1	Considerations for Aquatic Plant Management in the Yaphank Lakes System Scott A. Kishbaugh, P.E. NYSDEC Division of Water 625 Broadway Albany NY 12233-3502 518-402-8282 sakishba@gw.dec.state.ny.us
2	Where to Begin? Document Extent of Invasive Growth Identify Impaired Uses Correctly Identify Invasive Plant(s) Explore Management Alternatives Identify Limitations to Management Initiate Permitting Process if Applicable
3	Document Extent of Invasive Plant Growth Document the Extent of Invasive Plant Growth Now Required As Part of DEC Aquatic Pesticides Program Cornell-USACE Rake Toss Methodology
4	Identify Impaired Uses Identify Any Impaired Uses (Swimming, Fishing, Drinking Water) State Priority Waterbody List (PWL) Can Authenticate Problems
5	Plant Identification Make Sure the Plant Identification is Correct Several Sources Available for Confirming Aquatic Plant Identifications
6	Fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana) Origin: SE USA Intro to US: Native Intro to NYS: 1940s? Plant Type: Submerged Leaf Type: Submersed: Pinnate Floating: Small Flower Leaf Arrangement: Opposite Leaf Shape: Thread Leaf Margin: Smooth
7	Fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana) Habitat: Long Island: Shallow Ponds Update: Deep Coldwater Lakes Growth Patterns Dense Subsurface Busheling Surface Flowering Competitive Advantage Adaptable to Multiple Environment Easily Moves By Fragmentation
8	Fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana) NYS Control Agent(s) Mechanical Harvesting Drawdown Herbicides Grass Carp NYS Control Projects Long Pond (Dutchess) Mill Pond (Saratoga) Donahue Pond (Suffolk) Canaan Lake (Suffolk)
9	“Green” vs. “Red” Fanwort Different Fanwort Genotypes Exist- Physiological and Response Differences Red Fanwort More Commonly Found in Southern Climates Green Fanwort More Commonly Found Growing in Colder Water Recent Studies Suggest Variable Response of Red and Green Fanwort to Herbicides Green Fanwort Sensitive to Fluridone at 10-20 ppb Red Fanwort Sensitive to Fluridone at 5-10 ppb Yaphank Lakes Fanwort Appears to be “Green” Fanwort
10	Variable Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum heterophyllum) Origin: SE United States Intro to US: Native Intro to NYS: Native? Plant Type: Submerged Leaf Type: Submersed: Pinnate Floating: None (Spike) Leaf Arrangement: Whorled Leaf Shape: Thread Leaf Margin: Smooth
11	Variable Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum heterophyllum) Habitat: Highly Variable Growth Patterns Occasionally Very Dense Surface Stems Thick Subsurface Canopies Competitive Advantage Shading/Light Inhibition Easily Moves By Fragmentation
12	Variable Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum heterophyllum) NYS Control Agent(s) None Yet NYS Control Projects None Yet
13	Explore Management Alternatives Several Guides Available Summarizing Plant Management Options Updated Diet for a Small Lake Available in Spring Draft “Primer on Aquatic Plant Management in NYS” Available on DEC Website http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dow/bwam/aquatic/ch6apr05.pdf)
14	Identify Limitations Physical- Dam? Depth of Withdrawal? Retention Time? Major Inlet/Outlet? Launch/Spoils Area? Depth/Density of Plants? Biological- Protected (RTE) Animals/Plants? Fisheries Resources? Logistical- Public Water Supply? Identified on PWL? Is Technique “Available” Philosophical- Opposition to Use of Herbicides? Intended/Desired Use of Waterbody? Fiscal
15
16	Do Nothing Option Principle- Let Nature or Apathy Work Invasive Target- None Pros- (No)$, May Take Advantage of Normal Cyclical Patterns Cons- Problem May Become More Difficult to Manage Permits- None Costs- Pay Later
17	Hand / Suction Harvesting Principle- Pluck (Nudge) ‘Em Out, One at a Time (and Bag ‘Em) Invasive Target- Any/All Pros- Can be Cheap, Target Individual Plants or Plant Species, Combine With Suction Harvesting, Good IPM Technique Cons- Labor Intensive, Difficult and Costly > 1000 ft²or Deep Water, Spread Fragments Permits- Only If Large Scale (ECL Article 15, Article 24)- Suction Permits Akin to Dredging Costs- Labor Only to $100-500/ac (Suction = $5-10k/ac)
18	Hand Harvesting-Yaphank Lakes Impact on Target Plant Species- significant Impact on Native Plant Species- minimal to none Impact on Native Animal Species- minimal to none Post-Treatment Plant Coverage treatment zone- native plants outside treatment zone- all plants Water quality changes temporary turbidity Ecological impacts minimal to none Downstream impacts minimal to none Potential for regrowth within treatment zone- moderate from outside treatment zone- high Recreational Impacts During Treatment within treatment zone- significant outside treatment zone- none Likelihood of Suboptimal Results low to moderate
19	Hand Harvesting-Yaphank Lakes Volunteer or Professional? Hand Harvesting- most likely professional Diver Harvesting- professional Expected Costs Capital Hand harvesting: minimal diver harvesting: $30k Operating $5-10k/acre hand or diver Duration of Treatment 3 months Frequency of Annual Treatment 1-2x per year Longevity of Control 2-3 months Permits none? Unique Issues? none? Overall Likelihood of Success partial control = moderate reinfestation control = high
20	Benthic Barriers Principle- Smother ‘Em Invasive Target- Any/All if Barrier Placed Early Pros- Focus on Use Impacted Areas, Can Move to Different Areas, Variable Time Options Cons- Difficult in Deep Water, Limited to Small Areas, Potential Ecological Impacts, Not Species Specific Permits- Some DEC Regions- Only If Large Scale (ECL Article 15, Article 24), USACE if Navigable Water Costs- $100/ac + Labor to $10-30k/ac
21	Benthic Barriers-Yaphank Lakes Impact on Target Plant Species- significant Impact on Native Plant Species- significant under barrier Impact on Native Animal Species- some loss under barrier Post-Treatment Plant Coverage treatment zone- none outside treatment zone- all plants Water quality changes temporary turbidity Water quality changes sediment anoxia if barriers retained Ecological impacts loss of habitat under barriers Downstream impacts minimal to none Potential for regrowth within treatment zone- low to moderate from outside treatment zone- high Recreational Impacts During Treatment within treatment zone- significant outside treatment zone- none Likelihood of Suboptimal Results low to moderate
22	Benthic Barriers-Yaphank Lakes Volunteer or Professional? professional in all deep/most shallow Expected Costs Capital $20k/acre- can be reused Operating $5-15k/acre Duration of Treatment 3-6 weeks Frequency of Annual Treatment 1x per year Longevity of Control 1-2 months Permits Article 15/24 if whole lake Unique Issues? Installation in main channel Overall Likelihood of Success partial control = moderate reinfestation control = low
23	Cutting (Tips and Roots) (Hydroraking/Rotovating) Principle- Snip ‘Em Invasive Target- Can Spread Milfoil and Fanwort Pros- Easy, Inexpensive, Focus on Surface Impacts Cons- Easily Spreads Fragments and Root Material, Plants Regrow, Weeds Deposit Downwind, Selective only in Monocultures Permits- DEC and APA (ECL Articles 15 and 24), Usually None for Surface Only Cutting Costs- $200-400/ac
24	Cutting-Yaphank Lakes Not recommended technique Cutting without harvesting will spread fragments No long-term impacts without impacting root system Fanwort and Variable watermilfoil spread by fragmentation
25	Rotovating/Hydroraking-Yaphank Lakes Impact on Target Plant Species- short term control Impact on Native Plant Species- significant within cutting zone Impact on Native Animal Species- some loss within cutting zone Post-Treatment Plant Coverage treatment zone- minimal to low outside treatment zone- all plants Water quality changes temporary turbidity / floating material liberation of sediment pollutants Ecological impacts major habitat disruption sedimentation outside cutting zone Downstream impacts floating plant material / turbidity Potential for regrowth within treatment zone- low from outside treatment zone- high Recreational Impacts During Treatment within treatment zone- significant outside treatment zone- none Likelihood of Suboptimal Results moderate
26	Rotovating/Hydroraking-Yaphank Lakes Volunteer or Professional? professional Expected Costs Capital $150k Operating $2k/acre Duration of Treatment 2-3 weeks Frequency of Annual Treatment 1x per year Longevity of Control 1-2 years Permits DEC Article 15 Unique Issues? Significant benthic impacts Overall Likelihood of Success partial control = moderate reinfestation control = moderate
27	Shading Principle- Color the Water So Plants Don’t Grow Invasive Target- All If Low Enough in Water Column Pros- Easy, Inexpensive, Whole Waterbody Control Cons- Non-Selective (Plant or Spatial), Highly Dependent on Retention Time, Little Documentation in Large or Deeper Waterbodies Permits- If Advertised as Plant Control Agent, Pesticides Permit (Pt 327), Otherwise None Costs- $100-500/ac
28	Shading-Yaphank Lakes Not recommended technique Flow through time too fast in Yaphank Lakes to effectively utilize this technique Fanwort and Variable watermilfoil canopies on or near surface will not be impacted by shading agents
29	Herbivorous Insects Principle- Stock Insects that Will Disrupt Plant Growth Cycle Invasive Target- Eurasian Watermilfoil Now, Water Chestnut in Future? Pros- “Natural”, Likely Involves Native Insects, Mostly Selective, Few Side Effects Cons- Limited Targets, Little Evidence of Insect Propagation, Spread or Augmented Control in NYS, Fish Predation, Poor IPM Choice Permits- DEC Stocking Permit (ECL Article 11) Costs- $300-3000/ac
30	Herbivorous Insects-Yaphank Lakes Not recommended technique None of the commercially available or experimentally stocked herbivorous insects will impact Fanwort or Variable watermilfoil Augmented management strategy still largely unproven
31	Drawdown Principle- Freeze Dry Plants Over the Winter Invasive Target- Variable Watermilfoil, Fanwort Pros- Easy, Inexpensive, Can Combine with Other Mgmt Actions (Dock Repair, Habitat Improvement) Cons- Loss of Other Rhizome-Producers, Increase in Seed-Producers, Late Return of Water Level, Impacts to Benthos Permits- DEC Article 15/24 Permit Costs- $<100/ac
32	Winter Drawdown-Yaphank Lakes Impact on Target Plant Species- significant in exposed areas Impact on Native Plant Species- Lower Lake significant in exposed areas Upper Lake pondweeds/naiads- low, lilies- high pennywort/St Johns wort- moderate Impact on Native Animal Species- high in exposed area Post-Treatment Plant Coverage treatment zone- very low outside treatment zone- Lower-very low; Upper-moderate Water quality changes temporary turbidity potential release of nutrients / bloom Ecological impacts loss of spawning grounds / cover wetland/GW recharged reduced reduced fisheries habitat Downstream impacts heavy initial flow, turbidity Potential for regrowth within treatment zone- low to moderate from outside treatment zone- high Recreational Impacts During Treatment within treatment zone- lost lake access loss of fishing edge after withdrawal outside treatment zone- none after water returns Likelihood of Suboptimal Results moderate
33	Winter Drawdown-Yaphank Lakes Volunteer or Professional? professional Expected Costs Capital not known Operating none Duration of Treatment 1-2 weeks Frequency of Annual Treatment 2 out of 3 years Longevity of Control 1-5 years Permits DEC Article 15 / 24 Unique Issues? f (inflow, precipitation, cold, GW) opportunities for dam repair potential reinfestation main channel Overall Likelihood of Success whole lake control = moderate reinfestation control = low
34	Summer Drawdown-Yaphank Lakes Impact on Target Plant Species- moderate to significant Impact on Native Plant Species- Lower Lake moderate to significant in exposed areas Upper Lake pondweeds/naiads- low, lilies- high pennywort/St Johns wort- moderate Impact on Native Animal Species- high in exposed area Post-Treatment Plant Coverage treatment zone- perhaps high due to GW saturation outside treatment zone- Lower-very low; Upper-moderate Water quality changes periodic turbidity liberation flocculent sediments Ecological impacts loss of spawning grounds / cover wetland/GW recharged reduced disequilibrium of benthic habitat Downstream impacts sedimentation in trout spawning beds Potential for regrowth within treatment zone- low to moderate from outside treatment zone- high Recreational Impacts During Treatment within treatment zone- lost lake access loss of fishing edge after withdrawal outside treatment zone- none after water returns Likelihood of Suboptimal Results moderate to high
35	Summer Drawdown-Yaphank Lakes Volunteer or Professional? professional Expected Costs Capital not known Operating none Duration of Treatment 1-2 weeks Frequency of Annual Treatment annually? Longevity of Control unknown? Permits DEC Article 15 / 24 Unique Issues? f (inflow, precipitation, cold, GW) potential reinfestation main channel risk of significant downstream impact Overall Likelihood of Success whole lake control = low to moderate reinfestation control = low
36	Dam Removal-Yaphank Lakes Impact on Target Plant Species- significant in channel, unknown out Impact on Native Plant Species- Lower Lake elimination in and outside channel Upper Lake elimination outside channel pondweeds, naiads- significant in channel naiads, worts- moderate in channel Impact on Native Animal Species- eliminate benthos outside channel significant impact inside channel Post-Treatment Plant Coverage treatment zone- emergent vegetation will take over outside treatment zone- low to moderate inside channel Water quality changes heavy turbidity during removal improved oxygenation after removal Ecological impacts shift from sub to emergent vegetation shift from benthic to wetland inverts Downstream impacts heavy turbidity and flow post-removal shift in downstream ecological comm. Potential for regrowth within treatment zone- low to moderate from outside treatment zone- very low Recreational Impacts During Treatment within treatment zone- lost lake and access shift in boating/angling use Likelihood of Suboptimal Results low to moderate
37	Dam Removal-Yaphank Lakes Volunteer or Professional? professional Expected Costs Capital difficult to define Operating none Duration of Treatment 1-2 weeks Frequency of Annual Treatment one time Longevity of Control permanent Permits DEC Article 15 / 24, dam safety Unique Issues? ecological shift: lentic to lotic recreational shift: standing to flowing compatible with downstream uses? groundwater impacts change in Carmens River last 25 years Overall Likelihood of Success whole lake control = moderate reinfestation control = moderate
38	Case Study- Mill Pond 5 Acre Pond, Saratoga County Three Upstream Lakes with Fanwort Lake Drained in 1998 Fanwort Eliminated through 2002 (Pond Did Not Refill until 2000) Fanwort Returned after 2002 (Still in Upstream Lakes)
39	Mechanical Harvesting Principle- Cut ‘Em and Cart ‘Em Away Invasive Target- Any Growing in Water 2-10 Feet Deep Pros- Large Scale, Opens Navigational Chanels/Surface of Waterbody, Some Nutrient Removal Cons- Expensive, Creates Fragments, Non-Selective, Can’t Be Used Near Shore, Some Fauna Impacted, Need Launch Permits- DEC ECL Article 24 Costs- $500-1500/ac; $150k Harvester
40	Mechanical Harvesting-Yaphank Lakes Impact on Target Plant Species- height reduction, not elimination Impact on Native Plant Species- height reduction, not elimination Impact on Native Animal Species- loss of fish, aquatic insects Post-Treatment Plant Coverage treatment zone- little overall reduction by 6-8 weeks outside treatment zone- no change Water quality changes surface fragmentation slight reduction in sediment nutrients Ecological impacts low-lying habitat retained selective control fast-growing plants Downstream impacts floating fragments Potential for regrowth within treatment zone- high from outside treatment zone- high Recreational Impacts During Treatment within treatment zone- significant but slow moving Outside treatment zone- noise and diesel odor Likelihood of Suboptimal Results moderate
41	Mechanical Harvesting-Yaphank Lakes Volunteer or Professional? Volunteer drivers? Expected Costs Capital $150k Operating $15-20k per year Duration of Treatment 2-3 weeks Frequency of Annual Treatment 1-2x per year Longevity of Control 6-12 weeks Permits DEC Article 24 Unique Issues? cut weed disposal and dewatering access for harvester Overall Likelihood of Success whole lake control = moderate reinfestation control = very low
42	Case Study- Long Pond 100 Acre Lake, Dutchess County Fanwort Beds in Channels Between Deep Occupied Regions of Lake Harvester Operated by County Fanwort Spread to Nearby Lakes Managed by Same Harvester Fanwort Populations Still Dense (but Boat Traffic can Navigate Through Lanes Opened by Harvester)
43	Case Study- Donahue Pond 50 Acre Pond, Suffolk County (Manorville) Fanwort Beds Created Recreational Problems for Peconic River Sportsman’s Club Harvester Operated by Town Fanwort Spread to Nearby Lakes Managed by Same Harvester Fanwort Populations Still Dense (but Boat Traffic can Navigate Through Lanes Opened by Harvester)
44	Aquatic Herbicides Principle- Chemically Wipe Out Weeds by Contract or Impact to Growth Pattern Invasive Target- Whole Lake: Fluridone, 2,4-D Partial Lake: Triclopyr, Endothal, Diquat Pros- Short to Long Term Control, Some Selectivity, Local or Lakewide Control, Usually Effective Cons- Controversial, Some Limits on Use, Time Delays, Non-Target Impacts, Plan/Monitoring Required Permits- DEC ECL Article 15/Part 327, Article 24 Costs- $300-1500/ac
45	Whole Lake Aquatic Herbicides-Yaphank Lakes Impact on Target Plant Species- fluridone- fanwort high, milfoil moderate 2,4-D – milfoil high, fanwort low Impact on Native Plant Species- Lower Lake fluridone-low, 2,4D-moderate Upper Lake fluridone-moderate, 2,4-D-low Impact on Native Animal Species- no expected loss Post-Treatment Plant Coverage treatment zone- Lower Lake-low, Upper Lake-moderate outside treatment zone- Lower Lake-low, Upper Lake-moderate Water quality changes no expected changes Ecological impacts habitat disruption in treatment zone Downstream impacts sub-lethal impacts normal-high flow none likely under low flow Potential for regrowth within treatment zone- fluridone- low YOT, low YAT 2,4-D- low YOT, moderate YAT Recreational Impacts During Treatment none expected Likelihood of Suboptimal Results low to moderate
46	Whole Lake Aquatic Herbicides-Yaphank Lakes Volunteer or Professional? Professional? Expected Costs Capital $30k Operating $3-5k (monitoring) Duration of Treatment 1 day Frequency of Annual Treatment 1x per year (perhaps bump treatment) Longevity of Control 1-5 years Permits DEC Pesticides Part 327, Article 24 Unique Issues? impact of 2,4-D on nearshore wells assuring >50d fluridone contact time Overall Likelihood of Success whole lake control = moderate reinfestation control = low to moderate
47	Partial Lake Aquatic Herbicides-Yaphank Lakes Impact on Target Plant Species- endothal- fanwort high triclopyr – milfoil high diquat-moderate Impact on Native Plant Species- Lower Lake endothal-high, triclopyr-low, diquat-high Upper Lake endothal-high, triclopyr-low, diquat-high Impact on Native Animal Species- no expected loss Post-Treatment Plant Coverage treatment zone- Lower Lake-low, Upper Lake-moderate outside treatment zone- both lakes- unchanged Water quality changes no expected changes Ecological impacts habitat disruption in treatment zone Downstream impacts sub-lethal impacts normal-high flow none likely under low flow Potential for regrowth within treatment zone- endothal- moderate YOT, high YAT diquat- low YOT, moderate YAT triclopyr- low YOT, moderate YAT Recreational Impacts During Treatment none expected Likelihood of Suboptimal Results low to moderate
48	Partial Lake Aquatic Herbicides-Yaphank Lakes Volunteer or Professional? Professional? Expected Costs Capital $3-5k (base application cost) Operating $0.5-1k /acre (incl monitoring) Duration of Treatment 1 day Frequency of Annual Treatment 1x per year (perhaps bump treatment) Longevity of Control 1-5 years Permits DEC Pesticides Part 327, Article 24 Unique Issues? Minimize flow out of lake challenges controlling main channel Overall Likelihood of Success whole lake control = low reinfestation control = low to moderate
49	Case Study- Donahue Pond 50 Acre Pond, Suffolk County (Manorville) Fanwort Beds Created Recreational Problems for Peconic River Sportsmans Club Fluridone (Sonar) Applied in 2007 Pre-Treatment (2005)- Fanwort Moderate or Dense at 45% Samples Sites; Sparse, Trace or Non-Existent at 55% of Sites Post Treatment- Fanwort Moderate or Dense at 25% Sampled Sites; Sparse, Trace or Non-Existent at 75% of Sites Dense Sites at Southern End Showed Significant Chlorosis
50	Grass Carp Principle- Stock Weed Eating Fish Invasive Target- Fanwort marginal, Milfoil Less Palatable Pros- Perceived “Natural”, Less Expensive, Long-Term Control, Mostly Invisible Control Cons- Non-Native Fish, Non-Target Control, Risk of Algal Blooms/ Plant Eradication / Escape, Habitat Alteration, Hard to Remove, EIS Required Permits- DEC Stocking Permit (ECL Article 11), Article 24 Costs- $50-300/ac
51	Grass Carp-Yaphank Lakes Impact on Target Plant Species- milfoil- low; fanwort- moderate Impact on Native Plant Species- Lower Lake coontail- low; bladderwort- moderate Upper Lake worts, pondweed-high; naiads, floating pondweed- moderate; lilies- low; Impact on Native Animal Species- low if low stocking rate Post-Treatment Plant Coverage Lower Lake- f (stocking rate); expected low Upper Lake- f (stocking rate); expected moderate Water quality changes some turbidity release nutrients / algal bloom ? Ecological impacts loss of spawning grounds loss of cover Downstream impacts significant if fish escape nutrient release downstream Potential for regrowth high (assuming native plant rebound) Recreational Impacts During Treatment loss of fishing edge after treatment Likelihood of Suboptimal Results moderate to high (especially Upper)
52	Grass Carp-Yaphank Lakes Volunteer or Professional? Professional Expected Costs Capital $4k + EIS Operating none to $0.5k /acre (restocking) Duration of Treatment < 1 week Frequency of Annual Treatment none (up to 10% restock annual) Longevity of Control 2-6 years Permits DEC Article 11, EIS Unique Issues? Minimize flow out of lake separate stockings/control in each lake? Overall Likelihood of Success whole lake control = low to moderate reinfestation control = low
53	Case Study- Canaan Lake 26 Acre Pond, Suffolk County (Patchogue) Extensive Growth of Fanwort and Variable Watermilfoil Surface Plant Growth Reported as “Dense” from 1992-1994 Grass Carp Stocked 1999 Reported as “Moderate” to “Dense” in 2000-2001 Reported as “Dense” to “Completely Covering the Lake” from 2002-2005
54	Dredging Principle- Scoop Out the Weeds, Roots, and Muds Around Them Invasive Target- Any/All Pros- Long Term Control, Increases Water Depth, Very Effective in Light Limited Conditions Cons- Very Expensive, Many Permits, Risk of High Turbidity, Need Spoils Area and Access for Barge, Risk of Spreading Contaminated Sediment, Limited Areas Permits- DEC ECL Article 15, Article 24, Others Costs- $20-80k/ac
55	Dredging-Yaphank Lakes Impact on Target Plant Species- complete control and eradication? Impact on Native Plant Species- complete control within treatment zone Impact on Native Animal Species- substantial loss within treatment zone Post-Treatment Plant Coverage treatment zone none outside treatment zone all plants future loss of natives in deeper water Water quality changes heavy turbidity liberation of sediment pollutants Ecological impacts 2-3yr habitat disruption in treatment zone sedimentation outside treatment zone water / spoils area contamination? other unpredictable results? Downstream impacts sedimentation, turbidity liberated pollutants Potential for regrowth low in treatment area, delayed elsewhere Recreational Impacts During Treatment significant in zone, moderate outside Likelihood of Suboptimal Results low
56	Dredging-Yaphank Lakes Volunteer or Professional? Professional Expected Costs Capital $150k Operating $10-20k / acre; $300-600k both lakes Duration of Treatment 2-4 weeks Frequency of Annual Treatment 1x Longevity of Control 5-10 years? Permits DEC Article 15, Article 24, USACE? Hazardous waste disposal permit? Unique Issues? permitting/disposal of soils (years) combine with drawdown Overall Likelihood of Success whole lake control = moderate to high reinfestation control = moderate
57	IPM = Integrated Plant Management Principle- Combining Two or More Mgmt Techniques Invasive Target- Any/All Pros- ^ Likelihood of Long-Term Control, 1-2 Punch, Favorably Viewed by Regulators, Can Combine Local and Lakewide Management Cons- Must Make Sure Techniques Are Compatible, Side Effects Could Multiply Permits- Varied Costs- Varied