DOCSLIB.ORG

Hicks Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan – 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

DRAFT

HICKS LAKE INTEGRATED AQUATIC
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2017

Prepared for City of Lacey

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.

HICKS LAKE INTEGRATED AQUATIC
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2017

Prepared for City of Lacey
420 College Street Southeast Lacey, Washington 98503

Prepared by
Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc.
2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100
Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone: 206-441-9080

Funded by
Washington State Department of Ecology
Aquatic Weeds Management Fund
Grant Number WQAIP-2017-LacePW-00001

DRAFT
November 15, 2016

CONTENTS

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................iii 1. Problem Statement ...............................................................................................................................................1 2. Plant Management Goals....................................................................................................................................3 3. Lake and Watershed Characteristics...............................................................................................................5 4. Beneficial Uses of Hicks Lake...........................................................................................................................11 5. Aquatic Plant Community.................................................................................................................................13
5.1. Plant Distribution ........................................................................................................................................13 5.2. Targeted Plant Descriptions....................................................................................................................17
6. Past Management Efforts..................................................................................................................................19 7. Aquatic Plant Control Alternatives ................................................................................................................20 8. Aquatic Plant Control Scenarios.....................................................................................................................23
8.1. Noxious Floating-Leaved Plant Management..................................................................................27 8.2. Native Nuisance Submersed Plant Management...........................................................................27 8.3. Maintain Lake Health.................................................................................................................................28 8.4. Contingency Management......................................................................................................................28
9. Selected Action Strategy & Implementation.............................................................................................31
9.1. Action Strategy ............................................................................................................................................31 9.2. Implementation ...........................................................................................................................................33
10. Public Involvement..............................................................................................................................................35 11. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan.....................................................................................................................37
11.1. 11.2. 11.3.
Aquatic Plant Surveys....................................................................................................................37 Water Quality Monitoring............................................................................................................37 Annual Evaluation...........................................................................................................................37
12. References...............................................................................................................................................................39

i

kg 15-06169-000_hickslakeiavmp2017.docx

APPENDICES

Appendix A Hicks Lake LMD Steering Committee and Public Meeting Notes

Appendix C Invasive Aquatic Plant Identification Appendix D Public Awareness Signs

TABLES

Table 1. Physical Characteristics of Hicks Lake and Watershed. ...............................................................5 Table 2. Comprehensive Plant List, Hicks Lake Surveys 1995-2016a. ....................................................14 Table 3. Summary of Permitted Aquatic Herbicide Use for Hicks Lake................................................19 Table 4. Aquatic Plant Control Options Considered for Hicks Lake.......................................................21 Table 5. Plant Coverage on Hicks Lake.............................................................................................................23 Table 6. Preliminary Annual Costs of Aquatic Plant Control Scenarios for Hicks Lake in
Lacey, Washington...................................................................................................................................25

Table 7. Fragrant Waterlily Management Options on Hicks Lake..........................................................27 Table 8. Common Water-Nymph Management Options on Hicks Lake.............................................28 Table 9. Annual IAVMP Costs for Hicks Lake Selected Action Strategy...............................................31

FIGURES

Figure 1. Watershed and Surrounding Vicinity for Hicks Lake, Lacey, Washington............................6 Figure 2. 1995 – 2015 Trophic Status Indices for Hicks Lake.......................................................................7 Figure 3. May through October 2015 Profiles of Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, and Conductivity for Hicks Lake...........................................................................................................8

Figure 4. Hicks Lake Aquatic Vegetation Density Map, Lacey, Washington.........................................16 Figure 5. Hicks Lake Aquatic Vegetation Control Map, Lacey, Washington.........................................26

ii

kg 15-06169-000_hickslakeiavmp2017.docx

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Hicks Lake lies within the City of Lacey in the Henderson Inlet watershed in Thurston County, Washington. The 160-acre lake experiences dense growth of nonnative and native aquatic plants that inhibit the recreational usability and aesthetics of the lake. In 2015, members of the Hicks Lake community worked with the City of Lacey to establish the Hicks Lake, Lake Management District (LMD). The LMD applied for a grant to create Hicks Lake’s first Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP).

Hicks Lake has a large population of nonnative fragrant waterlilies (Nymphaea odorata) that has been present on the lake for many years. Recently, native submersed aquatic plants, primarily common water-nymph (Najas guadalupensis), have colonized most of the nearshore area of Hicks Lake. The presence of these two plant species is a safety concern for people swimming in the nearshore area or those trying to access deeper waters. Boating access and fishing are also hindered in the nearshore area by these plants. Some fragrant waterlilies have been treated with herbicide in the past, but the common water-nymph has never been treated at Hicks Lake.

This IAVMP details strategies for continued management of fragrant waterlily with the herbicide glyphosate, as well as the control of the nuisance native common water-nymph with the herbicide diquat. This IAVMP is a planning document developed to ensure that the Hicks 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 ten lake residents and one staff person from the City of Lacey. Members of the Hicks Lake LMD Steering Committee worked in partnership with Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Herrera) to develop this IAVMP for Hicks Lake using a grant to the City of Lacy from the Washington State Department of Ecology Aquatic Weeds Management Fund.

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.

This 2017 IAVMP details a plan for management of the following aquatic plants.

•

Noxious Floating-Leaved Plants – Treat one-third of fragrant waterlily (excluding the conservation area) with glyphosate annually for the first 3 years (approximately 8 acres each year from 2017 through 2019). Each treatment will involve an initial treatment, followed up by a second treatment a few weeks later to treat any plants that may have been missed because the pads had not surfaced or the herbicide washed off the leaves. After 3 years, all waterlilies targeted for control will have been treated. Follow up spot treatments to maintain recreational access to open water habitat will take place in

November 2016

  • Draft Hicks Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan – 2017
  • iii

Years 4 and 5 (2020 and 2021). If needed, floating waterlily root mats will be moved or removed under Contingency Management (see below).

•

Native Nuisance Submersed Plants – Treat 34.6 acres of medium to high density

growth of common water-nymph once every other year with diquat. (This treatment area is less than permit maximum of 49.5 acres, based on 50 percent of the littoral zone.) One treatment of this area will be made at the beginning of the growing season (late May or early June), followed by a second treatment approximately one month later to treat any regrowth from seed germination. In Year 1 (2017) it is assumed that all 34.6 acres of the medium to high density growth of common water-nymph will be treated. The cost estimate assumes that in following treatment years (Years 3 and 5 [2019 and 2021]) up to 15 acres will be treated. It is possible that other native submersed plants may become dominant in the lake following the first year of treatment. For example, perennial plants such as pondweeds with extensive rhizomes often become dominant following treatment of annual plants such as common water-nymph. Therefore, treatments in Years 3 and 5 may target medium to high density growth of other native submersed plants, but are still expected to be limited to an area of 15 acres.

The aquatic plant community will be surveyed and mapped every other year to evaluate general changes in the plant community and effectiveness of the treatments, and to detect the presence of new invasive species. The control strategy is taking an incremented approach to treating target species to preserve the water quality of the lake; therefore, the presence of targeted plants such as fragrant waterlily does not alone indicate success or failure of the IAVMP tor achieve the desired results. Success will be largely determined by public perception of whether the desired beneficial uses of Hicks Lake are being maintained through the implementation of this IAVMP.

A water quality monitoring program will continue to be conducted every year to track long-term trends in water quality within the lake.

Public education and awareness programs and workshops for lake residents will be focused on exotic plant prevention, and will provide general pollution prevention and best management practices information to lake residents.

The LMD 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 planning of 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 and water quality monitoring results, and public education and awareness activities.

The following contingency management options may be conducted as the need arises.

November 2016

  • iv
  • Draft Hicks Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan – 2017

••

Fragrant Waterlily Root Mats – Remove floating waterlily root mats and associated lake sediments in selected areas to improve access to the lake.

New Noxious Submersed Plant Control – If the lake becomes infested by another

noxious submersed plant such as Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) or Brazilian elodea (Egeria densa), then immediately use hand-pulling or an herbicide to eradicate the infestation.

•

Noxious Emergent Plants – Treat emergent noxious weeds that are known to occur on the Hicks Lake shoreline, such as Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), and yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) with glyphosate annually when observed during waterlily treatment to eradicate or keep populations low.

November 2016

  • Draft Hicks Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan – 2017
  • v

1. PROBLEM STATEMENT

Hicks Lake is a 160-acre lake within the City of Lacey in Thurston County, Washington. The lake lies within the Woodland Creek Watershed, which is within the Henderson Inlet 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. The Hicks Lake, Lake Management District (LMD) was formed in 2015 with the goal of preserving the aesthetics and recreational opportunities of Hicks Lake through removal of problematic aquatic vegetation. The Hicks Lake LMD Steering Committee is spearheading the development of Hicks Lake’s first Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) to address aquatic vegetation issues.

Recently, native submersed aquatic plants, primarily common water-nymph (Najas guadalupensis), have colonized most of the nearshore area of Hicks Lake. They interfere with activities in nearshore areas of the lake that are less than about 14 feet deep. The density and extent of these plants are a safety concern for people swimming in the nearshore area or those trying to access deeper waters. Boating access and fishing is also hindered in the nearshore area by these plants.

Hicks Lake also has a large population of nonnative fragrant waterlilies (Nymphaea odorata). The fragrant waterlilies, a Class C noxious weed, are most abundant on the south shore. These lilies have been treated with the herbicide glyphosate at some properties in this area. Decaying roots (rhizomes) from the treatments have resulted in floating lily mats, which can interfere with lake use and present a safety risk to boaters when they drift across the lake.

Since 1995, plant surveys on Hicks Lake have identified several other aquatic plant species that are listed as “noxious” because of their tendencies to overtake a lake. Small populations of swollen bladderwort (Utricularia inflata) have been found primarily on the steep (eastern) shore of the lake, and curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) was once found near the public boat launch. These plants were not found during the aquatic vegetation survey of the lake conducted in 2016 for this IAVMP. However, a plan for prevention and detection is needed to reduce the potential for new plant invasions that could become problematic.

Emergent plant species (plants that grow along the edges of lakes, rivers, and streams) are present at Hicks Lake and include several noxious weeds that are not required to be controlled. Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) is expanding and restricts lake access in some areas, but is not yet a serious issue. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) or garden loosestrife (Lysimachia vulgaris) have been reported at a few locations, but their presence is unconfirmed. Cattails and other emergent plants are not considered to be a problem by lake residents.

November 2016

  • Draft Hicks Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan – 2017
  • 1

2. PLANT MANAGEMENT GOALS

Aquatic plants in Hicks Lake provide important natural habitat for fish, waterfowl, and small wildlife. Excessive aquatic plant growth, however, may impact the aquatic habitat. Recent increases in the cover and abundance of aquatic plants have impacted recreational opportunities and aesthetic beauty the lake offers to residents who live on and nearby the lake. To address concerns of the Hicks Lake community, the Hicks Lake LMD Steering Committee is acting to create an IAVMP for controlling excessive growth of noxious weeds and native, nuisance vegetation in Hicks Lake. The Steering Committee is composed of ten lake residents (Danny Kaiser, Ken Callaghan, Margaret Hollinger, Mike Mahoney, James Tilque, Glenn Edstrom, Jay Monti, JJ Baker, Rob Krell, and Roxine Mahoney) and one staff from the City of Lacey (Tom Palmateer).

The Hicks Lake LMD Steering committee met three times during the drafting of the IAVMP to discuss the goals of the plan, as well as to discuss possible methods for control of the problem species to meet the goals, and finally to select a preferred method(s) for achieving those goals. These meetings took place on July 26, October 19, and October 26, 2016. In the third meeting, all members of the Hicks Lake LMD were invited to attend and provide input for the IAVMP. Notes and presentations for each meeting are provided in Appendix A.

With the implementation of the IAVMP, the Hicks Lake LMD Steering Committee will direct aquatic vegetation management activities to ensure a high-level of lake health while balancing the recreational, wildlife, water quality, and aesthetic needs of Hicks Lake. To accomplish this, the LMD established the following aquatic plant management goals.

••

Provide for safe swimming in private and public areas Provide safe lanes of access to open water for swimming and boating from shorefront properties

•

Monitor for plants that can become a problem and have a ready strategy for their control

••

Develop a long term invasive species prevention plan Maintain good water quality and prevent toxic algae blooms
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. Work plans will be developed annually for implementation of specific activities and recommendations based on current conditions and past successes.

Recommended publications
  • Supp III a Basin Description

    Supp III a Basin Description

    Supplement Section III — Basin Description Information Base Part A — Basin Description The Chehalis River Basin is the largest river basin in western Washington. With the exception of the Columbia River basin, it is the largest in the state. The basin extends over eight counties. It encompasses large portions of Grays Harbor, Lewis, and Thurston counties, and smaller parts of Mason, Pacific, Cowlitz, Wahkiakum, and Jefferson counties. For purposes of water resources planning under the Washington State Watershed Planning Act of 1998, the Chehalis Basin was divided into two Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs), WRIA 22 and WRIA 23, depicted here with surrounding WRIA numbers and in relation to the whole state of Washington. Chehalis Basin Watershed — County Land Areas County Area (sq.mi.) Area (acres) Percentage Grays Harbor 1,390 889,711 50.3% Thurston 323 206,446 11.7% Lewis 770 493,103 27.9% Mason 206 132,146 7.5% Pacific 66 42,040 2.4% Cowlitz 8 5,427 0.3% Jefferson 2 1,259 0.07% Wahkiakum .1 37 0.002% Total 2,766 1,770,169 Source: Chehalis Watershed GIS Watershed Boundaries The basin is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the east by the Deschutes River Basin, on the north by the Olympic Mountains, and on the south by the Willapa Hills and Cowlitz River Basin. Elevations vary from sea level at Grays Harbor to the 5,054-foot Capitol Peak in the Olympic National Forest. The basin consists of approximately 2,766 square miles. The Chehalis WRIA 22 River system flows through three distinct eco-regions before emptying into Grays Harbor near Aberdeen (Omernik, 1987): • The Cascade ecoregion (including the Olympic Mountains) is char- acterized by volcanic/sedimentary bedrock formations.
  • Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project

    Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project

    Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project This plan addresses herbicide application activities undertaken by the coalition of ISP partner agencies in the effort to eradicate non-native, invasive Spartina from the San Francisco Estuary. Annual update prepared by Drew Kerr 2612-A 8th Street Berkeley, CA 94710 [email protected] Under contract to Olofson Environmental, Inc. Berkeley, California for the State Coastal Conservancy 1330 Broadway, 13th floor Oakland, Ca 94612-2530 June 2013 Current funding for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project comes from the California State Coastal Conservancy and grants from the California Wildlife Conservation Board. Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... ii Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ ii 1. BACKGROUND......................................................................................................... 1 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED ...............................................................
  • Attachment 8: Aquatic Invasive Species Discipline Report

    Attachment 8: Aquatic Invasive Species Discipline Report

    Attachment 8 Aquatic Invasive Species Discipline Report CAPITOL LAKE – DESCHUTES ESTUARY Long-Term Management Project Environmental Impact Statement Aquatic Invasive Species Discipline Report Prepared for: Washington State Department of Enterprise Services 1500 Jefferson Street SE Olympia, Washington 98501 Prepared by: Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. June 2021 < Intentionally Blank > CAPITOL LAKECAPIT – DESCHUTESOL LAKE – DESCHUTESESTUARY ESTUARY Long-Term Management Project Environmental Impact Statement Long-Term Management Project Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary This Aquatic Invasive Species Discipline Report describes the potential impacts of the Capitol Lake – Deschutes Estuary Long-Term Management Project on aquatic invasive species in the area surrounding the project. The Capitol Lake – Deschutes Estuary includes the 260-acre Capitol Lake Basin, located on the Washington State Capitol Campus, in Olympia, Washington. Long-term management strategies and actions are needed to address issues in the Capitol Lake – Deschutes Estuary project area. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being prepared to document the potential environmental impacts of various alternatives and determine how these alternatives meet the long-term objectives identified for the watershed. Aquatic invasive species (AIS) include nonnative plants and animals that rely on the aquatic environment for a portion of their life cycle and can spread to new areas of the state, causing economic or environmental harm. The impacts of construction and operation of each alternative are assessed based on the potential of project alternatives to result in changes in abundance or distribution of AIS within or outside the project area from AIS transport into or out of the project area. Where impacts are identified, the report discusses measures that can be taken to minimize or mitigate potential impacts.
  • MCSTOPPP Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program

    MCSTOPPP Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program

    MCSTOPPP Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program www.mcstoppp.org 2010—2011 MCSTOPPP Annual Report Belvedere ▪ Corte Madera ▪ County of Marin ▪ Fairfax Larkspur ▪ Mill Valley ▪ Novato ▪ Ross ▪ San Anselmo San Rafael ▪ Sausalito ▪ Tiburon ANNUAL REPORT 2010-2011 Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) Marin County Department of Public Works P.O. Box 4186 San Rafael, CA 94913‐4186 Countywide Program Staff Terri Fashing, Program Manager (415‐499‐6583) Gina Purin, Public Outreach Coordinator (415‐499‐3202) Howard Bunce, Engineering Technician III (415‐499‐3748) Liz Lewis, Principal Planner, Marin County Department of Public Works [email protected] with assistance from EOA, Inc. and Marin County Department of Public Works Agency Staff Committee Representatives (Local Stormwater Coordinators): Scott Derdenger, City of Belvedere Kevin Kramer, Town of Corte Madera Mark Lockaby, Town of Fairfax Mike Myers, City of Larkspur Howard Bunce and Terri Fashing, County of Marin Jill Barnes, City of Mill Valley Dave Harlan, City of Novato Robert Maccario, Town of Ross Sean Condry, Town of San Anselmo Diane Decicio, City of San Rafael Todd Teachout, City of Sausalito Matt Swalberg, Town of Tiburon Citizens Advisory Committee: Betsy Bikle Stan Griffin* Jan Gross Kristine Pillsbury Aaron Stessman Sam Wilson** Ann Thomas** Cover photo: Garden designed by Art Gardens Landscape Co., 2010 Marin Eco‐Friendly Garden Tour – Photo by Gina Purin. *This Annual Report is dedicated to the memory of Stan Griffin (1920‐2011), with gratitude for his tireless efforts to protect and restore fish habitat in Marin’s creeks. **Ann Thomas replaced Sam Wilson on the MCSTOPPP CAC in May 2011.
  • Protecting Urban Water Quality: New Surface Water Regulations of 2012

    Protecting Urban Water Quality: New Surface Water Regulations of 2012

    Protecting Urban Water Quality: New Surface Water Regulations of 2012 Michael P Ensminger, Staff Environmental Scientist, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95812, [email protected] The California Department of Pesticide Regulation adopted new surface water regulations on June 19, 2012. The regulations restrict outdoor urban applications of pyrethroid insecticides made by professional applicators. Pyrethroids are highly active insecticides that control crawling, chewing, and flying insects as cockroaches, ants, beetles, caterpillars, termites, mosquitos, and wasps; in addition they are highly active on arachnids as spiders, ticks, and mites. Pyrethroids are highly hydrophobic and sorb to soils and sediment; half-lives of pyrethroids range from weeks to more than a year. Pyrethroids are being regulated in urban (non-agricultural) areas because of the following characteristics: 1) high use in urban areas; 2) prone to runoff in urban areas due to the engineering design of urban areas, especially during rainstorms; 3) more frequently detected in urban areas than in agricultural areas; 4) highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates and fish; 5) cause aquatic invertebrate toxicity when detected in surface waters. The new surface water regulations will reduce the amount of pyrethroids applied by limiting applications to spot applications, crack and crevice applications, pin stream applications, and by limiting applications to impervious surfaces. Because more pyrethroids runoff during rainstorm events, applications are prohibited during rainfall (except under eaves), in standing water, to stormdrains and curbside gutters, and unprotected termiticide applications. More specific information can be found at the CDPR website (http://cdpr.ca.gov/docs/legbills/calcode/040501.htm).
  • Weed Management in a Changing Agricultural/Urban Environment

    Weed Management in a Changing Agricultural/Urban Environment

    10:20 Weeds as Hosts for Insect Pests 10:20 New Options for Control of Invasive FRIDAY, JANUARY 20, 2017 10:20 WeedsShimat as Joseph, Hosts forUCCE, Insect Monterey Pests County 10:20 NewAnnual Options Grasses for Control in the ofWest Invasive FRIDAY, JANUARY 20, 2017 7:00am- REGISTRATION & CEU Shimat Joseph, UCCE, Monterey County AnnualHarry GrassesQuicke, Bayer in the ES West Development California Weed 7:00am11:15am- REGISTRATIONSIGN-IN/OUT & CEU California Weed Harry Quicke, Bayer ES Development 10:45 Chemical Weed Control in Berry Crops 10:45 The Next Generation of Vegetation 11:15am SIGNJudy-IN/OUT Letterman & Celeste Elliott, CaliforniaScience WeedSociety 10:45 ChemicalSteve Fennimore, Weed Control UC Davis, in Berry Salinas Crops 10:45 TheManagement Next Generation and Stewardship of Vegetation JudyCWSS Letterman & Celeste Elliott, Science Society Steve Fennimore, UC Davis, Salinas ManagementGabriel Ludwig, and HelenaStewardship Chemical Company CWSS Science Society Gabriel Ludwig, Helena Chemical Company 11:30am-1:00pm CWSS BUSINESS & AWARDS LUNCHEON—DE ANZA BALLROOMS I & II DE ANZA BALLROOM III Annual Conference 11:30amKatherine-1:00pm Walker, CWSS CWSS BUSINESS President, &BASF AWARDS LUNCHEON—DE ANZA BALLROOMS I & II Annual Conference DE ANZA BALLROOM III Katherine Walker, CWSS President, BASF Annual Conference 7:30- SESSION M: LAWS & REGULATIONS AFTERNOON CONCURRENT SESSIONS 7:30- SESSIONChairs: LisaM: LAWS Blecker, & REGULATIONSUC Statewide IPM AFTERNOON CONCURRENT SESSIONS 11:30 DE ANZA BALLROOM III BONSAI BALLROOM 11:30
  • Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

    Barnes Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2016

    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 ....................................................................................
  • Assessment of Non-Chemical Control of Aquatic Plants

    Assessment of Non-Chemical Control of Aquatic Plants

    Aquatic Pesticide Monitoring Program Review of Alternative Aquatic Pest Control Methods For California Waters Ben K. Greenfield Nicole David Jennifer Hunt Marion Wittmann Geoffrey Siemering San Francisco Estuary Institute 7770 Pardee Lane, 2nd Floor Oakland, CA 94621 April 2004 Aquatic Pesticide Monitoring Program Review of Alternative Aquatic Pest Control Methods For California Waters Table of Contents: Disclaimer and Acknowledgements ..................................................................................iii Introduction......................................................................................................................... 2 Review Design.................................................................................................................... 4 Literature Review............................................................................................................ 5 Practitioner Survey.......................................................................................................... 5 Biological Control Methods................................................................................................ 6 Pros and Cons of Biocontrol........................................................................................... 6 Triploid Grass Carp......................................................................................................... 7 Other Herbivorous Fishes ............................................................................................. 11 Fish Biomanipulation...................................................................................................
  • 24Th Annual Western Aquatic Plant Management Society Meeting March 10-11, 2005 Denver, CO

    24Th Annual Western Aquatic Plant Management Society Meeting March 10-11, 2005 Denver, CO

    24th Annual Western Aquatic Plant Management Society Meeting March 10-11, 2005 Denver, CO ABSTRACTS Oral Presentations (Alphabetized by first author’s last name) Preliminary evaluation of SolarBee effects on water quality at Lake Tahoe. Lars Anderson, Wailun Tan, and Chris Mallek; USDA-ARS Exotic and Invasive Weed Research, UCDavis One Shields Ave Davis, CA 95616 E-mail: [email protected] The SolarBee Corporation installed four water circulation systems at Tahoe Keys in the early summer of 2004. Subsequently, this study was begun to assess impacts of the systems on water quality, sediments, plant quality (CHN) and ability of adjacent sediments to support growth of Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum). During July, 2004, transects were established at three of the SolarBee stations and at three “control” stations in the West Tahoe Keys marina (West Basin) areas where no SolarBee systems were installed. Sampling stations were established at 4, 12, 36 and 100 meters from the SolarBee systems. During each sampling period (July, August, September (twice), November), light levels (at 20 cm-intervals) and water quality measurements (temp, DO, turbidity, pH) were recorded mid-depth and 20cm from the bottom. Triplicate samples of sediments were taken along the transects using an Ekman dredge (15cm x 15cm x15cm) and combined to form one sediment sample at each station (point) along each transect. Sediments were distributed into triplicate 1.5 l containers and each container was planted with three 15 cm apical shoots of M. spicatum obtained from the Tahoe Keys Marina. Planted containers were placed in a randomized pattern in temperature-controlled fiberglass tanks, 1 m deep, with recirculating deionized water and exposed to ca.
  • December 2005 a Design Revolution $6.00 Goldenunder Costa Rica’S Sun Beauty

    December 2005 a Design Revolution $6.00 Goldenunder Costa Rica’S Sun Beauty

    Inside: Stephanie Rose on the Role of Plants Design • Engineering • Construction Volume 7 Number 12 December 2005 A design revolution $6.00 Goldenunder Costa Rica’s sun Beauty Healthy Remedies Curing what ails big ponds and lakes Plus: A new method for assessing hydraulic systems Circle 56 on Postage Free Card Circle 3 on Postage Free Card contents December features 28 When Ponds Go Bad 40 By George Forni Islands Afloat Keys to curing By Chet Van Duzer serious water problems Exploring realms of natural wonder 48 Pure Vision By Juan Roca Business redefinition in a brave, new world 36 Equating Continuity By Steve Gutai A fresh angle on hydraulic calculations 4 WATERsHAPES ⅐ DECEMBER 2005 Volume 7 • Number 12 • December 2005 columns 10 6 Structures By Eric Herman Gathering a foreign perspective 10 Aqua Culture By Brian Van Bower 16 Energizing the commercial market 16 Natural Companions By Stephanie Rose Defining the alliance of water with plants 22 Detail #58 By David Tisherman The ins and outs of creative tile work 62 Book Notes By Mike Farley An awards program 22 that really matters departments 8 In This Issue 56 Advertiser Index 56 Of Interest Index 58 Of Interest On the cover: Photo courtesy Aquart J. Roca Disseny, Gunacaste, Costa Rica. WATERSHAPES (ISSN 1522-6581) is published monthly by McCloskey Communications, Inc. 6119 Lockhurst Dr., Woodland Hills, CA 91367. A controlled circulation publication, WaterShapes is distributed without charge to qualified subscribers. Non-qualified subscription rates in the U.S., $30 per year; Canada and Mexico $48 per year; all other coun- tries $64 per year, payable in U.S.
  • Proceedings California Invasive Plant Council Symposium 2008

    Proceedings California Invasive Plant Council Symposium 2008

    Proceedings California Invasive Plant Council Symposium 2008 “The Future of Invasive Plant Management” 1 2 Proceedings California Invasive Plant Council Symposium Volume 12: 2008 “The Future of Invasive Plant Management” California State University-Chico October 2-4, 2008 3 These Proceedings are available online at www.cal-ipc.org. Contact Cal-IPC at [email protected] California Invasive Plant Council 1442-A Walnut St. #462 Berkeley, CA 94709 Copyright © 2008 by the California Invasive Plant Council Recommended citation format: Randall, John M. Learning to live with invasive plants we cannot control. Proceedings of the California Invasive Plant Council. 12:pg. Cal-IPC, Berkeley, CA. The views and opinions expressed in the articles of this publication do not necessarily reflect the position of the California Invasive Plant Council. Cover: Sutter Buttes – Field trips visited Peace Valley in the Sutter Buttes (pictured), Lassen Volcanic National Park, Big Chico Creek Ecological Reserve, and local creek restoration projects around Chico. Photo: Sara Sweetto: Sara Sweet Title page: The California Department of Food and Agriculture’s Integrated Pest Control Branch won the 2008 award for Or- ganization of the Year. Photo: Gina Darin. 4 Table of Contents * Indicates presenting author in multi-author papers. Keynote Speaker 1 The evolving people and landscapes of California Emilyn Sheffield, California State University, Chico, Chico, CA New Horizons 1 Learning to live with invasives we cannot control John Randall, The Nature Conservancy, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA Warmer and weedier? Outlook for invasive plants in a changing world Jeffrey S. Dukes, Purdue University The five stages of grief: Invasive plants and the horticulture industry Sarah Reichard, University of Washington Botanic Gardens Student Paper Contest 6 Ecological remote sensing of invasion by perennial pepperweed Margaret E.
  • Aquatics in Brief – Fall 2018

    Aquatics in Brief – Fall 2018

    FALL 2018 AquaticsinBrief Volume 12, Issue 3 Inside: Page 2 New Technology Highlight: Bioengineered Living Shorelines & Hillsides Page 3 Case Study: Managing Which Sediment Removal Option Aquatic Weeds and Algae in a Complex Community Canal System is Right for My Property? Page 4 By Lance Dohman, Regional Leader What Exactly Is Stormwater Runoff? irtually all explanations of dredg- Nuisance Plant Highlight: ing include the physical scooping Torpedograss up of underwater sand and clay Page 5 sediments to enhance a merchant ship’s access to a port or waterway. If these New SOLs V waterways become inaccessible, the eco- Page 6 nomic consequences are far reaching. Today, however, massive algal blooms, animal fatali- Upland, Wetland and ties from toxic byproducts of algae and the Aquatic Plants Every Turf Manager Should spread of invasive plants and animals are Know About sharing the front-page news with national economic interests. For those of us living Hydraulic Dredge Page 7 on a waterbody, it’s clear that our personal Before and After economic interests are rewarded via higher Showcase property values if the nearby water is both Fortunately, there are many proactive Volunteer Spotlight navigable and healthy. As a waterbody ages aquatic management solutions that can be implemented to help slow or prevent the Check Us Out… and becomes “silted-in,” organic nutrients fuel invasive plant and algae growth, and aging of waterbodies, such as proper land property owners suffer the consequences use management, maintenance of beneficial of bright green water, fish kills and danger- vegetative buffers and sediment traps, instal- ous swimming conditions.