DOCSLIB.ORG

2017 Adirondack Aquatic Invasive Invasive Reponse Team Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2017 Adirondack Aquatic Invasive Invasive Reponse Team Report 2017 Adirondack Aquatic Invasive Invasive Reponse Team Report Sean Regalado, Lindsey Pett, Peter Murphy, Nathaniel Wells ND IRO AC D K A Table of Contents Acknowledgements...............................................................................................1 Introduction.......................................................................................................2 Objective.........................................................................................................3-4 Methods.......................................................................................................5-6 Results........................................................................................................7-8 Community Matrix..........................................................................................................9 Management..........................................................................................................10 Data limitations...........................................................................................................11 Estimates of Survey Comprehensiveness...........................................................................12-13 Literature Cited...........................................................................................................14 Aquatic Plant Maps Buck Pond...................................................................................................................16 Chazy Lake..............................................................................................................17-18 Clear Pond..................................................................................................................19 Cooperas Pond..............................................................................................................20 Cranberry Lake.........................................................................................................21-24 Davis Lake...................................................................................................................25 Duck Pond...................................................................................................................26 East Pine Pond..............................................................................................................27 Fern Lake...................................................................................................................28 Floodwood Pond............................................................................................................29 Follensby Clear Pond......................................................................................................30 Franklin Falls Flow.....................................................................................................31-32 Green Pond.................................................................................................................33 Hoel Pond...................................................................................................................34 Jones Pond..................................................................................................................35 Kiwassa Lake................................................................................................................36 Lake Alice...................................................................................................................37 Lake Flower.................................................................................................................38 Lake Kushaqua.............................................................................................................39 Lake Ozonia.............................................................................................................40-41 Lake Placid..................................................................................................................42 Little Clear Pond...........................................................................................................43 Little Green Pond..........................................................................................................44 Long Pond...................................................................................................................45 Lower Saranac Lake...................................................................................................46-49 Meacham Lake..............................................................................................................50 Middle Saranac Lake...................................................................................................51-52 Minerva Lake...............................................................................................................53 Mirror Lake..................................................................................................................54 Moose Pond.................................................................................................................55 Mountain Pond..............................................................................................................56 Oseetah Lake...........................................................................................................57-58 Patterson Reservoir........................................................................................................59 Pink Pond....................................................................................................................60 Polliwog Pond...............................................................................................................61 Rollins Pond.................................................................................................................62 Second Pond................................................................................................................63 Silver Lake..................................................................................................................64 Slang Pond..................................................................................................................65 Spectacle Pond.............................................................................................................66 Spitfire Lake................................................................................................................67 Taylor Pond.................................................................................................................68 Turtle Pond..................................................................................................................69 Union Falls Reservoir...................................................................................................70-71 Upper St. Regis Lake...................................................................................................72-73 Whey Pond..................................................................................................................74 Acknowledgements The Adirondack Park Invasive Plant Program (APIPP) is one of eight Partnerships for Regional Invasive Species Management (PRISM) in New York State whose mission is to protect the Adirondack region from the negative impacts of invasive species. The Adirondack Watershed Institute (AWI) is a program of Paul Smith’s College that conducts work to protect and conserve water resources of the Adirondack Park. The narrative, data, and results presented in this report were synthesized by Sean Regalado, Lindsey Pett, Peter Murphy, and Nathaniel Wells who constituted APIPP’s Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Regional Response Team in 2017. These individuals also conducted the aquatic plant surveys and performed the spatial analysis needed to develop the lake maps featured in this report. Project planning and lake prioritization was conducted by Erin Vennie-Vollrath, APIPP’s AIS Project Coordinator, Dr. Daniel L. Kelting, AWI Executive Director, and Sean Regalado, Response Team Lead. Field work and reporting was conducted with the assitance of Dr. Kelting and under the additional supervision of Dr. Corey Laxson, AWI Research Associate. This project was advanced by APIPP, under contract with AWI, with funding provided by New York State’s Environmental Protection Fund. Page 1 Introduction Aquatic invasive species (AIS) induce negative ecological impacts on aquatic ecosystems and local economies (Gallardo et al. 2016; Walsh et al. 2016). In attempts to reduce these impacts, government and private entities at multiple scales have implemented AIS spread prevention and early detection efforts (Vander Zanden et al. 2010). APIPP and AWI, in collaboration with multiple partner organizations, utilize state, federal, and private funds to implement AIS prevention, early detection and rapid response strategies across the entire Adirondack PRISM. Since 2015, APIPP has contracted with AWI to deploy AIS response teams in the PRISM. In order to balance resources and increase efficiency, the PRISM was broken into three regions based on watershed boundaries (Fig. 1). One region received survey focus each year to facilitate survey of the entire PRISM on a three-year rotation. Region 1 (Upper Hudson, Sacandaga, Mohawk, and Southern Champlain watersheds) was surveyed in 2015, Region 2 (Black, Oswegatchie, Grass and Raquette watersheds) was surveyed in 2016, and Region 3 (St. Regis, Salmon, Chateaugay,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Introduction to Common Native & Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska
    Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska Cover photographs by (top to bottom, left to right): Tara Chestnut/Hannah E. Anderson, Jamie Fenneman, Vanessa Morgan, Dana Visalli, Jamie Fenneman, Lynda K. Moore and Denny Lassuy. Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska This document is based on An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington’s Freshwater Plants, which was modified with permission from the Washington State Department of Ecology, by the Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University for Alaska Department of Fish and Game US Fish & Wildlife Service - Coastal Program US Fish & Wildlife Service - Aquatic Invasive Species Program December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ............................................................................ x Introduction Overview ............................................................................. xvi How to Use This Manual .................................................... xvi Categories of Special Interest Imperiled, Rare and Uncommon Aquatic Species ..................... xx Indigenous Peoples Use of Aquatic Plants .............................. xxi Invasive Aquatic Plants Impacts ................................................................................. xxi Vectors ................................................................................. xxii Prevention Tips .................................................... xxii Early Detection and Reporting
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps
    Appendix 11.5.1: Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps These distribution maps are for 116 aquatic vascular macrophyte species (Table 1). Aquatic designation follows habitat descriptions in Haines and Vining (1998), and includes submergent, floating and some emergent species. See Appendix 11.4 for list of species. Also included in Appendix 11.4 is the number of HUC-10 watersheds from which each taxon has been recorded, and the county-level distributions. Data are from nine sources, as compiled in the MABP database (plus a few additional records derived from ancilliary information contained in reports from two fisheries surveys in the Upper St. John basin organized by The Nature Conservancy). With the exception of the University of Maine herbarium records, most locations represent point samples (coordinates were provided in data sources or derived by MABP from site descriptions in data sources). The herbarium data are identified only to township. In the species distribution maps, town-level records are indicated by center-points (centroids). Figure 1 on this page shows as polygons the towns where taxon records are identified only at the town level. Data Sources: MABP ID MABP DataSet Name Provider 7 Rare taxa from MNAP lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 8 Lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 35 Acadia National Park plant survey C. Greene et al. 63 Lake plant surveys A. Dieffenbacher-Krall 71 Natural Heritage Database (rare plants) MNAP 91 University of Maine herbarium database C. Campbell 183 Natural Heritage Database (delisted species) MNAP 194 Rapid bioassessment surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 207 Invasive aquatic plant records MDEP Maps are in alphabetical order by species name.
    [Show full text]
  • WETLAND PLANTS – Full Species List (English) RECORDING FORM
    WETLAND PLANTS – full species list (English) RECORDING FORM Surveyor Name(s) Pond name Date e.g. John Smith (if known) Square: 4 fig grid reference Pond: 8 fig grid ref e.g. SP1243 (see your map) e.g. SP 1235 4325 (see your map) METHOD: wetland plants (full species list) survey Survey a single Focal Pond in each 1km square Aim: To assess pond quality and conservation value using plants, by recording all wetland plant species present within the pond’s outer boundary. How: Identify the outer boundary of the pond. This is the ‘line’ marking the pond’s highest yearly water levels (usually in early spring). It will probably not be the current water level of the pond, but should be evident from the extent of wetland vegetation (for example a ring of rushes growing at the pond’s outer edge), or other clues such as water-line marks on tree trunks or stones. Within the outer boundary, search all the dry and shallow areas of the pond that are accessible. Survey deeper areas with a net or grapnel hook. Record wetland plants found by crossing through the names on this sheet. You don’t need to record terrestrial species. For each species record its approximate abundance as a percentage of the pond’s surface area. Where few plants are present, record as ‘<1%’. If you are not completely confident in your species identification put’?’ by the species name. If you are really unsure put ‘??’. After your survey please enter the results online: www.freshwaterhabitats.org.uk/projects/waternet/ Aquatic plants (submerged-leaved species) Stonewort, Bristly (Chara hispida) Bistort, Amphibious (Persicaria amphibia) Arrowhead (Sagittaria sagittifolia) Stonewort, Clustered (Tolypella glomerata) Crystalwort, Channelled (Riccia canaliculata) Arrowhead, Canadian (Sagittaria rigida) Stonewort, Common (Chara vulgaris) Crystalwort, Lizard (Riccia bifurca) Arrowhead, Narrow-leaved (Sagittaria subulata) Stonewort, Convergent (Chara connivens) Duckweed , non-native sp.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Aquatic Plant Guide
    The Borough of Mountain Lakes The Aquatic Plants of Mountain Lakes Created March 2017 Borough of Introduction to Aquatic Plants Mountain Lakes 400 Boulevard Aquatic plants in a lake come in many different sizes, shapes and Mountain Lakes, NJ function. This diversity is similar to the different components of a 07046 forest, having low grasses, understory shrubs, diminutive trees and vines, and canopy forming trees. Different aquatic plants inhabit dif- 973-334-3131 ferent ecological niches depending on a myriad of physical, chemical http://mtnlakes.org and biological conditions. Although many lake recreational users view aquatic plants as nui- sance “weeds”, a balanced native aquatic plant community has sev- eral important ecological functions. These include: Shoreline Buffer Sediment Stabilization Wildlife Habitat Aesthetics In this guide: Nutrient Uptake Red indicates an Aquatic plants fall into the following broad categories. Submersed Invasive species aquatic plants grow along the lake bottom and are entirely sub- merged save perhaps for flowers or seeds. Floating-leaf plants in- Blue indicates a clude duckweeds and lilies, and have leaves on the surface of a lake. Native species Emergent plants have roots in standing water, but the majority of Green indicates an the plant occurs above the water’s surface. Finally, some aquatic Algal species plant growth is actually macro-algae. Below are a list of icons for the aquatic plants in this guide. Call to Action! ICON KEY Please Contact Rich Sheola, Borough Manager [email protected] Submersed Emergent Floating-leaf Macro-algae PAGE 2 THE AQUATIC PLANTS O F MOUNTAIN LAKES CREATED MARCH 2017 Summary of Aquatic Plants at Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • A Key to Common Vermont Aquatic Plant Species
    A Key to Common Vermont Aquatic Plant Species Lakes and Ponds Management and Protection Program Table of Contents Page 3 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 How To Use This Guide ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Field Notes .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Plant Key ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Submersed Plants ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 8-20 Pipewort Eriocaulon aquaticum ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Wild Celery Vallisneria americana ..................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Floristic Quality Assessment Report
    FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT IN INDIANA: THE CONCEPT, USE, AND DEVELOPMENT OF COEFFICIENTS OF CONSERVATISM Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) the State tree of Indiana June 2004 Final Report for ARN A305-4-53 EPA Wetland Program Development Grant CD975586-01 Prepared by: Paul E. Rothrock, Ph.D. Taylor University Upland, IN 46989-1001 Introduction Since the early nineteenth century the Indiana landscape has undergone a massive transformation (Jackson 1997). In the pre-settlement period, Indiana was an almost unbroken blanket of forests, prairies, and wetlands. Much of the land was cleared, plowed, or drained for lumber, the raising of crops, and a range of urban and industrial activities. Indiana’s native biota is now restricted to relatively small and often isolated tracts across the State. This fragmentation and reduction of the State’s biological diversity has challenged Hoosiers to look carefully at how to monitor further changes within our remnant natural communities and how to effectively conserve and even restore many of these valuable places within our State. To meet this monitoring, conservation, and restoration challenge, one needs to develop a variety of appropriate analytical tools. Ideally these techniques should be simple to learn and apply, give consistent results between different observers, and be repeatable. Floristic Assessment, which includes metrics such as the Floristic Quality Index (FQI) and Mean C values, has gained wide acceptance among environmental scientists and decision-makers, land stewards, and restoration ecologists in Indiana’s neighboring states and regions: Illinois (Taft et al. 1997), Michigan (Herman et al. 1996), Missouri (Ladd 1996), and Wisconsin (Bernthal 2003) as well as northern Ohio (Andreas 1993) and southern Ontario (Oldham et al.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACTS 117 Systematics Section, BSA / ASPT / IOPB
    Systematics Section, BSA / ASPT / IOPB 466 HARDY, CHRISTOPHER R.1,2*, JERROLD I DAVIS1, breeding system. This effectively reproductively isolates the species. ROBERT B. FADEN3, AND DENNIS W. STEVENSON1,2 Previous studies have provided extensive genetic, phylogenetic and 1Bailey Hortorium, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853; 2New York natural selection data which allow for a rare opportunity to now Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 10458; 3Dept. of Botany, National study and interpret ontogenetic changes as sources of evolutionary Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, novelties in floral form. Three populations of M. cardinalis and four DC 20560 populations of M. lewisii (representing both described races) were studied from initiation of floral apex to anthesis using SEM and light Phylogenetics of Cochliostema, Geogenanthus, and microscopy. Allometric analyses were conducted on data derived an undescribed genus (Commelinaceae) using from floral organs. Sympatric populations of the species from morphology and DNA sequence data from 26S, 5S- Yosemite National Park were compared. Calyces of M. lewisii initi- NTS, rbcL, and trnL-F loci ate later than those of M. cardinalis relative to the inner whorls, and sepals are taller and more acute. Relative times of initiation of phylogenetic study was conducted on a group of three small petals, sepals and pistil are similar in both species. Petal shapes dif- genera of neotropical Commelinaceae that exhibit a variety fer between species throughout development. Corolla aperture of unusual floral morphologies and habits. Morphological A shape becomes dorso-ventrally narrow during development of M. characters and DNA sequence data from plastid (rbcL, trnL-F) and lewisii, and laterally narrow in M.
    [Show full text]
  • Pondnet RECORDING FORM (PAGE 1 of 5)
    WETLAND PLANTS PondNet RECORDING FORM (PAGE 1 of 5) Your Name Date Pond name (if known) Square: 4 fig grid reference Pond: 8 fig grid ref e.g. SP1243 e.g. SP 1235 4325 Determiner name (optional) Voucher material (optional) METHOD (complete one survey form per pond) Aim: To assess pond quality and conservation value, by recording wetland plants. How: Identify the outer boundary of the pond. This is the ‘line’ marking the pond’s highest yearly water levels (usually in early spring). It will probably not be the current water level of the pond, but should be evident from wetland vegetation like rushes at the pond’s outer edge, or other clues such as water-line marks on tree trunks or stones. Within the outer boundary, search all the dry and shallow areas of the pond that are accessible. Survey deeper areas with a net or grapnel hook. Record wetland plants found by crossing through the names on this sheet. You don’t need to record terrestrial species. For each species record its approximate abundance as a percentage of the pond’s surface area. Where few plants are present, record as ‘<1%’. If you are not completely confident in your species identification put ’?’ by the species name. If you are really unsure put ‘??’. Enter the results online: www.freshwaterhabitats.org.uk/projects/waternet/ or send your results to Freshwater Habitats Trust. Aquatic plants (submerged-leaved species) Nitella hyalina (Many-branched Stonewort) Floating-leaved species Apium inundatum (Lesser Marshwort) Nitella mucronata (Pointed Stonewort) Azolla filiculoides (Water Fern) Aponogeton distachyos (Cape-pondweed) Nitella opaca (Dark Stonewort) Hydrocharis morsus-ranae (Frogbit) Cabomba caroliniana (Fanwort) Nitella spanioclema (Few-branched Stonewort) Hydrocotyle ranunculoides (Floating Pennywort) Callitriche sp.
    [Show full text]
  • DCR Guide to Aquatic Plants in Massachusetts
    A GUIDE TO AQUATIC PLANTS IN MASSACHUSETTS Contacts: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, Lakes & Ponds Program www.mass.gov/lakesandponds Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection www.mass.gov/dep Northeast Aquatic Nuisance Species Panel www.northeastans.org Massachusetts Congress of Lakes & Ponds Associations (COLAP) www.macolap.org '-I... Printed on Recycled Paper 2016 A Guide to Aquatic Plants in Massachusetts Common Name Scientific Name Page No. Submerged Plants ........................................................................................................................9 Arrowhead .............................................................Sagittaria .......................................................................11 Bladderwort...........................................................Utricularia ......................................................................17 Common Bladderwort ...................................Utricularia vulgaris ........................................................18 Flatleaf Bladderwort ......................................Utricularia intermedia ....................................................18 Little Floating Bladderwort ............................Utricularia radiata .........................................................18 Purple Bladderwort........................................Utricularia purpurea.......................................................18 Burreed..................................................................Sparganium
    [Show full text]
  • Lista De Espécies Exóticas Aquáticas Potenciais Da Península Ibérica
    LISTA DE ESPÉCIES EXÓTICAS AQUÁTICAS POTENCIAIS DA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA (2020) Lista atualizada das espécies exóticas aquáticas potenciais, com alto risco de invasão nos sistemas dulçaquícolas e estuarinos da Península Ibérica LIFE INVASAQUA – RELATÓRIO TÉCNICO Sapo-cururu ou sapo-da-cana (Rhinella marina) © Pavel Kirillov. CC BY-SA 2.0 LISTA DE ESPÉCIES EXÓTICAS AQUÁTICAS POTENCIAIS DA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA (2020) Lista atualizada das espécies exóticas aquáticas potenciais, com alto risco de invasão nos sistemas dulçaquícolas e estuarinos da Península Ibérica LISTA DE ESPÉCIES EXÓTICAS AQUÁTICAS POTENCIAIS DA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA (2020) Lista atualizada das espécies exóticas aquáticas potenciais, com alto risco de invasão em águas interiores ibéricas Autores Oliva-Paterna F.J., Ribeiro F., Miranda R., Anastácio P.M., García-Murillo P., Cobo F., Gallardo B., García-Berthou E., Boix D., Medina L., Morcillo F., Oscoz J., Guillén A., Aguiar F., Almeida D., Arias A., Ayres C., Banha F., Barca S., Biurrun I., Cabezas M.P., Calero S., Campos J.A., Capdevila-Argüelles L., Capinha C., Carapeto A., Casals F., Chainho P., Cirujano S., Clavero M., Cuesta J.A., Del Toro V., Encarnação J.P., Fernández-Delgado C., Franco J., García-Meseguer A.J., Guareschi S., Guerrero A., Hermoso V., Machordom A., Martelo J., Mellado-Díaz A., Moreno J.C., Oficialdegui F.J., Olivo del Amo R., Otero J.C., Perdices A., Pou-Rovira Q., Rodríguez-Merino A., Ros M., Sánchez-Gullón E., Sánchez M.I., Sánchez-Fernández D., Sánchez-González J.R., Soriano O., Teodósio M.A., Torralva M., Vieira-Lanero R., Zamora-López, A. & Zamora-Marín J.M. LIFE INVASAQUA – TECHNICAL REPORT LIFE INVASAQUA – RELATÓRIO TÉCNICO Planta-do-chá-do-Senegal (Gymnocoronis spilanthoides) © John Tann.
    [Show full text]
  • INTRODUCTION This Check List of the Plants of New Jersey Has Been
    INTRODUCTION This Check List of the Plants of New Jersey has been compiled by updating and integrating the catalogs prepared by such authors as Nathaniel Lord Britton (1881 and 1889), Witmer Stone (1911), and Norman Taylor (1915) with such other sources as recently-published local lists, field trip reports of the Torrey Botanical Society and the Philadelphia Botanical Club, the New Jersey Natural Heritage Program’s list of threatened and endangered plants, personal observations in the field and the herbarium, and observations by other competent field botanists. The Check List includes 2,758 species, a botanical diversity that is rather unexpected in a small state like New Jersey. Of these, 1,944 are plants that are (or were) native to the state - still a large number, and one that reflects New Jersey's habitat diversity. The balance are plants that have been introduced from other countries or from other parts of North America. The list could be lengthened by hundreds of species by including non-persistent garden escapes and obscure waifs and ballast plants, many of which have not been seen in New Jersey since the nineteenth century, but it would be misleading to do so. The Check List should include all the plants that are truly native to New Jersey, plus all the introduced species that are naturalized here or for which there are relatively recent records, as well as many introduced plants of very limited occurrence. But no claims are made for the absolute perfection of the list. Plant nomenclature is constantly being revised. Single old species may be split into several new species, or multiple old species may be combined into one.
    [Show full text]
  • A Second Annotated Checklist of Vascular Plants in Wells Gray Provincial Park and Vicinity, British Columbia, Canada
    A second annotated checklist of vascular plants in Wells Gray Provincial Park and vicinity, British Columbia, Canada Version 1: April, 2011 Curtis R. Björk1 and Trevor Goward2 ENLICHENED CONSULTING LTD. Box 131, Clearwater, BC, V0E 1N0, Canada [email protected], [email protected] Vascular Plants in Wells Gray SUMMARY Wells Gray Provincial Park is a vast wilderness preserve situated in the mountains and highlands of south-central British Columbia. The first major floristic study of the vascular plants of Wells Gray and its vicinity was published in 1965 by Leena Hämet-Ahti, who documented 550 taxa, including a first Canadian record of Carex praeceptorium. The present study contributes nearly 500 additional taxa documented by us between 1976 and 2010 in connection with our personal explorations of the Clearwater Valley. The vascular flora of Wells Gray Park and vicinity now stands at 1046 taxa, including 881 native species and 165 species introduced from Eurasia and other portions of British Columbia. Wells Gray Park is notable both for the presence of numerous taxa (45) at or near the northern limits of their range, as well as for an unexpectedly high number of taxa (43) accorded conservation status by the British Columbia Conservation Data Centre. Antennaria corymbosa has its only known Canadian locality within Wells Gray, while five additional species reported here are known in Canada from fewer than six localities. About a dozen unknown, possibly undescribed taxa have also been detected. Botanical inventory has thus far been confined to the southern portions of Wells Gray. Future studies in northern half of the park will certainly greatly increase our knowledge of the biological diversity safeguarded in this magnificent wilderness preserve.
    [Show full text]