time in the lodge or den.

Probably no animal leaves more obvious signs of its presence than the beaver. Freshly cut trees and shrubs, and prominent dams and lodges are sure indicators of their activity.

Look for signs of beavers during the day; look for the animals themselves before sunset or sunrise. Approach a beaver site slowly and downwind. (Beavers have poor eyesight but excellent hearing and sense of smell.) Look for a V-shaped series of ripples on the surface of calm water. A closer view with binoculars may reveal the nostrils, eyes, and ears of a beaver swimming.

If you startle a beaver and it goes underwater, wait quietly in a secluded spot and chances are that it will reemerge within one or two minutes. However, beavers are able to remain underwater for at least 15 minutes by slowing their heart rate.

When seen in the water, beavers are often mistaken for muskrats. To distinguish these two species look at the tail: Beavers have a broad, flat tail that doesn’t show behind them when swimming, whereas muskrats have a thin tail that is either held out of the water or sways back and forth on the water’s surface as the animal swims.

Beavers stand their ground and should not be closely approached when cornered on land. They face the aggressor, rear up on their hind legs, and hiss or growl loudly before lunging forward to deliver extremely damaging bites. Harvest Sites Beavers cut down trees, shrubs, and other available vegetation for food and building materials. Large stumps are pointed, 1 to 2½ feet high, and sometimes the tree trunk is still attached.

1 Tooth marks look like twin grooves, each groove measuring /8 inch or more. There will be a pile of wood chips on the ground around the base of recently felled trees. Limbs that are too large to be hauled off are typically stripped of bark over the course of several days. The cut on small wood usually involves a 45-degree cut typical of rodents, but at a larger scale. Branches and twigs under ¾ inch in diameter are generally eaten entirely.

Most harvesting is done within 165 feet of the water’s edge. In areas with few predators, but a lean food supply, toppled trees and other signs of feeding may be found twice that distance from the den site. Beavers transport woody material Figure 4. The paths beavers even farther through upstream and downstream sites. make where they enter and leave the water are called slides. By late fall (earlier in cold winter areas of Washington), all family members concentrate on repairing and building up dams and the family lodge in (Photo by Russell Link.) preparation for winter. Harvesting is at its most intense level at this time of year. Slides Slides are the paths beavers make where they enter and leave the water (Fig. 4). They are 15 to 20 inches wide, at right angles to the shoreline, and have a slicked down or muddy A Beaver’s Tail appearance. The tail of a large beaver may be 15 inches Channels long and 6 inches wide. It is covered with Beavers construct channels or canal systems leading to their leathery scales and sparse, coarse hairs. ponds, using them to float food—such as small, trimmed trees— from cutting sites. Canals are also safe travel ways for swimming The beaver’s tail has important uses both in instead of walking. With receding water levels during summer, the water and on land. In the water, the beaver activity shifts toward building and maintaining channels to access new food supplies. Channels often look man-made, animal uses its flexible tail as a four-way have soft, muddy bottoms, and are filled with 15 to 25 inches of rudder. When diving after being frightened, water. a beaver loudly slaps the water with its tail; Food Storage Sites the sound warns all beavers in the vicinity Beavers that live in cold climates store branches of food trees that danger is near, and perhaps serves to and shrubs for winter use by shoving them into the mud at the frighten potential predators. bottom of ponds or streams near the entrance to their bank den or lodge. On land, the tail acts as a prop when a Droppings beaver is sitting or standing upright. It also Beaver droppings are seldom found on land; those that are will serves as a counterbalance and support commonly be found in the early morning at the water’s edge. when a beaver is walking on its hind legs Individual beaver droppings are usually cylindrical, up to 2½ while carrying building materials with its inches long (sometimes shorter), and look as if they were formed of compressed sawdust. The diameter is an indication of the teeth, front legs, and paws. Contrary to animal’s size, with 1 inch being average for adults. The color of common belief, beavers do not use their tails fresh deposits is dark brown, with lighter-colored bits of to plaster mud on their dams. undigested wood, all turning pale with age.

The tail stores fat, and because it is nearly Sounds hairless, releases body heat, helping the In order to warn each other of danger, beavers slap their tails against the water, creating a loud splash. Sounds also include beaver to regulate its body temperature. whining (noises made by kits), a breathy greeting noise, and loud blowing when upset. Preventing Conflicts

Despite an appreciation for beavers and our best intentions to live with them, beavers can become a problem if their eating habits, and dam or den building activity, flood or damage property.

Before beginning any beaver control action, assess the beaver problem fairly and objectively. Are beaver really causing damage or creating hardship requiring control action? The very presence of beavers is often seen as a problem when, in fact, the beavers are causing no harm. You should also determine the type of damage or problem the animals are causing, and then match the most appropriate and cost-effective controls to the situation.

Once you have decided to control beaver damage, you have three control options: prevention, beaver translocation, or lethal control.

To prevent conflicts or remedy existing problems:

Choose and place plants carefully. Plant areas with Sitka spruce, elderberry, cascara, osoberry (Indian plum), ninebark, and twinberry, because they are not the beavers’ preferred food plants. Densely plant aspen, cottonwood, willow, spirea (hardhack), and red-twig dogwood because, once their roots are well established the upper parts of the plants often resprout after being eaten. Planting preferred plants away from known beaver trails will limit losses.

Note: Beavers do use plants as construction materials that they might not eat.

Install barriers. The trunks of individual large trees can be loosely wrapped with 3 foot high, galvanized welded wire fencing, hardware cloth, or multiple layers of chicken wire (Fig. 5). Barriers can be painted to make them less noticeable. Welded wire fencing coated with green vinyl that helps the fencing blend in is also available.

Lengths of corrugated plastic drainpipe can be attached around the trunks of narrow-diameter trees (Fig. 5).

Note: Dark-colored pipe can burn trunks in full sun; wider diameter pipe or pipe with holes in it may prevent overheating problems.

Painting tree trunks with a sand and paint mix (2/3 cup masonry grade sand per quart of latex paint) has proven somewhat effective at protecting trees from beaver damage. The animals presumably don’t like the gritty texture.

Figure 5. Various barriers can be used to protect plants from beaver damage. All plants should be protected to at least 3 feet above ground—or the snow line—and inspected regularly. (Drawings by Jenifer Rees.) Note: Preventing access to food sources may force beavers to eat other nearby plants, including roses and other ornamentals.

Surround groups of trees and shrubs with 3-foot high barriers made of galvanized, welded wire fencing or other sturdy material (Fig. 6). (A beaver’s weight will pull down chicken wire and similar lightweight material.) Stake the barriers to prevent beavers from pushing them to the side or entering from underneath.

An electric fence with two hot wires suspended 8 and 12 inches off the ground is also effective at protecting groups of plants.

Protect large areas that border beaver habitat by installing 4-foot high field fencing. Keep the bottom of the fence flush to the ground, or include an 18-inch wide skirt on the beaver side of the fence, to prevent beavers from entering underneath.

Apply repellents. Commercial taste and odor repellents have provided mixed results, perhaps because they need to be reapplied often, particularly in moist weather. Taste and odor repellents are most effective when applied at the first sign of damage, when other food is available, and during the dry season. Two repellents that have had some success are Big Game Repellent® and Plant- Figure 6. Groups of plants can be protected from beaver damage by skydd®. surrounding them with wire fencing. (Photo by Russell Link.) Control the height of water behind a beaver dam to prevent flooding. It may be possible to make a small change in the depth of a beaver pond by installing a flow device at the intended depth, extending upstream and downstream of the dam. This keeps the rise in the water level at a minimum by using one or more plastic pipes to continually drain the pond area (see “Flexible Leveler”). For leveling systems to work properly, you will have to have at least 3 feet of water in the pond area for the beaver to stay.

The flow device can be constructed from plastic pipe measuring 4 to 12 inches in diameter, depending on the volume of water in the stream. The end extending upstream from the dam must be baffled to prevent beavers from damming or blocking the pipe.

Prevent beavers from plugging culverts. To a beaver, a culvert probably looks like a hole in an otherwise fine dam. When they plug the hole, a flooded road can result. However, V-shaped, semicircular, or trapezoidal fences of woven wire mesh can prevent culverts from being plugged (see “Beaver Deceiver”). Large flow-control devices that include a solid framework can be covered and used as a deck or wildlife viewing spot.

Note: Installation of flow control devices is complicated and generally requires a permit (see “Legal Status”).

Dam removal. It is pointless to destroy a beaver dam because beavers (frequently many at one time) often begin rebuilding them immediately after they are removed. Furthermore, it may be illegal to remove a beaver dam without a permit (see “Legal Status”).

Live Trapping and Moving Beavers

Live trapping and moving beavers elsewhere (translocating) is often cost-prohibitive. Also, research has shown that beavers seldom survive relocation, and those that do often move great distances from the release site. However, in urban areas where traditional kill traps may be illegal or unsafe, live trapping may be the only alternative.

Hancock or Bailey suitcase-type traps are the most commonly used live trap. (Due to the weight and dangers associated with suitcase traps, it is recommended that only people experienced with these traps use them.) Some success has also come from using a 4 foot long cage trap set right at the water’s edge next to the beaver slide. Bait for live traps include freshly cut tree sprouts or branches of preferred foods, apples, and commercial scents and lures. Prefessional trappers often will live trap a beaver and then euthanise it.

If you are moving beavers to a different site, particularly a site where other beavers are not already present, there must be cooperation between adjacent landowners and local wildlife officials. A cooperative evaluation of existing habitat quality and potential adverse beaver activity is also very important. (Expect beaver to cut and use a large number of trees for dam construction during the first year or two.)

To help ensure the survival of beavers, the gradient of the watercourse at the release site should be less than 3 percent, and the site should have adequate food supply. Move beavers during their principal dam-building period, August to October. This will allow them time to gather a food cache, but limit their time to explore before having to settle in for the coming of winter. It may be helpful to provide beavers with a pickup-truck load of aspen or other trees to use as building material at or near the release site. This may encourage the beavers to stay nearby.

See “Trapping Wildlife” handout for additional information on trapping and moving beavers.

Lethal Control

Lethal control may become necessary when all efforts to dissuade problem beavers fail. Removing beavers is rarely a lasting solution since survivors have larger litters, and others will resettle good habitats.

Lethal trapping has traditionally been the primary form of controlling beaver damage. If you feel you need to have a beaver trapped, private individuals who work directly with property owners on a fee basis to resolve problem beaver situations can be hired. Call your local Fish and Wildlife office for contact information. Note: State wildlife offices do not provide animal removal services.

Shooting beaver requires skilled marksmanship, but can be an effective control technique where it is safe. For safety considerations, shooting is generally limited to rural situations and is considered too hazardous in more populated areas, even if legal.

Public Health Concerns

Beavers can be infected with the bacterial disease tularemia. Tularemia is fatal to animals and is transmitted to them by ticks, biting flies, and via contaminated water. Animals with this disease may be sluggish, unable to run when disturbed, or appear tame.

Tularemia may be transmitted to humans if they drink contaminated water, eat undercooked, infected meat, or allow an open cut to contact an infected animal. The most common source of tularemia for humans is to be cut or nicked by a knife when skinning or gutting an infected animal. Humans can also get this disease via a tick bite, a biting fly, ingestion of contaminated water, or by inhaling dust from soil contaminated with the bacteria.

A human who contracts tularemia commonly has a high temperature, headache, body ache, nausea, and sweats. A mild case may be confused with the flu and ignored. Humans can be easily treated with antibiotics.

Beavers are among the few animals that regularly defecate in water, and their droppings (like those of humans and other mammals) may cause a flu-like infection when contaminated water is ingested. The technical name for this illness is “giardiasis.” It is more commonly referred to as “giardia”—derived from giardia, the single-cell protozoan that causes the disease. Another popular term, “beaver fever,” may be a misnomer. It has never been demonstrated that the type of giardia beavers carry causes giardiasis in humans. Giardia has been found in many animal species, including pets, wildlife, and livestock. Legal Status

Because beavers’ legal status, trapping restrictions, and other information change, contact your local wildlife office for updates.

The beaver is classified as a furbearer (WAC 232-12-007). A trapping license and open season are required to trap or shoot a beaver.

The owner, the owner’s immediate family, an employee, or a tenant of property may shoot or trap a beaver on that property if a threat to crops exists (RCW 77.36.030). In such cases, no special trapping permit is necessary for the use of live traps. However, a special trapping permit is required for the use of all traps other than live traps (RCW 77.15.192, 77.15.194; WAC 232-12-142). There are no exceptions for emergencies and no provisions for verbal approval. All special trapping permit applications must be in writing on a form available from the Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).

It is unlawful to release a beaver anywhere within the state, other than on the property where it was legally trapped, without a permit to do so (RCW 77.15.250; WAC 232-12-271).

To remove or modify a beaver dam you must have a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)—a permit issued by WDFW for work that will use, obstruct, change, or divert the bed or flow of state waters (RCW 77.55). A permit application can be obtained from your WDFW Regional Office or from the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) web page.

In emergency situations (when an immediate threat to property or life exists), verbal approval from WDFW can be obtained for work necessary to solve the problem. A 24-hour hotline (360) 902-2537 is available for emergency calls during nonworking hours. During normal hours, contact your nearest WDFW Regional Office.

Additional Information Books Hygnstrom, Scott E., et al. Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska- Lincoln, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 1994. (Available from: University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension, 202 Natural Resources Hall, Lincoln, NE 68583-0819; phone: 402-472-2188; also see Internet Sites below.)

Maser, Chris. Mammals of the Pacific Northwest: From the Coast to the High Cascades. Corvalis: Oregon State University Press, 1998.

Muller-Schwarze, D., and Lixing Sun. The Beaver: Natural History of a Wetland Engineer. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; and London: Comstock Publishing, 2003.

Verts, B. J., and Leslie N. Carraway. Land Mammals of Oregon. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1998.

Internet Resources Burke Museum’s Mammals of Washington http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/collections/mammalogy/mamwash/

Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage http://wildlifedamage.unl.edu/

U.S. Forest Service Wildlife Species Life Form Information http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/wildlife/ Woodland Fish and Wildlife Project http://www.woodlandfishandwildlife.org/

Internet Resources (Flood Control Devices) Beaver Management http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/Dss/beavers/beaverintro.htm

Beaver Stop http://www.fsiculvert.com/BeaverStop.htm

Clemson Beaver Pond Leveler http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/stewardship/accessroads/beavers.htm

https://www.memun.org/

Adapted from “Living with Wildlife in the Pacific Northwest” (see http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/living.htm) Written by: Russell Link, WDFW Urban Wildlife Biologist, [email protected] Design and layout: Peggy Ushakoff, ITT2 Illustrations: As credited Copyright 2004 by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. This program receives Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is the policy of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to adhere to the following: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The U.S. Department of the Interior and its bureaus prohibit discrimination on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability and sex (in educational programs). If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity or facility, please contact the WDFW ADA Coordinator at 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-