It\OARRIN \f!I fresh Water Institute , ;ammw 7 7 mmnrr I In 1lllIiI@i liD' mpw I't W1I$UU II1I1 =pw Lake George, New York Adirondack Field Station at Bolton Landing
A SURVEY OF TRIBUTARIICS TO LAKE GEORGI':, NEW YORK FOR THE PRESENCE OF I:URASIAN WATERMILFOIL
prepared lor The fund for Lake George
hy
Lawrence W, Eichler Research Scientist
T,aurie Ahrens-Franklin Sr. Laboratory Technician
& Charles W. Boylen Associate Director
DaHin Fresh Water Institute Rensselaer "PolJ1echnic instItutt; Troy, NY 12180-3590 Bolton Lanchng, NY 12814
March 2004
DrWI Technical Report 20U4-4 TABLE OF CONTt<:NTS
The Survey of Lake George Tributaries for Eurasian watermilfoil· 200J
executive Summary III
Inlroduction
Methods
Results and Discussioll 3
References 12
Acknowl edgcrncnls 13
Appendix A. Site Locations
Appendix B. MacroJlhyte Community Assessmrut data
11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A survey of tributary Jellas in the south hasin of Lake George was conducted in 2003 to assess the extent of Eurasian watermi[foil (Myriophyllum spicatum L) infestation. The Darrin fresh Water blStitutc conducted the project with financial support from the fund for Lake George. Similar surveys were completed in 1987, 1989, 1991, 1994, 11)1)7 and 2000 as reference points. Delta areas were chosen as read; Iy identifiable points that historically harbor diverse assemblages of native aquatic plants.
Results orthese surveys can he used to approximate the rate of spread of11111foil through the Lake George hasin. in 1987, when surveys were initiated, 30 percent of the sites were found to have milfoil. By 1989, this percentage had dropped to 23 percent due to harvesting of mil foil, although three new locations were found in 19R9. In 1991, over 45 percent of the trihutary sites surveyed In the south hasin had mil Coil. Results from the 1994 survey showed a slight reduction to 41 % of the sites colonized by Eurasian watermilfoil. The 1997 and 2000 surveys found this declining trend was continued from 1994, with 39% and 33% of the total sites infested, respectively. Tn 2003, the number of sites with Eurasian watertlulfoil present remained at 33% of sites surveyed. The decline in sites with Eurasian watermiloifl present is attributed to hand harvesting of mil foil in prior years. No new sites supporting Eurasian w Management e!Torts to date have heen implemented at 128 of 146 known mil foil locations. Management eff011s have reduced the milfoil biomass in these locations; however, milfoil has only heen clitlllnated at a handful of sites Although the nill11ber of samples is lLmiLed for development of a statistically reliable rate of colonization, new sites continue to he colonizcd on Tributary surveys demonstrate the need for continued management of Eurasian watermilfoil in Lake George. Management programs currently encompass several diiTerent techniques renective of different stages ofmil1oil devcIopment. Tributary surveys provide a means of mapping milfoil colonization in Lake George, while management programs limit the spread of mil foil once sites have been located. Increased puhlic awareness of the effects of growth and spread of Eurasian watermil10il on the Lake George ecosystem can help reduce furLher introductiol1. 2003 TRIBUTARV SURVEV Introduction Streams entering Lak~ George, with nutrients and sllspended sediments derived from the terrestrial portion of the basin and deposited 011 their deltas, arc prime habitats for the continued establishment and reestablishment of Eurasian watcrmiUoil (Myriophyllum. . spicatum r,.). Delta areas arc also disturbed habitats, as a result of sedimentation of terreslrially derived materials and scouring of existing sediments during times or accelerated nmoff. The comhination of changing sediment conditions and habitat disruption make: tributary deltas prime locations for Eurasian watermilfoil infestation. 1 Around the entire lakeshore, then: are 128 listed stream tributaries (Madsen el a1. 1989 ). Because human activity in the Lake George basin has historically exacerbated water quality conditions, relative to disturbed areas, the rate of establishment and ~pread of milfoil has heen of particular cont:em in the management of Eurasian watcnnilfoil. A survey of all the trihutaries in tllC basin wa~ perfonned as pa11 of the 1 Sl~OMgg Lake George Aquatic Plant Survey (Madsen et a1. 1989). The survey provided a procedure for finding new sites with Eurasian watel111ilfoil, includlllg the establishment of a regular search pattem for milfoil sites to ascertain the relative distribution ofrnilloil among the native plant communities in Lake George. in order to balance the number of tributary sites surveyed each year and to stabilize the cost orthe survey, the south basin tributaries were divided into two groups in 1991. With approximately 45 tributaries in each group, a three-year cycle of surveys has been established with a south, central and north component of nearly equal numher of trihutaries. The tributaries in the southem half of the south basin were sun'eyed in 1991, those in the nor1hern hall" of the south basin (central) were the subject of the 1992, 1995 and 1998 surveys. The tributaries of the north basin were the subject of the 1993, 1996 and 1999 sunreys. The far south basin tributary survey was conduded in 1987, 1989, 1991, 19~)4, 1997 and in 2000 to provide infonnation on the rate of colonization of Eurasian watennilfoil (Madsen et aI, 1990). Since these are readily located site~ for which the presence or absence of Eurasian watennilfoil was knoVo/11 from the previolLs surveys noted above, these sitGS were revisited in 2003 to detennine whether appreciable new infestation, re~invasion or natural mortality of earlier mfestation had occurred. Methods The shoreline adjacent to tributary outflows in the south basin was surveyed for the presence of Eurasian watemlilfoil. The tributaries comprising this portion oraw survey 1 were visited between July 24th and September 30 \ 2003. Surveys consisted ofswirnrning a 100-meter segment of shoreline from the edge of the water to the outer edge of the littoral zone (maximum depth of rooted plant growth). I All cited literalure is found in References on Page 12. Diver swimover transects were also completed at each site in order to characterize the macrophyte (aquatic plcl11t) community present. Divers skilled in plant identification estimated the abundance of all aquatic plant species in each 1-meter (3 ft) depth in1erval using the following abundance classes: Class Code % Cover Range Centroid Ahundant A greater than 50% cover 75.0% Common C 25% to 50% cover 37.5% Present P 15% to 25% cover 20.0% Occasional 0 5% to 15% cover 10.0% Rare R less than 5% cover 2.5% Percent cover data provides both the average depth distribution ortbe plants present and an estimate of the relative abundance of species at the tributary sites. This information is also important for future management decisions conceming 111ilfoil control alternatives and permit applications required as part of any control strategy. A map showing the generallocatiun uflhis year's survey activity is shown in Figure 1. Specific tributaty locations in the current survey arc provided in Appendix A. Figure 1. Map of Lake George indicating the three regions included in the Tributary Survey. The southern segment was completed in 2003. rrlles 2 Results and Discussion The current survey included the southernmost portion of the lake basin tributaries (46 siles). The cenlral and northern porlions of the lake were complctcd ill 2001 and 2002, respectively. Maps with the locations of the tributaries surveyed m2003 are provided as Appendix A. Aquatic plant ahundance data for the 44 sites compared in the 1987 and 1989 surveys, plus 2 additional sites that were included during the 1991 survey are provided as Appendix 13. Methodologies employed by the three surveys were the same. The results of the south basin tributary surveys for all survey years are presented in Table 1. For each site, the tribulary number and site name is givt;n. Table 1. Tributary survey sites in the south basin and the presence (Yes) or absence (No) of Eurasian watennilfoil. M # is a sequential listing of sites with Eurasian waterl11ilfoil discovered since the survey began. TRIB M SITE \1up MILFOIL PRESENT if II DESCRIPTION Quadrangle 2003 2000 1997 IlJlJ4 IlJ91 19K') 19W/ ,[,·21 M·XI l1ut(crnut Brook l1oltO[l no no no no yes T·22 M·82 Barbel Bay Bolton yes )'C"S yes yes yes 00 0" ['·23 lsom, N of Jc:eho l3ay 130lton eo eo 00 '00 T-24 M-I07 Van \Varmcr-ncar Fli7 Is I,k George "' M yes 00 T-25 Van Wu/lllel Bay Lk George '00 '00 '00 00 00 T-25a M-8.{ Van Warmer Bay Lk George eo ye~ "0 T-7Ji Trout Pavilion Brook Lk Georr,e 00 00 00 M T·27 M·ll SWarner Bay·Wellanu Trib Lk George y'~ yes y" '00 yes 1'-27a M-37 S Warner Hay-Culvert I.k {,eorge yes yes yes yes y~:; y~o T-27b \1-38 S Wamer Bay-Culvert Lk George Y" y" yes yes yrs yes yes T-2h M-Yl 5 Katl:;kill Bay Lk G~orge ye:; yl:~ ye:; ye~ yoos ''" yes T-28 M-120 N W'~rner l1~y-eulV('"rt Lk Gcorr,('" yes ye.~ yes yes yes 00 "' T-29a M-l0S HalJis Bay-eLllv~rl Lk G~orge Y" yes yo; Y" ''" 00 T-29b Hams ]Jay-culvert Lk George 00 eo No No T-29c Sandy Bny-culvert Lk George 00 eo No "' No T-30 M-I09 Buy SW Huppy Fumily Lk Geurge eo 00 No yes '00 No T-:10a M-M I larris nay Inlet I.k {,eorge 00 yes 00 T-32 M-S5 Dunham Bay Inlet Lk George yes yeo y" T-.3.3 M-.36 Bay E of LJark Hay Lk George yes yes yes y~:; "0 T-34 Dark Bay Lk George '00 '00 No 00 00 T-35a M-33 S u[Plum Puint Lk G~org~ No 00 00 ''" yo:s I'-_l~h Ilay hetween Plum & W()(}d~ PT I,k {,corgc "'M No M yes 00 ye~ T-36 East Shore Lk George '00 No 00 00 00 No T~3()u Eu:;( Shure Lk Geurg~ No 00 "0 '00 No T-3(ib c~st Shore-culvert Lk {,eorge No "' 00 No T-3Gc E(lst Shore Lk George '00 '00 No '00 00 00 No T-36d M-86 East Shore Lk George No "' y\::; "0 No T-36e M·121 East Shore-culver! Lk George '00 yes 00 00 No T-36f East Shore Lk George "' No eo eo No T-3 7~ M-32 Crosbyside-eulvert Lk George '00 No 00 yes T-37b M-S7 Cru:;byside Lk G~org~ No yl:~ IIU T-17c M-SS Crnshysldc I,k Geor!;e "'00 No 00 yes T-37d M-89 Ciosbyside-eulver ts Lk George no '00 "0 y" '" 'l'-40 M-62 Mannc Village-Clrl\,crt Lk (,eorge yes yes yes yes yes yes ''"00 T-,Il M-31 English Brook Lk George '00 00 yes "' 00 yes yes TIWl M SITE Map MILFOIL PRESENT # , DI-':SCRIPTJON Quadrangle 2003 2000 1997 1994 1,)()1 1989 1987 '1"-41 a M 90 S, Tt:u [so Bay-culvert Lk Geurge yes co yes yeo yes ye~ co T-41b 1'.1-30 N Tea Is. l1ay Lk George yes yo; yt:, yt:s yes yes yeo T-42 M-l,) l1~y NE ofTen Is. I.k George co yes ye~ y" yes y" '" n() '1'-43 M-78 Bay S of Ht:arlhstune Lk GeOlge CO "" cc co '" y~s T-44 M-27 NW of Cooper Pt Lk George y" Y" yes yes yo; yes yr~ T-45 M-2() sw nfCannon PI. Lk (;eDrge yo> yes y~s yes ye~ yes yo; T-4f. Diamond Puint urea Lk George co "" co co '" "' co T-47 M-IIO Diamond Pomt area U. Gt:orgc M '" '" yt:s co "" co T-48 Diamond Point art:a Lk George '" co "" co co co '" T-49 Edmund's Brook Lk Gwrge M co '" '" "0 co co T-99 M-Llf. Assembly Point ShelVing Rk yes ye~ co co co co '" Towl sites wilh mil rOil 15 IH 19 22 10 13 Tolul pt:rcent with milfoil :n :D" 39 41 48 23 :lII The results of the six sUllleys arc fmiher summarized in Tahles 2 and Figure 2. In the 1987 survey, 13 (30%) of the 44 sites had Eurasian watemlilfoil (Table 1). Table 2. Comparison of the presence of Eurasian watennilfoil between survey years 1987 and 2003. Numhers in ( ) represent row percentages, numbers III L I represent column percentages. Eurasian watermilfoil in 19X7 Present Absenl Total Eurasian Watermilfoil 111 2003 7 R 15 Present (47) (53) (100) [541 [24J [331 6 25 31 Absent ( 19) (X 1) (100) [46J 176J [67J 13 33 46 Total (28) (72) (l00) [1001 [100J [1001 In 19R9, the total had decreased to 10 (23%) ofthe 44 sites surveyed (Table 1). Eight new milfoil sites were found among the original 44 sites, and the two additional sites were also positive for milfoil during the 199 [ survey. In the 1994 tributary survey, 19 (41 %) orthc sites had Eurasian watennilfoil (Table 4), four ofwhieh (9%) had not previously been found to have mitfoil populations. Of the 46 sites visited in 1997, mil foil was found rOf the first time at one location (2%). Six (14%) of the sites at which milfoil occurred were positive for the invasive species in every survey since the initial survey in 1987. Four sites (21 %) had mil foil present in 1994, but not in 1997. All four sites were hand harvested during the 1994 tributary surveyor in subsequent years between surveys. Twelve ofthc 4 4() sites (26%) have had IIliHoil ouring at least one of the three previous tributary surveys, hut 110t ill the 1997 survey. In the 2000 survey, milfoil was found for the first time at one location (2%). Six (14%) of the sites at which miIfoiI occurred were positive for the invasive species in every survey since thl: initial survey in 1987. five sites (II %) had milfoil present in 1997, but not in 2000. All five sites were hand harvested during the 1997 tributary surveyor in subsequent years between surveys. Fifteen of the 46 sites (33(Yo) have had milfoil during at least one of the three previous tributalY surveys, but not ill the 1997 survey. or the 46 tributary sites in the far south basin, 32 (70%) sites have had !TIilfoil present during al least one uf the surveys performed since 1987. Not 0111y initial coloni7ation but also recolonization or tributary sites by Eurasian watermilfoil is occurring in Lake George. The rate of colonization, however, is variable from year to year and between the three portions of the survey. Figure 2. Comparison of the numher of sites currently with Eurasian watennilfoil versus the number of sites which have had milfoil during any of the surveys (cumulative), of the south basin. 35 F'~"""'''''''''''''--'------: -+-New • 30 --.- Current • ---a-- Total '" 25 '"0 , -" 20 I .Q• ,E 15 Z 10 5 0 L--____~::::-_c ..~ ...... = ...... :-;=-~;=-+-J 1987 1989 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 The statistics of most interest arc the number of sites that had Eurasian watennilfoi I during one slITVey year, but not during the follow-up surveys. Two sites, South of Plum Point (T- 35a, M-33) and Bay south of Hearthstone (T-43, M-28) have not had Eurasian walerrnilfoil since the! 987 survey. Seven sites which were cleared during the 1991 survey remained clear through the 2003 tributary survey, those being Crosbysidc-culvert (T-37a, M-32), Bay between Plum and Woods Point (T-35b, M-34), Buttemut Brook (1- 21, M,8l), Van Wamm Bay (T,25a, M,83), East Shore (T,36cl, M,86), Crosbyside CT, 37c, M-88),and Crosbyside-culverts (T-37d, M-89). One site, Harris Bay inlet (T-30a, M- 84), was c\earl:u ufmilfoil in 1991, did not have Eurasian watermilfoil during thc SLLfV\,;j in 1994, but was found to be repopulated with scattered growth in 1997 and clear of milfoil in 2000 5 little or no evidence,llOwever, to suggest that the loss of Eurasian watcrrnilfoil populations at specific_sites in Lake George can be attributed to natural mortality. The following is a breakdown of the fifteen sites that had milfoil during the 2000 tributary survey. Seven of the filleen milfoi1 sites were found to have eleven or fewer plants, all of which were hand harvested. In the 2000 survey, one new site, T -99 on Assemhly Point, was found to have 111ilfoil for the first time. This new site had one milfoil plant, which wns removed. The remaining eight sites that had milfoil during the 2000 survey all had milfoil populations in one or more of the earlier tributary surveys. Since the 1987 survey, the number of tributary sites in this portion of the Lake George basin with mi1foi! present during subsequent surveys has increased by nineteen. The addition of two trihutnry sites in 1991, Harris Bay Tnlet (T-30a) and Dunham Bay Inlet (T- 32) raIsed the total to 31 of the 46 sites which have had n milfoil population since the survey began in 1987. The small number of plants found almost tributary sites indicates recenl colonization. Six of the sites surveyed in 1997 had a milfoil population since the first trihulmy survey in 1987. Those sites being SouLh Warner Bay - Culvert (M-37), South Wamer Bay - Culvert (M-38), North Tea island Bay (M-30), BayN0l1heast orTea Island (M-29), Northwest of Cooper Point (M-27), and Southwest of Cannon Point (M- 26). One of these sites, Bay NorLheast of Tea Tsland, was liee ofmilfoi1 in 200n and 2003, reducing the numher of sites With continuous milfod sites to live. five of the six sites have been the suhject of management activities in the last four years. The sites in South Warner Bay - Culvert (M-17), South Warner Bay - Culvel1 (M-38), Bay Northeast of Tea [sland (M~30), and Southwest or Cannon Point (M-26) have heen either suction harvested, covered with benthic barrier, hand harvested or a combination of the three (e.g. Cannon Point, M-26). Hand harvesting was conducted at all ofthe above sites at least once since they were discovered. Hand harvesting of low density mil1iJil infestations and the use of suction harvesting and benthic barrier on denser growth have been used as a menns for maintaining milfoil Of the 15 tributary sites in this section of the south hasin with mil1iJil present, hand harvesting was employed to cle81- 12 sites. Hand harvesting was not attempLed at the remaining three siLes due to the size of the infested area. G Table 5. Frequency of occurrence of all macrophyte species at the tributary sites. Species arc ranked in order of frequency of occurrence. Depth Interval (111) Species 0·1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-0 6-7 Total Frequency Valli.merin americana 30 37 :13 27 17 10 3 157 ('ham .~p. ]0 11 28 19 14 II 10 152 Poiumugetrln gramineu$ 26 36 28 19 6 2 117 Naja,~.fTexilis 21 32 27 18 10 4 112 Pota"IOf,(eton perfolia/lis 19 .10 29 23 8 110 Elodea canudemi\' 15 26 22 20 12 6 I 102 PotllmogPlnn robbinsii 5 13 23 21 17 10 4 94 Ranal/('u/us IOfl1(irostris 9 21 20 20 6 76 Lmetes echinmpora 12 20 21 14 2 70 Potamogetoll pusillus 5 16 12 14 II 4 04 Sagitta ria gramineu 21 21 10 I 53 IsoetfJ8 (macrl).wptita) la~fris 2 10 14 12 9 52 Eleocharis aciell/aris 18 22 8 49 Sparganium ,\1" 23 20 3 47 Efatilre minima 19 19 7 1 46 "ofamogetoll ampl(rolill~ 3 9 14 12 5 44 Myriophyllum tenellum 14 l8 9 I 42 Ranllncllills r(!ptan.~ IS 18 7 40 He/eralltltera duhia I 1 14 8 5 38 Potamogetfln spirillus 7 14 9 2 32 Megalodiinta (JJirbJn'$) becJdi 3 6 4 6 5 2 32 Eriocaulon septangulare 11 15 2 30 Jllncu.\' peLocorpll.~ 10 12 6 2 30 ['ofomogelO11 l.Oster{{ormi.\' 3 8 8 5 3 28 Lobelia dorlmanlla II I I 2 24 Mrriof!.lIrllum sa;catulII ± 1 !! ~ ! 23 Subularia aquatic4 10 11 I 22 PotamogetfJII va,wrylii 4 6 3 2 17 POlamogetoll pradongus J 6 5 2 16 IVupltar variegala 9 5 2 16 Utricular;a l'ulgori.~ 5 5 II Utricular;a resupinata 4 5 lU Nymphaea odorata 6 4 10 MyrioplUfltum alriifnljlonlih 3 4 2 9 1'010mogel01l crisplts J 2 S Potamogeton fo/ios;", 1 2 2 G Potamogetoll pect;lIatus 2 3 6 ['olomogelol1 friesii I 5 Ceralophyllum demersltm 2 2 5 Scirpu.~ sp. 2 2 5 Sagittariu Clllleata 2 4 Nojos qltodalupellSis 3 Pontederia cil/'daia 3 3 Po(omogetOlI epihydru~' 1 2 Fontillalis sp. 2 2 Myriophyllum ,~;hiricllm Patal1!agefol1 ohtusijoliu.\' Typha varieKota 7 Percent cover data for all sites is provided in Appendix B. Urtbc 48 species of submersed aquatic plants identificd lur Lake George (Ogden et a1. 1976),46 species werc found at the lributary sites. Two species not reported in Ogden et al., 1976 were also found. These lIlcluded Myriophyllum spicatum and Najas guadalupensis. Three species repOJied for the 2003 Tributary Survey, !soetes larustris, MyriophyLLum alterniflorum, and Suhuiaria aqu(Jtica, arc on the New York State Rare Plant List (Young, 2003). A single species is on the NYS Watch List, Megalodonta heckii, which suggests that the slatus of this species is uncertain. The rare and uncertain species are highlighted in Table 5. This is parlicularly important for plant management considerations givell the impact that a gi vcn management technique may have on non-target species. The impact orthe grO\-vth and spread of nuisance aquatic plants on the distribution orrart~ plants, however, must also be included in any management decisions. The diversity of species present at tributary sites is indicative of the suitability of these sites for aquatic plant growth and conversely, the high probability of milfoil infestation at these sites. In Tahle 5, the species present and their depth distribution arc ranked in order of the frequency with which they appeared at the tributary sites. The depth distribution of the ten most frequently occll1Ting species is presented in Figure 3. F.urawlll \vatermilfoil, ranked 26th by frequency of occunence, is also included in the plot. Depth distributJon and species divcrsity remains comparahle to that reportcd in surveys conducted in the south basin of Lake George in 1987 and 1988 (Madsen et al. 1989) . .Figure 3. Frequency and depth distribution of the 10 most common macrophyte species and Eurasian watennilfoi1. Vall"""",, ."""'" ,,/1.1 1'0 !ar,O ge!o n pOliO Imu> 1'0 Id .... ") g~lo" gr.1{"IO~" 1 Po to",o geto n .'0 bbms" Depth (m) Frequency, or the number of tributaries where each specics was present, is an important measure of the distribution of species but does not consider the relalive abundance of species within the overall populalion. Table 6 contains the species pn:sent and their depth distribution ranked in order of Clmmlative percent cover. This ranking is a better measure of the dominance of certain specics and, in conjunction with frequency data, provides a more complete picture of aquatic plant commlU1ity structure. Tn Figure 4, the depth 8 distlihution of the 10 most abundant species is presented. Eurasian watell1lilfoil is ranked lih by relative ahundance. A comparison of Figures 3 and 4 indicates nine species are ranked in the top 10 for both frequency of occurrence and relative pereent eover. Figure- 4. Cumulative percent cover and depth distribution of tile 10 most common macmphyte species and Eurasian watermilfoil. , i •" 8 GOO '0 ~ ~ .~ ], 300 E I.~op.ip.~ la(;II.lins , V"lIlls nelld dlT"l!OflCana 200 Chara sp. p() /d{fl() go/()II f()blJlfI$11 " Najas fieXliis Po tarm geinn gramlnPlls Potamo eeto n perfo Ilatus neoch:Jris ar.lwl;J{I.'; Mynopliyllumtenellum R:munwlu.'; loneim.'.!ris Myriophyllum spicatum Depth (m) Comparisons of the major species by frequency or occurrence reported during the 1997 tributary survey (Dichler et al. 1995) with the current list (Table 5) show few differences. Seven Ot"tllc ten most abundant species are the same. Rafluflculus reptans was not within the top ten species during the 1994 survey, but was ranked tenth in the 1997 survey. This species dropped to 24th in 2000 and was ranked 18th in 2003. Eurasian watemlilfoil was ranked l6t11 and 18~1 by frequency of occurrence in the 1991 and 1994 surveys, respectively. In 1997, Eurasian watermilf'oil was ranked 24th by frequency of occurrence th and declined to 2th in 2000. A slight increase in rank (26 ) was observed in 2003. The decline in frequency of. occurrence of milfoil over the survey years ean be allributed to the removal of milfoil by hand harvesting and other management teclmigues, and thus a reduction in the number ol'sites with milfoil. Although the number of samples is limited for development ora statistically reliable rate of coloniL:aLion, new sites continue to be colonized on a year~to-year basis. The rate of 9 Table 6. Cumulative pcrcent cover of all macrophyte specie:;. CIt the tributary sites. Species are listed in order of decreaslIlg ahlJmlancc. Depth Interval (m) Spccics 0- 1 1·2 2·J 3-~ 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-R Total Isoere.\" iaClistris 12.5 tlO 527.5 595 472.5 12.. ':> 1730 Va/limn;a americana 192.5 370 467.5 347.5 205 102.5 7.5 1692.5 Chara .\p. 00 115 95 77.5 05 60 175 3GO 1037.5 Potamogeton I"Obbimii 12.5 40 87.5 250 170 170 2S 2.5 757.5 Najusjlo.:ili5 52.5 1'12.5 127.5 122.5 40 10 505 Potomogetoll graminells 127.5 142.5 122.5 55 15 5 467.5 Potanw15efon perfoUams 70 121.5 117.5 :\7.5 20 2.5 425 Eleocharis ackularis 102.5 200 67.5 10 380 Myriophyllum tenellum 1.'17.5 155 37.5 2.5 352.5 RnnunClillIS IOllgirostri5 30 75 117.5 102.5 22.5 347.5 hades e,chinmpora 30 120 135 35 22.5 2.5 345 Myriophyllum spicatum to 77.5 130 92.S 2.5 312.5 Sagitlaria 15ralll;neo 82.5 162.5 65 2.5 312.5 Elodea canade",,';'\· 37.5 ,0 62.5 50 30 15 2.5 277.5 Potomogetofl ampli/o!iu.\· 7.5 45 'l!,7.5 82.5 21.5 2.S 252.5 Eriocalilon sep/angulare 97.S 95 5 197.5 PfJtamogeton plIsillus 12.5 40 :10 35 50 17,5 2.5 2.5 19U RanunclIllI.~ rep((Jn~' 45 105 32.5 1 R2.5 Sparganium sp. 65 82.5 22.5 2.5 172.5 JunClls pe!ocarpu.\ J2.5 67.5 37.5 5 142.5 lIetemnthera dubia 42.5 50 27.5 12.5 132.5 Elatine m;lIima 47.5 47.5 17.'1 2.5 115 Megulodmllo heckki 7.5 15 10 22.'1 25 12.5 5 97.S Potamoge/on zosteriformis 7,5 20 21.5 20 1.\ 2,5 92.5 NJ'fflphaeo odorata 80 10 90 POfamoKeton spirillu.\ 17.'1 35 22.5 5 80 Nuphar variegata 60 12 . .'1 5 77.5 Potamogeton praelon.f?us 7.5 37.5 20 12.5 77.5 Lobelia dortmOllna 35 35 5 75 Sublliuria aquatil:a 25 27.5 2.5 55 Potamogeton va.\eyiii 2 ..'1 10 15 7.5 5 2.5 42.5 Utriculoria vulgaris 20 20 2.5 42.5 Utl'ieuIU";11 resllpinato 10 21.5 2.5 40 Scirpu,\' 12.5 12.5 10 35 Ponledaria ctJrdafo 25 25 Myriophyllum alterniflorum 7,5 10 5 22.5 Ceralophyllufn demersum 12.5 5 2.5 20 Potomogefoll CriSPlls 2.5 7.5 \ 2.5 2.5 20 Sagittaria cuneata 2.5 12.5 2.'1 17.5 PotamogettJII [oUOSU!; 2.5 5 5 2.5 15 Potamogetoll pectitwtllS 5 7.5 2.5 15 Potamogelon [rie.\'ii 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2 ..'1 12.5 Najas Kuadalupemis 2.5 2.5 2,5 7.5 Fontinolis sp. 5 5 Potamogeton epihydrus 2.5 2.s 5 Myriophyllum sibiricum 2.5 2.5 Potomogeton obtllsi[oliu~' 2.5 2.5 Typha 2.5 2.5 10 increase of the presence of Eurasian watemlilfoil at the 46 tributary sites over the thirteen year span of the study is approXLIrlately 2 new sites per year, or an 4% annual rate of colonization. At the current rate, all remaining tributaries would he colonized by Eurasian watermilloil over the course of the next three to lour years. The OCCUITence of mil foil at sites which had beGn cleared in previous years also indicates that continued surveillance and maintenance of mil foil sites is necessary. The more sobering indication from the recurrence of mil foil at previously harvested sites is that there are no sites or cases to mdicate any natural mort;tlity or demise ofsmall populations of Eurasian watennilfoil in Lake George. Although these populations may not expand for several years, clearly they are not dying otT on their own. Rcsults oflributary surveys in combination with the Eurasian watermilfoil management program (Eiehkr et a1., 1997) demonstrate the need {or continued management of Eurasian watermil/oil in Lake George. The management program encompasses several different techniques reflective of different stages of mi! foi! development. Tributary surveys provide a means of mapping the rate of milfoil colonization, and the management program provides a means of limiting tllC rate of spread once these sites have been located. Increasing public awareness of the effects that milfoil has on the Lake George ecosystem, and how the public can hdp reduce further introduction into the Lake George watershed is an additional benefit. References Eichler, L.W., E.A. Howc and C .W. Boylen. 1997. Eurasian watermil10il management in Lake George, New York. Darrin Fresh Water Institute Tech. Report 97-07. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY. Eichler, LW., R.T Bombard and C.W. Boylen. 1992. The Lake George Tributary Survey. Rensselaer Fn:~h Water Institute Tech. Rep0\1 92-11. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY. Eichler, L.W., R.T. Bombard and C.W. Boylen. 1995. The Lake George Trihutary Survey. Rensselaer Fresh Water Institute Tech. Report 95-1. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY. Madsen, .J .D., L. W. Eichler and C. W. Boylen. 1988. Vegetative Spread of Eurasian Watennilfoil in Lake George, New York. J. Aqllat. Plant Manage. 26:47-50. Madsen, J.D., J.W. Sutherland, .LA. Bloomfield, K.M. Roy, L.W. Eichler and C.W. Boylen. 11)89. Lake George Aquatic Plant Survey. Final Report. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. May 1989. 11 Madsen, J.D., L.W. Eichler and C. W. Boylen. 1991. Lake George Eurasian WatenniJfoil Survey, 1990 Report. Rensselaer Fresh Water Institute Tech. Report 91-4, Renssela<:r Polytechnic Tnstitute, Troy, NY. Mitchell, R.S. 19R6. A checklist of New York State plants. Bulletin No. 458, New York State Museum, NYS Education Department, Albany, NY. 272pp. Ogden, E.C., J.K. Dean, C.W. Boylen and RB. Sheldon. 1976. Field Guide to the Aquatic Plants of Lake George, New York. Bull. No. 46, NYS Museum, NYS Ed. lJept., Albany, NY. 65pp. Young, S.B. 199<). New York Rare Plant Status List, New York Natural Helitage Program, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Delmar, NY. April 1999. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was supported by the Fund for Lake George through a grant to the Damn Fresh Water Institute. We gratefully acknowledge this suppOJ1. Field assistance for this project was provided by JeffRartkowski, Valeri<: VanLeuven, Keren Murphy, Paul Thorn and Katherine 0 [ferman. Critical comments on this manuscript wcre provided by Dr. Carol D. Collins. APPENDIX A SITE LOCATIONS 13 -- -•. ' -- T171, ~" .... ,0- , ,--- T94 ,_.. >~ f_' -1".-' T18B "',,, , " , Ii " "• ~.,""",: - " T18A "Co" T18 -'''_,_" 'r'OO ".. 0 -" ,: ' J :-;:;" "'T19A ., " ,., , T19 T53 .. , T20C ' •• T20B T20A ,", -""-';': "-' ,. .;<"1'.,,,----' , ,.. T21 F::'-'- .f' ~.'.. ,.,";; " ,~. , " / it-' )1"__ " T99 .,I '-~, p , • __ 1' , ',\ 'j' .' • • fll "r I , , _ t' - I' 'f o ~' \, 'I ,.: ," " ,,' ~ , " .'- ), .; , /~, i ,j.I -, " .< , , d I' I I ',f' , H " • , ' ',j _. '. i i:.klf.' ~-~,," ' APPENDIX R MACROPHYTE COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT DATA 14 :mm Lake George Trrhutary Survey Sitp-' T-21 Date: 9/12103 Butternut Brook Species o 1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 ChJ.ra sp. 2.5 2.5 2.5 I::IRl'lne 2.5 2.5 2.5 Eleoclli:lflS ::Icicularis 2.5 2.5 2,!j Eriocaulon 2.5 2.5 I sop-tes ech'lnospora 25 2.5 2.5 Junci:ls 2.5 10 Lobelia dorlrlli:u1n::l 2.5 2.5 Megalodont<3 beckii 2.5 2,!j MyrJupllyllllm tenellum 2.5 10 Naj<3s flcxills 2.5 2.5 Nuph.'H variegotn 7.5 2.5 2.5 Potollno~elon flelioliatus 10 2.5 25 Potamogeton gf81l1lrl8US 10 2.5 10 PolarJlogflton zosteriformis 25 2.5 Ranunculus fept::lns 2.5 10 10 S::Igrttaria graminea 2.5 10 SCirpus 10 '.5 Sparg Site: T-22 DatA: 9/12103 [3::1rber Bay Species []·1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 Ch::lra sp 25 2.5 2.5 25 Elatme mrnima 2.5 7.5 Eleochnris 20 10 ElodeR canadensis 25 2,5 2.5 2.5 Eriocaulorl sflptangulare 2.5 2.5 Heteranthem dubra 2.5 10 Isoeles echinosporo 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Juncus pelocarpus 2.5 2.5 Megalodonta beckii 2.5 10 Myriophyllum sflicatum 2.5 Najas flexilis 2.5 2.5 2.5 Nuphflf 10 2,5 " Potclnlogelurl gramineus 7.5 2.5 25 Potamogeton perfuliatlls 10 2.5 :2.5 2.5 Polarnogflton robbinsii 10 3/.5 PotDmogelurl sfllrillus 2.5 25 r'otflmogeton zosterlformes 25 Polalllugetnn amplifolius 2.5 10 10 Ranunculus lungrrostris 2.5 25 2.5 R. fP-ptans 2.5 10 Subulafli:l aqllatica 2,5 Sparganium 2.5 2.5 Vailisnena americana 10 2.5 10 37.5 Pi:lgfl 1 Slle: T-23 Date: 9/12/03 150m Bo!y Species 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-n '-7 7-8 Megalodollta beckll 2.5 Chma 2.5 2.5 Elatlne Illlillfll Site: T-21 Dale. 9/12103 Elizabeth lsi. Species 0-1 1-2 2-3 34 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 Meqalodont.'l heckii 2.5 Chi.rra 7.5 25 25 2.5 EI.'ltine 2.5 2.5 Eleacllarls aciclll.'lris 2.5 10 Elodea c 1'8ge 2 Site: T-25 l) Species 0~1 1 ~2 23 3~4 4~5 5~6 6~f 7~H Megalodonta beckii 10 2.5 Ch<:Hi:l sp. 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Eli3:line 2.5 2.5 I:::leocharis 2.5 10 Elodea 25 2.5 2,5 2.5 Isoeles echinospora 2.5 10 2.5 7.5 2.5 Isoeles l::lcustns 2.t> 75 Juncus 75 25 Myriophyllum tenelium 2.5 10 Najas flexilis 2.5 2.5 10 10 2.5 PotJmogcton friesil 2.5 75 25 2.5 2,5 Potamogeton perfoliatus 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 25 2.5 Polalllo~eton PllSlllus 2.5 2,5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Potamogcton robblllsii 2.5 2.5 10 2,5 f--'otamogeton spirillus 2.5 Potamugelon gmmineus 10 10 10 2.5 2.5 25 S. aquatica 25 75 SpRrganium sp 2.5 2.5 Vailisneria ameriCRnR 10 10 10 10 20 10 Site'T-/5a Date: 9112/03 Bombald's camp Species O~ 1 1-/ 2~3 3~4 4-5 5-6 6~7 7~8 Cham 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Elatine 2.t> 2.;) Elode P Chara 2.5 2.5 2.5 Elatine minima 2,5 2.5 criOCflulon 25 Eleochans aClcularis 10 Isaeles echinospor<:l 2,5 2.5 2.5 LotJelm 2.5 Myriophyllum tenellum 37,5 10 2.5 Najas flexilis 2.5 2.5 2.5 Potarnoj:Jelon robbinsil 2.5 Potamogelon gramincus 20 2.5 2.5 PotamolJeton spirillus 2.5 2.5 R,replans 2.5 Spnrganium sp. 2.5 2.5 Vililisneria americana 25 10 10 Sile. T-27 lJiltfl' H/74/o:1 S. Warner Bay Trib wetland Species 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 07 78 MelJalodonta beckii 2.5 2.5 Cilara Sf-). 2.5 Elodea 2.5 2.5 fontinalis sp. 2.5 Myriophyllum sibiricilm 2.5 Myriophyllum spicatum 2.;) Najas flexilis 2.5 2.5 Nupt18r Vflrlflgflt::J 10 Nymphaea 10 2.5 Ponlederia cordata 2.5 Polamogelon gmmlnells 10 10 Potamogcton robbinsil 2.5 2.5 PotamolJeton zosteriformes 2.5 2.5 Potamo!-Jelofl 21mpllfolH1S 75 75 Ranunculus longirostris 2.5 2.5 Silgltt::Jria graminea 10 10 Utriculclila VUlgcHis 75 25 VClllisneria americana 10 10 P Spflr.les 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 Megalodonta beckii 2.G 2.G 2.5 Clli:lra ~p. 1(] 10 2.5 Elodea can Site'T-27r. Date' 9/2;)/03 S, of Fishers Marina Species 0-1 1-2 23 34 4-5 5-6 6-7 Ch Page 5 Site: T-28 D8tC: 0/30103 N. WilmAr Ilay Species 0-1 1-2 2-:-l :'1-4 4-;) 5-11 6-7 EI SltA: 1-2\lh Date' 9/30/03 H8rris Bay culvert, by leu A-fl Ch Site: T-29c lJatA: f1l:'lO!03 Sandy Bay Spew,s 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 45 5·6 67 Chara sp. 2.5 2.5 2.5 Eliucharis aClcularis 2.5 Elodea canadensis 2.5 2.~ 7.5 Heteranthcra dubia 2.5 2.5 Najas flexilis 2.5 2.5 2.5 25 Potilmogeton perfoliatLis 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Potanloj..[elun robblnsil 7.5 Potamogcton spirillus 2.5 2.5 Potamogeton gramineus 2.5 2.5 2.5 25 Ranunculus lurlglrostrls 25 7.5 Vallisneria americana 10 10 2.5 2.5 Pagp. ti Site: T-30 Date: 8/19/03 Bay SW Harry ramily lsI. Species 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-/ Charn 75 2.5 2,5 cl8tine mln'lm3 2.5 Elodea canadensIs 25 25 Eleocharis 3cicularis 2.5 2.5 Eriocaulon septanglJlare 2.5 Juncus pelocarpus 75 Lobel18 2.5 MyriophyllulII tenfllilim 2,5 2.5 Najas flexilis 25 Pot8mogeton epihydrus 2.5 Potamogetoll ),Jfafmneus 7.5 25 Potamogeton perfoli S118: T -30a Dale: HIHl/03 Harris Bay inlet Species 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-/ Elodea 25 t'riocaulon septotngu1are 10 10 Heleranlh8ril rlilbia 2.G 2.5 Juncus pelocarpus 2.~ 10 Megillorlonta beckii 2.5 Myriophyllum allerrllflorum 2.5 NilJas flexilis 2.5 2~ Nupllar varleg8t::J 10 2.5 Potnmogcton amplifollus 25 f1otilmogeton gramineus 2.5 2,5 Potamo).jelon robbinsli 25 2.5 Potamogeton pusillus 2.5 Ponleden« corrtata 20 Ranunculus longorostns 2.5 Sa).jilli:UI« gmmlnea 10 10 Sparganium sp. '.5 10 IJtricularia respinnta 2.5 10 Ulflculariil vulgaris 2.5 Pnge 7 Site'T-32 Date. 8/19/03 Dunham's 821Y Species 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 Ccratophylluln delllersum 10 25 2.5 [Ieocharis acicukHis 10 Elude21 25 2.5 2.5 Fontinalis 2.5 Myrrophyllum SpiC.'ltllm 25 2.5 2.G Myriophyllum tcncllum 10 10 N2Ilas flexilis 25 37,5 2.G Nuphm varicgata 10 2.5 2.5 Nymphaea odorala 37,5 2.5 Potalllu~etun gmminflUS 10 10 2.5 Potamogclon perfoliatus 2.5 2.5 2.5 Pot.'lmogeton pusillus 2.5 2.5 Potarno~elon robbins II 25 2.5 Potamogeton vaseyi 2.5 2.5 PolalTlof-jelon zosteriformis 2.5 2.5 Ranunculus longirostrls 2.5 2.5 2.5 Sagitt.'lrifl Clmeata 2.5 Sagittaria grallllnea 10 10 2.5 Scirpus 2.5 10 10 Sparganium sp. 2.5 20 10 Utricul8ri8 vulgaris 111 111 75 Vallisneria americanCl 10 10 37.5 Site, T-33 nate' 7/31103 fl-F Dark Bay Species 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 45 5-6 6-7 CI1ara sp. 2.5 2.5 2.5 2,5 2.5 Elatine minimCl 2.5 2.5 25 I-Ieocharrs acicularis 2.5 10 Elodea canadensIs 2.5 2,5 Isoetes cchinospora 2.5 10 2.5 Isoetes lacustrus 2.5 10 M.lenellulTl 25 25 Najas flexilis 2,5 2.5 2.5 75 i'olalTlogflton gramineus 25 2,5 2,5 Pot8mogeton perfollalus 25 25 75 25 2.5 Potamogeton praelongus 2.5 10 2.5 Polalnof-jeiun roooinsil 2.5 Potamogeton spirillus 25 2.5 RanlJnOllus longirostris 2.5 S8gittaria graminea 75 7.5 Sparganium sp, 2.5 2.5 Valllsireria amflrIC;;Jn;;J 25 10 10 10 10 Site'T-3-1 Dale: 7/31/03 Dark Bay Species 0-1 1-7 2-3 3-4 45 5-6 6-7 Elatine mlnlilla '.5 rleocharis acicul<3ris 2.5 10 10 Elolie Site' T-35a LJlllw 7/31103 S, of Plurn ~'t Species O· 1 1-' 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 /-8 Ch<3ra sp. 25 10 2,5 2.5 2.5 2,5 25 :H.5 rlal'me rn'lnima 2.5 25 ?5 Eleucilaris aClclJlaris 2,5 2.5 Isootes echinospom 2,5 2.5 10 2.5 Isaeles lacListrus 10 10 10 2.5 Louella dortrn,mn::J 2.5 10 Myriophyllum Icnellum <:'.5 10 25 Ni:lJas tlexllls 2.5 10 111 10 25 Potamogcton perfull Page 9 Site: T-35b Date· 7/31/03 PlllmiWoods Pt Species 0-1 1 2 2-3 3-4 4-' 5-6 6-7 CII note: he8vy fila men lou::; CI1,H L.5 ?5 Heteranthera dubi.'} 2.5 2.5 Isoetes echinospora 70 10 25 Isueles l::lellslris 75 75 10 Juncas 25 10 2.5 Lobelia dortmanna 2.5 25 Myriophyllum tenelilim 10 2.5 Najas flexilis 2.5 10 Potamogeton amplifolius 75 Potamogetorl fullOSllS 2.5 2.5 Potamogeton gramineus 2.;:; 25 2.5 Pularnugeton perfoliatus 2.5 2.!::I 111 7.5 PotJ.01ogetoll robblrlSll 2.5 2.5 10 10 25 7.5 Pot::lmOaeton pusillus 2.5 25 25 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Potamo\jeton vflseyi 2.5 Ranunculus IOllgiroslris 25 2.5 2.5 Hflnunculus repl.:lns 2.' 2.5 SagltlBrla gmmme.'} 2.5 2.5 Vallisncria amefl(;arla 10 10 10 10 Page 10 Site: T-36a Date: 7/30103 East Shore Species O~ 1 '~2 2~3 3~4 4~5 5-6 6~7 7~8 Ch;;)ra sp 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 10 10 10 37.5 Elatine minima 2.5 fleocharis acicularis 10 Elodea Gall;;denSIS 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Isoetes echinospora 10 10 2.5 I;;oetes IflGllstris 2.5 10 :17.5 75 25 Najas flexilis 2.5 2.5 10 2.5 Potamogeton ampliofolus 25 10 10 10 Potamo!]elon gr;;)mlneus 2.5 2.5 2.5 Potamogeton pcrfoliatus L.5 11l 10 10 Potfl.mogeton pusillus 2.5 10 Pot Sitc. T-36b Date: 7/30/03 Species 0~1 1 2 2~3 3~4 4~5 ~Hl 0-7 7~8 Chsm sr. 10 2.5 2.5 1U 2.5 /'.5 2.5 37.5 EICltine minllTli:l ,5 2.5 2.5 r'leocharis aciculv.ris 10 25 Eludei:l canll(jensis 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 25 75 ErioGlUlon 75 25 Isoeles echinospora 10 1U 2.5 Isoeles Il:lCllstrls 2.5 75 75 75 2.5 Lobeli3 75 Megfllodonta becki; 2.5 NCljas flexilis 75 2.5 2.5 2.5 Potamogeton gram 10 1U 2.5 75 Potamo!1elon obtusifolillS 2.G Potamogelon porfolialus L.5 10 25 FJoi Page 11 Site: T-36c Date: 7/30/03 Sper.lfI" 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 Chara sp. 2.5 2.5 2.5 Eli:lline minim::l 2.5 2.5 2.5 Eleocl,aris 10 70 20 10 I::lodfiR r.::lnadensis 2.5 25 /,5 Eriocaulon sepl'lIl~ulare 75 25 Helflf!'lnthera dubia 2.5 Isoetes echinospora 2,5 2.5 20 2.5 Isoeles lacuslris 2.5 75 Juncus pfllor.::lrpus 10 10 Lobelia 2.5 7.5 Mflgalodonla beckii 2.5 2.5 MYllOpllyllulTI tenelllJm 10 10 2.5 Najas flexilis 2.5 2.5 10 10 2.5 2.5 PolafTlogelon Rmplifolius 2.5 Potamogclon gramlneus 2.5 ~.5 25 2.5 l-'otRmoaeton perfoliolus 2.5 2.5 2,5 2.5 Polarnogeloll puslllll" 2,5 2.5 POlamogeton robbinsil 25 10 37.5 2.5 Polamogeton spirillu$ 2.5 2.5 Potamogeloll vaseyii 2.5 2.5 2.5 Ranunculus longirostris 2.5 7.5 2.5 Ra!lUlICuius replans 2.5 2.5 Subulnria aquallca /.5 2.5 Vallisneria arnericnna 2.5 10 III 10 10 10 2.5 Site: T-36d Dale' 7/30/03 l:::::ls1 Shore Species 0-1 1 2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 0-7 7-8 Ch::lrR sp 2.5 2.5 2.5 111 10 25 75 75 Elallne 1lllliliTia 25 2.!:i Elodea canadensis 2.5 2.5 2.5 EriocRulon septangulare 10 10 Isocles lacustris 10 20 75 75 2.5 Lohfllia dortmanno 2.5 2.5 MyriopllyllulIl tenfilium 10 20 Najas flexilis 2.5 10 10 PolRmoaeton amplifolius 2.5 2.5 ~,5 Potamogelull gramlnfliis 2.5 2,5 2,5 2.5 Potamogeton perfolialus 2:1 75 25 Pulamogfllon [lusillus 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.:1 Pot8mogelon SI.JIIlllu5 7.5 25 Sagitta ria graminc8 2:1 Spal!-jarTlum sp 2,5 2.5 Subul Page 12 Site- T-.36e l) Species 0-1 1-2 23 3-4 4-5 ~~o 0-7 7-8 Chara sp. 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 ?5 25 V:; 75 Elatine minim Site'T-36f O.'lle' 7130/03 Species 0-1 1 2 2-3 3-4 4-5 ;=;-6 6-7 7-8 CllarCl sp. 2.5 2.5 2.5 25 75 2.5 2.5 10 Elaline minima 25 2.5 2.5 Isaeles l.'lcustris 2 ..') 10 75 75 75 2.5 Hetemnthera duula 2.5 Nfljas flexilis 2.~ 10 Potamu\jeton gr.'lmineus 10 10 PotClmogclon pusillus 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Polamogeton vaseyi 2.5 2.5 Sparg,millm sp. 2.5 Vallisncria amerlCi:l1l8 2.5 10 20 10 Site' T-3703 & b & c nate: 7/24103 Crusuyside Species 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-fi 6-7 7-8 Mcgalodonla ber.kii 2.5 , .5 25 2.G Chara sp. 2 ..') 25 25 2 ..') 10 Eleochans 10 Isoetes ecilinuspom 10 10 2.5 Isoeles lacustris 2.5 10 Myriuphylilim lenellum 20 N Page 13 Site: r-37 rI Date: 7/24/03 Crosbyside Species 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 78 Megalodonta beckii ~.5 2.5 Dlara sp 2.G 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 37.5 75 Eleoch8ris acicularis 10 25 flodea canadensis 2.5 Isoetes edmlOspom 10 Isoetes lacustr'ls 25 375 Nalas flexllls 2.G 2.5 2.5 Potamogclon gralllilleus 7.5 I 'otamogflton perfoliatus 2.5 2.5 Potamogetoll ruOOIrlSl1 2.5 37.5 2.5 Ranunculus longirostris 111 '.5 RariurlclJlus ffl[1lans 2.5 10 S<3gill8ria graminea 10 10 SpRrganium sp 2.5 2.5 Vall,sne,la arneric;ma 37.5 10 2.5 Site' T 40 lJate- 7/2-1/03 Manne Viliagp. culvert Species 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 Ch8ra sp. 25 10 10 10 Eleoch<3ris 8cicularis 2.5 75 I::lodea canadensis 2.5 10 2.~ 2.5 Heleri:lrllhfml rlllhia 2.5 2.5 2.5 Meg81odonta beckll 25 '.5 2.5 Potamogeton perioli8tus 2.5 10 2.5 25 Potarno!delurl zosteriformis 2.5 2.5 Ranllnclilus longirostris 2.6 2.5 10 75 Sagillana j:lramlneR 2.5 10 2.5 Vallisneda 8mcricana 10 10 10 20 P8ge 14 Site: T-41 Date: 7125/03 Erl!.j115rl Brook Species 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 ElodeiJ cnnndcllsis 2.5 2.~ 2.5 Myriophyllum alterniflorum 25 2.5 2.5 Najas flexll,5 2.5 7.5 Potamogeton Site- T--11a Date: 7125/03 Talloe culvert, S I Ail Islilnrl Species 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-;) 5-6 6-7 Eloden c Slip.: T-41b Date: 7/25/03 North Tea IslanLi Bay Species 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-' tJ-!:i !:i-I Elodea canadensis 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.' MyriophyllulTI spicatum 75 10 75 75 Najas flexilis 2.5 2.' r'otilmogflton amplifolius 2.5 2.5 PotalllogelOJI crispus 2.5 2.5 Potlmogcton pcrfoliatus 2.5 2.' 2.5 25 Potamogeton pusillus 2.5 PulalTlogeton robbinflll 25 2.5 2.5 2.5 Pot8mogctoll zosteriforlTlls 2.' 2.5 2.~ Ranunculus longirostris 10 10 2.5 Vailisneria aTTlenCallil 20 37.5 10 25 Page 1~ Site: T-42 Date: 7/25/03 nay Northeost Tea Island Species 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 50 6-7 Cliara sp. 2.5 2.5 2.5 '.5 25 20 37,5 Elatine minima ;;0,5 2.5 Eleochilrls ;;)cicuiaris 2.5 10 Elodea canadensis 25 2.5 10 2.5 2.5 '.5 Hetflr.'mthera dubia 2.5 2.5 ;;'.5 25 Isoetes ecliinospora 25 10 10 2.5 Isoetes Incustris 2.5 10 N;;)Jas flexilis 25 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Potamu\jeton ;;)mplifolius 10 10 10 2.5 Potamogctoll crispus 2,5 2.5 Polamogp.ton gramineus 2.5 2.5 10 25 PotDmogeton pfi:lelongus 10 10 10 fJotamogelon robbinsii 75 10 10 10 Potnmogeton pusillus 2.5 2.5 2.5 10 25 Potamogeton vnseyi 2.5 2,5 Polamogetoll zosteriformis 2.5 25 2.5 Ranunculus longirostris 2.5 10 10 10 2.5 Ranunculu$ replans 75 10 Sagltt;;)ria gramineD 2.t> 2.5 Vallisneria arTlerlf:8na 10 10 10 2() 10 10 Sile, T-4::I Di:lle, 1/25/03 Hearthstone Speclfls 0-1 1-2 7-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 Chi'lra sp 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 10 Elodea caflildflnsis 2.5 2.5 2.5 Eleocharis aciculalis 10 Hfltflr8nthera dubiD 25 2.5 2.5 Isoeles edlinosjlora 10 10 75 Isoetes lacustris 20 2;;; Ni'lJ3S flexilis 10 10 2.5 Potamol-leton amplifolius 10 25 10 Potamogcton gralllineus 10 2.5 2.5 Polamogeton pectinDlis 2.5 PotDmogetofi perfolli'ltlls 10 10 10 Potamogetoll pusillus 2.5 PotBlnu~eton robbinsii 2.5 10 10 Pot3mogcton vaseYli 2.5 2.5 Ri'lnunculus longirostris 75 10 2.5 Ranunculus reptAns 2.5 SagittariD graminea 10 Vallisnena americana 10 2.5 25 PAge 16 Site: T-44 Date: 8/6/03 NW Coopers Point, Green Harbor Specle~ 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 Megalodont Site: T-45 DLlte: 8/6103 SW Cannon Point Specle~ 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 50 6-' Chara 2.5 10 2.5 2.5 Eleocharis Site' T 46 Smith Brook D3te: 816103 Species 0-1 1-2 7-3 3-4 45 5-6 6-7 Chara sp. 2,5 10 20 Eriocaulon scptanguli:lre 2.5 2.5 Isoetes echinosporn HI 10 Lobciia dOllJlli:lllrm 2.5 2.5 Myriophyllum Pi:lQe 17 Site: T-47 Date: 816103 Stepping Stones, Diamond Pt area Species 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 Hi 5-6 6-7 Chara sp 2.5 2.5 Errocaulon septangulfUp. 75 2.5 Isoetes echinospor<1 2.5 2.5 10 Junca" 25 2.5 Lobcli<1 dorilllanna 2.' 2.5 Myriophyllum tenellum 2.5 2.G 2.5 NaJas nexilis 25 2.5 2.5 Potaillogeton gmillineus 2.5 2.5 2.5 Poti'lmogflton splrillus 25 2.5 R.reptans 2.5 2.5 2.5 Sagittaria gmmine8 2.5 Utrlculi'lri8 rflsupinata 25 2.5 Vallisneria alllefll.:i:lrl<:l 25 2.5 Srte: T-99 Date: 8119/03 Assembly Point Species 01 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 Elatine minima 2.5 2.5 Eleoctlarrs aClclllaris 25 2.5 Elodcd Cdnadensis 2.' 25 !:riocaulon septangulare 10 2.5 Heleranthem dubla 10 2.5 Isoclcs echinospora 2.5 25 Juncus pelocarpus 2.5 Lobelia dortmanna 2.5 25 M alterniflorum 2.5 M tflilellum 10 2.5 N<1j<1s flexllls 2.5 25 Nuphar 2.5 Nympllaea udumti'l 2.5 25 Potamogclon gramineus 2.5 2.5 Pot8mogeton perfoliatus 2.5 2.5 Potamo~elon robbim;ii 2.5 2.5 Potamogelon spirillus 2.' Ri'lnrmculus longirostris 2.G 2.5 Railullculus replans 10 2.5 Sagittaria gmminca 2.5 2.5 Spargi'lnillm sp 2.5 2.5 Utricularia resupinata 2.5 10 Vallisneria americana 2.5 2.5 Page 18