An Insiders Guide to Aquatic Plant Management in New York State

1
An Insiders Guide to Aquatic Plant Management
in New York State

• Scott A. Kishbaugh, P.E.
• NYSDEC Division of Water
• 625 Broadway
• Albany NY 12233-3502
• 518-402-8282
• sakishba_at_gw.dec.state.ny.us

2
There Are Several Fundamental Truths About
Aquatic Plant Management in NYS
3

• All Plants Are Created Equal
• Some Plants Are More Equal Than Others

4
(No Transcript)
5

• All Plant Management Techniques Are Created Equal
• Some Techniques Are Less Equal Than Others

6
Who Took My Hammer?(Missing Tools in the Toolbox)

• Some Plant Management Techniques Are Highly
  Regulated
• Some Techniques Are Not Eligible for Grants
• Some Techniques Are Not Available (Permitted) in
  Some Parts of the State, Whether by Regulation or
  Philosophy
• Some Techniques Are Not Effective for Some Plants

7

• There is No Such Thing As Eradication
• Except When There Is....

8
Whats Left at the End

• Some Seed Producing Plants (Water Chestnut) Can
  Be Eradicated if Seed Bank is Extirpated and
  Exhausted- Can Take Many Years
• Grass Carp Can Effectively Eradicate All Plants
• Eradication Grants Program Funds Projects More
  Likely to Result in Eradication

9

• Aquatic Plant Management Is A Local
  Responsibility
• Except When (State/Federal) Government Tells You
  What You Cant Do

10
Whos In Charge?

• Nearly All Aquatic Plant Management in NYS Funded
  by Locals
• Individual Homeowners or Lake Associations
• Municipal Grants
• Local Assistance Grants (FLLOWPA)
• Eradication Grant Program
• Aquatic Plant Management is Regulated by State or
  Federal Agencies

11

• Aquatic Plant Permits Are Issued by DEC Regional
  Staff
• Regional Staff Sometimes Have No Control Over the
  Issuance of Permits

12
What Really Happens?

• Aquatic Plant Management Process Can Be More
  Political than Scientific
• Statewide Permitting Program Not Always
  Reflective of Local Permitting Issues
• Aquatic Plant Management Permitting Differs from
  Region to Region

13
So 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

14
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

15
Identify Impaired Uses

• Identify Any Impaired Uses (Swimming, Fishing,
  Drinking Water)
• State Priority Waterbody List (PWL) Can
  Authenticate Problems

16
Plant Identification

• Make Sure the Plant Identification is Correct
• Several Sources Available for Confirming Aquatic
  Plant Identifications

17
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.u
  s/website/dow/bwam/aquatic/ch6apr05.pdf)

18
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

19
(No Transcript)
20
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

21
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 gt
  1000 ft2 or 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)

22
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

23
Cutting (Tips and Roots)

• Principle- Snip Em
• Invasive Target- Water Chestnut and Perhaps Curly
  Leaf Pondweed- 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
Shading

• Principle- Color the Water So Plants Dont 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

25
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

26
Drawdown

• Principle- Freeze Dry Plants Over the Winter
• Invasive Target- Eurasian 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 Stocking Permit (ECL Article 11)
• Costs- lt100/ac

27
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, Cant Be Used Near Shore, Some
  Fauna Impacted, Need Launch
• Permits- APA, Occasional DEC (ECL Article 24)
• Costs- 500-1500/ac 150k Harvester

28
Aquatic Herbicides

• Principle- Chemically Wipe Out Weeds by Contract
  or Impact to Growth Pattern
• Invasive Target- All
• Milfoil- Fluridone, 2,4-D, Endothal
• Chestnut- 2,4-D
• Fanwort- Fluridone, Endothal
• Curly Leaf- 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, APA, Others (ECL Article 15/Part
  327, Article 24)
• Costs- 300-1500/ac

29
Grass Carp

• Principle- Stock Weed Eating Fish
• Invasive Target- Curly Leafed Pondweed, Fanwort
  (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/APA Stocking Permit (ECL Article
  11), APA Article 24
• Costs- 50-300/ac

30
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/APA Permits (ECL Article 15, Article
  24, Others)
• Costs- 20-80k/ac

31
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