contents of appendix 1- community involvement …...contents of appendix 1- community involvement...

Contents of Appendix 1- Community involvement and Steering

Committee

Postcard for first meeting

December 3, 2015 meeting o Agenda o Sign-up sheet o Slide Show o Copy of written-up notes

March 1, 2016 meeting o Agenda o Sign-up sheet o Slide Show o Copy of written-up notes

June 8, 2016 meeting o Agenda o Sign-up sheet o Slide Show o Copy of written-up notes

December 7, 2016 meeting o Agenda and Budget Table o Sign-up sheet o Copy of written-up notes

Alternative Formats AvailableCall 206-477-9333 or TTY:711

1510

_517

2_S

hado

wLa

ke_N

oxW

eed_

CA

RD

.ai

skr

au

Department of Natural Resources and ParksWater and Land Resources Division

Noxious Weed Control Program 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600Seattle, WA 98104

PRSRT STDU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDSEATTLE WA

PERMIT NO. 6013

WE WILL COVER:· Group discussion of why Shadow Lake is important (i.e., recreation, wildlife)

· Why create an IAVMP (Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan) for Shadow Lake· Aquatic noxious weed issues at the lake

· How the planning process can lead to control of noxious weeds at Shadow Lake· How folks can get involved in Plan development and potential aquatic weed remedies

Eurasian milfoil

PLEASE JOIN US FOR A COMMUNITY MEETINGTHURS.,DEC. 3RDSee reverse for details.

Protect Shadow Lake From Noxious Weeds! NOXIOUS WEED NOXIOUS WEED NOXIOUS WEED

Eurasian milfoil Yellow Flag IrisFragrant water lily

Join your Shadow Lake neighbors

on Thursday, December 3rd 2015 at 6:30 p.m. for an hour long planning meeting hosted by King County Aquatic Noxious Weed Specialist Ben Peterson. We will discuss the possibility of developing a community-based IAVMP (Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan) for Shadow Lake.Meeting to be held at:Richter Interpretive CenterShadow Lake Nature Preserve 21656 184th Avenue SERenton, WA 98058For more information contact: Ben Peterson King County Aquatic Noxious Weed Specialist 206-477-4724 [email protected] www.kingcounty.gov/weeds

King County Noxious Weed Control 206-477-WEED www.kingcounty.gov/weeds

PHOT

O CO

URTE

SY O

F JO

ANNE

BRA

DLEY

PHOT

O CO

URTE

SY O

F RA

Y OW

ENS

(Ben Peterson, Aquatic Weed Specialist, King County Noxious Weed Control Program,

[email protected], 206-477-4724)

Shadow Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) 1st Planning Meeting

6:30 p.m., December 3, 2015; Richter Interpretive Center, 21656 184th Ave SE, Renton, WA

Agenda

1. 6:30: Welcome; Introductions, including SHADOW introduction

2. 6:35: Presentation- the IAVMP process (slide show)

a. Why Shadow Lake is valued (short group discussion)

b. Define what an IAVMP is

i. Focus on what is right for the stakeholders at a waterbody

ii. Aquatic weeds and native plants

c. Noxious weeds at Shadow Lake

d. Steps of IAVMP development

i. Phase 1: Information collection

ii. Phase 2: Investigation of control strategies

e. Potential timeline

f. Information needs and other ways folks can help

3. 7:00: Open Discussion of the IAVMP (flipping back through the slide show as needed)

a. Review of project scope

b. Priorities and goals

c. Other issues

d. Tasks to be done, next meeting plans

4. 7:30: Adjourn

mailto:[email protected]

12/19/2016

1

Noxious Weeds at Shadow Lake

Ben Peterson King County Noxious Weed Control Program

www.kingcounty.gov/weeds

Photo

by J

oanne B

radle

y

Why Shadow Lake is valued:

12/19/2016

2

Why Shadow Lake is valued

• Wildlife habitat

• Fishing

• Boating

• Swimming

• Views

• Ecological processes

• Irrigation

• ???

What is an IAVMP?

Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan PURPOSE: To design a cost-effective and environmentally sound aquatic plant management program • Can help with funding

– Aquatic Weeds management Fund calls for completion of an IAVMP before projects can be considered for implementation grants

• May be required to get some permits RATIONALE: Issues are different in every water body • Aquatic plant communities and water uses vary • There is a range of aquatic-plant control methods

– physical, mechanical, chemical, biological, cultural – these can vary widely in cost, effectiveness and environmental impacts

• Make sure aquatic plant management is consistent with stakeholder interests affecting the water body

12/19/2016

3

What is an IAVMP?

Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan

• Define the problem

• Research all potential solutions

• Choose preferred options

• Involve the community

• Make final recommendations

• Implement plan

Problem/Site Description Control Strategy Development

Identify Beneficial Uses

Identify management goals

Develop a problem statement

Public involvement

Public involvement

Identify Water Body/Watershed Features

Fishing Swimming Boating Wildlife habitat

Map Aquatic Plants

Characterize Aquatic Plants

Investigate Control

Alternatives

Specify Control

Alternatives

Choose Integrated Treatment Scenario

Develop Action

Program

Formation of Steering Committee

A

K

J

I

H G

F

E

D

C

B

12/19/2016

4

Noxious weeds vs./native plants?

• Noxious weeds = Non-native plant that damages agriculture, wildlife, human health, land values or natural resources

– Defined and regulated by state law

– control required only where weed is not widespread

– goal of law is to prevent spread of new invaders to un-infested areas

• Native plants = diverse in structure and species

• Clog waterways

• Impede recreation

• Foul motors

• Replace native plants

• Little to no wildlife value

•Alter water chemistry

Impacts of Aquatic Weeds

12/19/2016

5

Aquatic Plant Benefits

• Stabilize shorelines

• Provide habitat

• Reduce nutrients

• Prevent algal blooms

• Produce oxygen

the native plant matrix in lakes: what is healthy

Gettys, Haller, and Bellaud. 2009. Biology and Control of Aquatic

Plants.

Good Bad

12/19/2016

6

Striking a balance with aquatic plants

• Aquatic weed monoculture – Very dense – No diversity of habitat/food source

• Healthy native ecosystem – Diverse in structure and species – Open water and vegetated water – Adapted for native animals, fish, insects

• Sandy-bottomed, plant-free, recreational lake – Poor habitat value – All open water

12/19/2016

7

Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum

•Native to Europe and Asia

•One of the most widespread aquatic pests in North America

•Reproduces by plant fragments

•Leads to:

•Increased water temp

•Mosquito breeding areas

•Decay in fall can lead to

increased algal growth

•Reduces biodiversity

Eurasian w

atermilfoil

Class B

Noxious

Weed

(non-

reg. in

K.C.)

Key characteristics: • 14 or more leaflet pairs • leaves whorled • usually red stem, branched • leaves usually collapse against stem when pulled from water

• flower spike held above water

Eurasian w

atermilfoil

Eurasian watermilfoil Class B

Noxious

Weed

(non-

reg. in

K.C.)

12/19/2016

8

Nymphaea odorata Fragrant waterlily – Class C non-designate

Key characteristics: • floating perennial

• flowers white to pink on separate flexible stalks

• thick fleshy rhizomes

• round leaves

12/19/2016

9

Yellow Flag Iris (Iris pseudacorus) • Large yellow iris –blooms April – June

• Prominent midrib in leaf

• Found on lakes, streams, wetlands

• Outcompetes native plants and animals for habitat

• Forms impenetrable mats, accumulates sediment

Seed pod

12/19/2016

10

Invasive Knotweed (Polygonum spp.)

12/19/2016

11

Knotweed Identification

Height: 6-15 feet

Stems: hollow between the nodes, segmented, mostly green but often with reddish-brown spots or markings

Leaves: broad, slightly heart-shaped (depending on species)

Flowers: Numerous white flowers in upright or somewhat drooping clusters

14

Knotweed Impacts

• Forces out native and desirable plants – Thousands of stems per acre – Develops a monoculture – Dead canes decompose slowly – Rapidly invades riparian forests

• Can increase erosion/ turbidity on waterways – Rhizomes brittle; roots coarse – No cover during winter storms

• Reduces habitat for fish and other wildlife – Reduces plant diversity – Food sources/ insects – Shade and microclimate – Prevents tree establishment

• One of the most difficult plants to eradicate growing in some of the most sensitive habitats – We have miles and miles of valuable riparian and wetland habitat

vulnerable to knotweed invasion

12/19/2016

12

Just here





Public involvement

Public involvement



Map Aquatic Plants


Investigate Control

Alternatives

Specify Control

Alternatives


Develop Action

Program


A

K

J

I

H G

F

E

D

C

B

12/19/2016

13





Public involvement

Public involvement



Map Aquatic Plants


Investigate Control

Alternatives

Specify Control

Alternatives


Develop Action

Program


A

K

J

I

H G

F

E

D

C

B





Public involvement

Public involvement



Map Aquatic Plants


Investigate Control

Alternatives

Specify Control

Alternatives


Develop Action

Program


A

K

J

I

H G

F

E

D

C

B

12/19/2016

14

Potential Management Goals

• Eradication of shoreline noxious weeds to prevent a larger infestation

• Clearing of invasive plants to facilitate safer swimming, fishing, and boating

• Increase the biodiversity of near shore aquatic vegetation

• Improve ecosystem processes (for fish and wildlife) that have been hindered by the presence of invasive aquatic plants

• Reduce the threat of invasion (of these aquatic weeds) to nearby ecosystems

• Involve the community in each phase of the management process

• Use the best available science to identify and understand the likely effect of management actions on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems prior to implementation

• Review the effectiveness of management actions

• Adjust the management strategy as necessary to achieve the overall goal

Potential Management Strategies

12/19/2016

15





Public involvement

Public involvement



Map Aquatic Plants


Investigate Control

Alternatives

Specify Control

Alternatives


Develop Action

Program


A

K

J

I

H G

F

E

D

C

B

Shadow Lake IAVMP Development Timeline

Date Action Step

December 2015 Development of Problem Statement A

Winter 2016 Steering Committee meeting B, C

Winter-spring 2016

Writing of site description and control strategy options

D, E, F, G, H, I

Spring 2016 Steering Committee Meeting J

Spring-summer 2016

Development of preferred control methods

K

July-Sept. 2016 plant surveys F

September 2016 Steering Committee Meeting/Public meeting- presentation of draft IAVMP with preferred control methods

C

October 2016 Responses gathered from public meeting; revision of IAVMP to reflect responses, final draft produced

Complete IAVMP!

12/19/2016

16

Information needs/research opportunities • History of the Shadow Lake Community (sources could include

old letters, newspaper clippings, photographs)

• History of land use in the Shadow Lake watershed

• Natural History of the Lake and watershed, soils, geology

• Water quality

• Fish and wildlife communities: – Fish caught/surveyed

– Bird surveys

– Mammals, amphibians, insects?

• List of community uses of the Lake

• Aquatic plant survey at the Lake

• Noxious weed survey at the Lake

• Other existing surveys

Also need help with:

• Spreading the word about the IAVMP to the community – Word of mouth

– Writing a letter to the community

• Getting feedback about the IAVMP from the community – Peoples use of the Lake

– Management goals

– Concerns about control techniques (such as herbicide)

– Commitment to financial or in-kind contribution for weed control work

– Commitment to long term maintenance of weeds at the lake

12/19/2016

17

Date Action

Winter –Spring 2016

Research and Writing of background information and control strategies

Spring 2016 Community Meeting to discuss control strategies

Summer 2016 Community Meeting to present proposed strategy

Fall 2016 Completion of Shadow Lake IAVMP

Shadow Lake IAVMP– Future Steps

Contact Information

Ben Peterson- Noxious Weed Control Specialist

King County Noxious Weed Control Program

206-477-4724 (or 206-477-9333 for general weed information)

[email protected]



http://www.kingcounty.gov/weeds

Meeting notes- December 3 2015 Shadow Lake IAVMP Notes by Ben Peterson Aquatic Noxious Weed Specialist A big thank you to everyone who came out to last Thursday’s meeting about noxious weeds at Shadow Lake! There were 24 people in attendance with a variety of perspectives. I feel that the turnout and discussions at Thursday night’s definitely warrant going forward with the writing of a Shadow Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP). For privacy sake I am sending this email out to recipients as a Bcc. Please let me know:

1. That you have received this email (and that it didn’t go into your “junk” email box) 2. If you are OK with me sharing your email with the group 3. If you want me to remove you from this email list (at the most I will send out one

email/week, and probably more like one email/month). The Next step is for those with interest and/or knowledge about the lake to get involved with the writing of the plan. We still need folks to sign up to help with researching sections of the plan. Current topics that need help are:

History of the Shadow Lake Community (sources could include old letters, newspaper clippings, photographs)

History of land use in the Shadow Lake watershed

Natural History of the Lake and watershed, soils, geology

Water quality

Fish and wildlife communities: o Fish caught/surveyed o Bird surveys o Mammals, amphibians, insects?

List of community uses of the Lake (so far we have: wildlife habitat, fishing, boating, swimming, views, ecological processes, irrigation, social history)

Aquatic plant survey at the Lake

Photographs of the lake (including historical pictures and images of community uses of the lake).

So, please let me know if you can help with gathering some of this information. For comparison if what was done with the Lake Desire IAVMP, check out that document here.

Also, we are still looking for some folks to express interest in being on the steering committee. It is sort of informal and would entail providing feedback on the content of

the report, weed control strategies, and potentially helping to organize future community involvement. Feel free to call or email if you have questions or could volunteer with some stipulations (which is fine too). Things I said I would send out to folks:

http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/animalsAndPlants/noxious-weeds/brochures-reports/reports.aspx#LakeDesire

Here is a link to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet. Once you read and download (and print-up) this booklet, you can use the methods described in the booklet to control weeds under the restrictions described in the booklet. For example, if you wanted to control fragrant water lily plants (which are a listed noxious weed) from in front of your privately owned waterfront, you could use:

o Use hand pulling or hand head equipment (as described on page 5 of the permit) o The work is done between July 16 and September 30 (as described on page 15 of the

permit) It should be noted that the permit does also allow removal/control of non-noxious weeds such as native plants (referred to as “Aquatic Beneficial Plants” but generally the area allowed to be control is a lot more restrictive. For example if you wanted to remove the native water-shield plant (picture) from in front of your privately owned waterfront you would be restricted to 10 linear feet of waterfront (as described on page 5 of the permit). The Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet does not cover any use of herbicide. Contact me directly if you want to find out what permits and licenses are involved for that. The Jenson Lake Mower (as I described during the meeting) we have for to borrow would be considered “Mechanical Harvesting and Cutting” as described on Page 7 in the booklet.

This page from the Washington Dept. of Ecology generally describes what weed control methods are used for aquatic plants.

The Best Management Practices document about each of the four noxious weeds found at the lake are attached.

A .pdf of the slide show that I presented is attached. I think that is about it. The next two months or so will be spent compiling information and beginning the writing. I will do most of the writing unless someone want to help out. Let’s plan on having the next meeting in February or early March. I plan on mixing things up and we’ll probably have each meeting at a different location near the lake if possible. Ben Peterson Aquatic Noxious Weed Specialist King County Noxious Weed Control Program

http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/aquatic_plant_removal/


http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/animalsAndPlants/noxious-weeds/weed-identification/fragrant-water-lily.aspx

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/Programs/wq/plants/plantid2/descriptions/brasch.html

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/Programs/wq/plants/plantid2/drawings/brasenia.html

http://www.lakemower.com/

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/management/index.html

Agenda

Shadow Lake IAVMP meeting 1 March 2016- 6:30 pm King County Fairwood Library

Ben Peterson, Aquatic Noxious Weed Specialist, King County Noxious Weed Control Program

[email protected] ; 206-477-4724; kingcounty.gov/weeds

Welcome and introductions

Proposed problem statement

o Comments on impact of aquatic weeds at the Lake

o Proposed problem statement

Quick review of weeds at the lake

Treatment options for the specific weeds

o Milfoil

Manual

Mechanical

Environmental Manipulation

Chemical

Biological

o Fragrant water lily

Strategy of starving the roots (cut lily pads below the water surface)

Manual

Small Scale Mechanical

Large Scale Mechanical


Chemical

o Yellow flag iris

Manual

Mechanical


Chemical

o Knotweed

Manual

Mechanical


Chemical- foliar spray

Chemical- injection


12/19/2016

1

Ph

oto

by

Joa

nn

e B

rad

ley

Ben Peterson King County Noxious Weed Program



12/19/2016

2



• Fishing

• Boating

• Swimming

• Views


• Irrigation

• ???

• Clog waterways

• Impede recreation

• Foul motors

• Replace native plants

• No wildlife value

• Alter water chemistry

Impacts of Aquatic Weeds

12/19/2016

3

Noxious Weeds at Shadow Lake

• A quick review of the non-native aquatic noxious weeds at Shadow Lake

Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum – Class B non-designate




•Leads to:





•Reduces biodiversity

* 2015 mapping, actual amount may be larger

Approx. 3.7 acres at Shadow Lake*

12/19/2016

4

Fragrant waterlily Nymphaea odorata – Class C non-designate


• Covers up to 3 acres of Shadow Lake near shore

• flowers white to pink

• thick fleshy rhizomes; round leaves

Approx. 2.8 acres at Shadow Lake

• Large yellow iris –blooms April – June





Seed pod

Approx. 3800 sq. ft. or ~ 450 feet of shoreline at Shadow Lake

Yellow Flag Iris Iris pseudacorus- Class C non-regulated

12/19/2016

5

Invasive Knotweed

(Polygonum x bohemicum) – Class B non-designate

• Native to Japan, perennial introduced as an ornamental

• Habitat: disturbed, riparian, wetland • Dense colonies, exclude native

vegetation • easily spreads into openspace areas • Starts growth from large root system in

April, full height by June (10-15 ft)

Approx. 870 sq. ft. at Shadow Lake

12/19/2016

6

Problem Statement

• What is the problem with aquatic noxious weeds for folks at the lake?

• Important uses of the water body that are being limited because of aquatic plants are:

– Boating

– Fishing

– Swimming

– Wildlife habitat

– Ecological processes

Problem Statement • Over the past several decades, aquatic noxious weeds at Shadow Lake have greatly

increased their distribution and impact. The submerged and floating plants Eurasian watermilfoil and fragrant water lily (recorded at the lake as early as 1976) have colonized much of the lake’s shallow littoral zone. The emergent noxious weed yellow flag iris (recorded at the lake as early as 1994) currently occupies only about 5% of the lake’s shoreline. However there is the potential for the plant to become much more widespread around the lake and in adjacent wetlands. Also, apart from two small patches totaling less than 1000 square feet (found in 2015), there is no knotweed at the lake shore. Currently there are no purple loosestrife plants or other regulated aquatic weeds at the lake.

• At public meetings on the topic of aquatic weeds at Shadow Lake, lake residents and users have voiced concerns over the impact of the noxious weeds on:

– Swimming- the weeds make it difficult to swim and could cause entanglement

– Boating- the weeds impede boat movement and quickly tangle up motorboat props

– Fishing- the weeds easily snag fishing lines and hooks and prevent shoreline fishing

– Wildlife Habitat Value- the weeds displace native aquatic plants wildlife are adapted to

– Ecological Processes- the weeds disrupt ecological processes

12/19/2016

7





Public involvement

Public involvement



Map Aquatic Plants


Investigate Control

Alternatives

Specify Control

Alternatives

Choose Integrated Treatment

Scenario

Develop Action

Program


A

K

J

I

H G

F

E

D C

B

Public involvement

What is our goal? • Management of aquatic weeds in Shadow Lake

• Options include:

– Eradication (complete wipeout)

– Control (prevent spread & reduce population)

– No Management (current conditions or worse)

12/19/2016

8

Management Tool Options for each plant • Manual

• Mechanical

• Environmental Manipulation

• Chemical

• Biological

Management Tool Options for each plant • Manual • Mechanical • Environmental Manipulation • Chemical • Biological • All pest (weed) control activities involve a combinations

of methods (Integrated Pest Management) • Often one method will be used for initial treatment (for

the first year or two) • …Followed by another method(s) for follow-up treatment

(for several years into the future) • Each plant has its own specific options • Permits are required

12/19/2016

9

Eurasian watermilfoil control-Manual

• Pulling plants by hand; cutting plants using an aquatic weed cutter; raking submerged plants using an aquatic weed rake – Use near shore (within 20’)

– Very labor intensive

– ~$200/waterfront parcel for hand pulling (shallow water)

• Diver hand pulling (in deeper water) – Often used in small areas or as follow-up to herbicide

– $10,000/acre

• All manual control requires repeated follow-up

Voluntary Control/non-regulated (Class B Noxious Weed) Approximately 3.7 acres at Shadow Lake

Eurasian watermilfoil control-Mechanical

• Cutting and Harvesting machines cut plants below the water surface (harvesting removes cut plants).

– Repeated two to three times/every year (control, not

eradication)

– Wood in lake can impede

– Can produce plant fragments

– ~$1,200 $2,000/acre/treatment

• Diver Dredging –use suction dredge to remove plants • ~$12,000/acre

12/19/2016

10

Eurasian watermilfoil control-Environmental Manipulation

• Bottom screen/barrier- can suppress weed growth in small areas (boat launch or swimming area)

• ~$10,000 installation (for 3,000 sq ft.)

• Installed by divers – Yearly maintenance required (~ $2,000)

– gas can get trapped & cause ballooning

• Weed Rollers

• Just around docks

• Water level drawdown

• not possible

Eurasian watermilfoil control- Chemical

• Aquatic herbicide 2,4-D and Triclopyr (both selective) – Formulated for aquatic use to not harm aquatic animal

– Likely require two rounds of treatment, possibly for two years

– $1,000 + /acre/treatment

– Triclopyr requires careful concentration management and timing

– Slow acting (several weeks)

– Application window July 15-October 31

– Short swimming restrictions; longer irrigation restrictions

– Applied only by a certified Aquatic Herbicide Applicator

– Plants may still come back without careful follow-up

12/19/2016

11

Eurasian watermilfoil control-Biological

• Milfoil weevil, a native insect has been studied – Very difficult to obtain and rear

– Effects may take many years to become apparent

• Triploid grass carp are fish that may eat milfoil – Not allowed in Shadow Lake because of outlet

– Will eat all other plants first

• Biological control will not eradicate milfoil – Ideally lead to reduced level

Fragrant Water Lily control-Manual

• Hand pulling or cutting requires repeated removal and monitoring

• Must repeatedly cut and remove shoots/leaves before they reach the water surface

• Takes several seasons of repeated removal

• Practical for small areas

• Can be done by volunteers or individual land owners

• High Labor costs/many volunteer hours

Voluntary Control/non-regulated (Class C Noxious Weed)

Approximately 2.8 acres at Shadow Lake

12/19/2016

12

Fragrant Water Lily control – Small-Scale Mechanical

• Small Cutting and Harvesting machine: cut plants up to 3’ below the water surface • Mounts to boats, Battery powered • Cutter: 4 feet wide, Rake: 5 feet wide • Use two boats for increased efficiency • One parcel waterfront in ~ 2 hours • Repeated two to three times/ every year

(control, not eradication)

• Dead rhizomes can float to surface • Wood in lake can impede • Can borrow the equipment from King County

Fragrant Water Lily control Large –Scale Mechanical

• Large Cutting and Harvesting machines: cut plants below the water surface (harvesting removes cut plants). – Repeated two to three times/ every year

(control, not eradication)

– Whole Lake level cutting

– Dead rhizomes can float to surface

– Wood in lake can impede

– Can produce plant fragments

– ~$1,200 - $2,000/acre/treatment

• Backhoe on a barge- dig and haul out plants • Very expensive $$,$$$

12/19/2016

13

Fragrant Water Lily control-Environmental Manipulation

• Bottom screen/barrier- can suppress weed growth in small areas (boat launch or swimming area)

• ~$10,000 installation (for 3,000 sq ft.)

• Installed by divers – Yearly maintenance required (~ $2,000)

– gas can get trapped & cause ballooning

• Weed Rollers

• Just around docks

• Water level drawdown

• not possible

Fragrant Water Lily control-Chemical

• Aquatic herbicide glyphosate – Non selective

– Formulated for aquatic use to not harm aquatic animals

• Likely requires two rounds of treatment/year, possibly for three years

• Dead rhizomes may float to surface

• $800+/acre/treatment

• No restrictions for irrigation or recreation following treatment

• Applied only by a certified Aquatic Herbicide Applicator

• Plants may still come back without careful follow-up

12/19/2016

14

Yellow flag iris control-Manual

• Iris has a large root system, but manual control can work in smaller areas

• Dig out mature plants, taking care to remove all the rhizome.

• Cutting flowers or leaves won’t kill the plants.

• When removing manually, care should be taken to protect the skin, as resins in the leaves and rhizomes can cause irritation.

• Allowed by WDFW July 16 - September 30 w/permit


Approx. 3800 sq. ft. dispersed around the lake shore

Yellow flag iris control-Mechanical

• Repeated mowing or cutting may keep yellow‐flag iris contained

• After several years of repeated mowing iris can potentially be killed by depleting the energy in the rhizomes

• Allowed by WDFW July 16 - September 30 w/permit



12/19/2016

15

Yellow flag iris control-Environmental Manipulation

• Small patches can be covered with a heavy tarp weighted at the edges for several years

• Be sure to extend the tarp well beyond the edges of the infestation and check periodically to ensure that plants are not growing up around the tarp

• Other materials (heavy plastic, landscape cloth) are not as effective

• Burning is not recommended and has not worked



Yellow flag iris control-Chemical

• A systemic aquatic-approved herbicide is needed to get to the root and kill the whole plant

• Aquatic formulations of glyphosate (5%) or imazapyr (2%) or imazamox have been shown to work well

• Herbicide is applied to actively growing plants (spring/summer)

• May require re-treatment

• Licensing and permits are needed for this work

• Volunteers can be trained and licensed



12/19/2016

16

Knotweed control-Manual

• Digging is more of a strategy to gradually starve the roots

• First cut and carefully remove mature canes

• Remove as much of the rhizome as possible

• Dispose of in garbage (don’t compost)

• Search up to 20 feet away from original canes

• Repeat over 5-7 growing seasons

• Creates lots of ground disturbance

Voluntary Control/non-regulated (Class B Noxious Weed) Approximately 870 square feet at Shadow Lake

• As soon as stems emerge, begin cutting as close to the ground as possible

• Repeat weekly until rapid growth stops (July/August), then repeat bi-weekly

• Try to keep canes less than 6” tall

• Pile or rake cut canes and allow to desiccate before composting

• Mowing has the potential to cause spread, use care

• Goal is to “starve” plants

• Expect to repeat for at least 7 growing seasons

• Cut early and often

Knotweed control-Mechanical

12/19/2016

17

Knotweed control-Environmental Manipulation

• Not suitable for steep or flood-prone sites

• Overlapping heavy geotextile fabric

• Weight or string installation in place, leaving fabric loose

• Monitor for damage (attracts wildlife)

• Crush down every 1-2 weeks during growing season

• Leave in place 5-7 years

• Monitor, replace if regrowth occurs

Seatt

le P

ublic

Utilit

ies

Knotweed control-Chemical – foliar spray

• Application usually with a hand or backpack sprayer

• Use aquatic imazapyr (1%), glyphosate (4-5%) or a combination (.25% + 3%)

• Add a surfactant if needed

• Imazapyr is about 95% effective, glyphosate around 85% after first year

• Bending or cutting first may reduce efficacy

• Requires annual retreatment for at least 3 years

• Volunteers can be trained and licensed

12/19/2016

18

Knotweed control-Chemical – injection

• Use special injectors

• Apply concentrated, aquatic glyphosate at 3mL per cane August-October

• Must inject every cane, but almost no drift

• About 95% effective

• Requires annual retreatment for at least 3 years

• Volunteers can be trained, no license needed

What do you think?

Anonymous comment forms are available

Ben Peterson 206-477-4724

[email protected]

Notes from Shadow Lake public meeting 3/1/16 – Ben Peterson, King County Noxious Weeds

Qualities of the lake that are important to folks:

The clean water for swimming

Fishing

The large areas of undeveloped/natural shoreline of the lake with adjacent preserved area

Wildlife habitat

We talked about when the canal to the boat launch was dug. The best guess is sometime in the early

1960s, before 1964.

Fishing:

Last year at the annual fishing derby for kids there were 49 participants. 2016 will mark the fifth

year of the fishing derby which is run by the Shadow Lake Community (in June?).

The WDFW boat ramp is likely used daily, and on the weekends used by 6-8 boats.

The lake is particularly busy for 3-4 weeks after the lake is stocked with fish by WDFW

Fish caught at the lake:

Trout (rainbow) (released by WDFW)

Bass (large mouth)

Yellow perch

Pumpkin seed

Steelhead smolt (released by WDFW) (same species as rainbow trout but

anadromous)

Crappie (black)

Catfish (caught at a past fishing derby)

We talked about all the different control possibilities for the aquatic weeds at the lake. One

strategy that was suggested was focusing on control of the milfoil in the boat launch canal first,

with an aquatic herbicide. The thinking being that if the canal is cleared out then boats can get

in and out of the boat launch area. Also they will be less likely to spread the plants further.

There was some discussion about the toxicity of herbicides, particularly the herbicides that could

potentially be used to control submersed and floating leaf plants (the Eurasian watermilfoil and the

fragrant water lily). There is concern about toxicity as it relates to humans (particularly swimming) and

to animals such as dogs and ducks. Below is a lot of information on aquatic herbicide toxicity:

Here is a link to the permit (issued by WA State Dept. of Ecology) that regulates the use

of herbicide to control submerged or floating aquatic plants (including aquatic noxious weeds):

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/pesticides/final_pesticide_permits/aquatic_plants/aquati

c_plant_permit_index.html on this page, the first two documents (the permit and the fact sheet)

are the most useful. This permit was just re-issued (for a 5-year period) today! So it is fresh off

the presses.

The WA Dept. of Ecology’s list of approved aquatic herbicides

(http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/management/aqua028.html ) briefly tells about

each herbicide. At the end of each paragraph is a link to Ecology’s Risk Assessment

(http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/pesticides/seis/risk_assess.html ) for that

herbicide. There Ecology goes into a super detailed search of all the information available on the

environmental impacts of the herbicides.

Below is document that sort of break out the relative differences between the aquatic herbicides

(I made it for the Lake Desire IAVMP. There is not “no” risk, but when used as allowed by Ecology

the risks are minimal.

Also you might want to check out this document:

http://www.lsuagcenter.com/NR/rdonlyres/09E94816-E801-491C-819A-

5056507E8BFF/2150/Herbicides361.pdf

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/pesticides/final_pesticide_permits/aquatic_plants/aquatic_plant_permit_index.html

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/pesticides/final_pesticide_permits/aquatic_plants/aquatic_plant_permit_index.html

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/management/aqua028.html

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/pesticides/seis/risk_assess.html

http://www.lsuagcenter.com/NR/rdonlyres/09E94816-E801-491C-819A-5056507E8BFF/2150/Herbicides361.pdf

http://www.lsuagcenter.com/NR/rdonlyres/09E94816-E801-491C-819A-5056507E8BFF/2150/Herbicides361.pdf

Or this document from Thurston County:

http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/health/ehipm/aquaticreview.html

Depending on what type of herbicide is used some native aquatic plants may be affected. The

herbicide (likely) used to control milfoil (which is a dicot) will not affect native pondweed

(Potamogeton sp. ) plants which are monocots. Likely there won’t be many native plants where

the weeds are really dense anyway, but there is no way of ensuring that they won’t be

affected. However, WA Ecology is aware that a little harm to native plants does occur and I

assume they are OK with it (otherwise they wouldn’t approve the use of any aquatic herbicides).

Also, here is a link to the WDFW fish timing window, which regulates the use of some of the

aquatic herbicides:

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/pesticides/final_pesticide_permits/aquatic_plants/permi

tdocs/wdfwtiming.pdf

This is all just my interpretation of the rules and information about the herbicides. Folks can

contact me if they have any questions.

http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/health/ehipm/aquaticreview.html

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/pesticides/final_pesticide_permits/aquatic_plants/permitdocs/wdfwtiming.pdf

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/pesticides/final_pesticide_permits/aquatic_plants/permitdocs/wdfwtiming.pdf

Agenda

Shadow Lake IAVMP meeting 68 June 2016- 6:30 pm King County Fairwood Library



We will discuss:

Briefly, the background of the plan and what we have talked about in previous meetings

An update on the IAVMP writing

Field work plans for this summer o Surveying o Aquatic weed control

Ways folks can help out this summer with surveying and weed control

Agenda

Shadow Lake IAVMP meeting 68 June 2016- 6:30 pm King County Fairwood Library



We will discuss:

Briefly, the background of the plan and what we have talked about in previous meetings

An update on the IAVMP writing

Field work plans for this summer o Surveying o Aquatic weed control

Ways folks can help out this summer with surveying and weed control



12/19/2016

1

Ph

oto

by

Joan

ne B

radl

ey

Ben Peterson King County Noxious Weed Program


Ph

oto

by

Joan

ne B

radl

ey

Agenda:

• Brief background of the plan and what we have talked about in previous meetings

• An update on the IAVMP writing • Field work plans for this summer

• Surveying • Aquatic weed control (Iris and Knotweed)

• Ways folks can help out this summer with surveying and weed control



• Fishing

• Boating

• Swimming

• Views


• Irrigation

• ???





Public involvement

Public involvement



Map Aquatic Plants


Investigate Control

Alternatives

Specify Control

Alternatives

Choose Integrated Treatment

Scenario

Develop Action

Program


A

K

J

I

H G

F

E

D C

B

Public involvement

Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum – Class B non-designate




•Leads to:





•Reduces biodiversity * 2015 mapping, actual amount may be larger

Approx. 3.7 acres at Shadow Lake*


12/19/2016

2

Fragrant waterlily Nymphaea odorata – Class C non-designate


• Covers up to 3 acres of Shadow Lake near shore

• flowers white to pink

• thick fleshy rhizomes; round leaves

Approx. 2.8 acres at Shadow Lake

• Large yellow iris –blooms April – June





Seed pod

Approx. 3800 sq. ft. or ~ 450 feet of shoreline at Shadow Lake

Yellow Flag Iris Iris pseudacorus- Class C non-regulated

Iris pseudacorus – Yellow Flag Iris Class C non-designate

Key characteristics: •perennial monocot to

1.5 meters tall •thick rhizomes form

solid mats •showy yellow flowers •green seed pods with

flat seeds like corn kernels that float

Control of Yellow Flag Iris

• Deadhead (cut off) flowers to prevent seed production • Digging out the entire rhizome mass can control small isolated

patches, but even small rhizome fragments can re-sprout – May promote germination of seeds, monitor area

• Mowing or cutting – repeat every year for several years to weaken plants

• Chemical Control (herbicide)- Late spring-early summer – Foliar application of glyphosate (5 to 8% solution) plus a non-ionic

surfactant – Apply a 25% solution with a dripless wick/wiper – Apply concentrated glyphosate to freshly cut leaf and stem surfaces – Re-treatment of a few returning will likely be required

Invasive Knotweed

(Polygonum x bohemicum) – Class B non-designate

• Native to Japan, perennial introduced as an ornamental

• Habitat: disturbed, riparian, wetland • Dense colonies, exclude native

vegetation • easily spreads into openspace areas • Starts growth from large root system in

April, full height by June (10-15 ft)

Approx. 870 sq. ft. at Shadow Lake

12/19/2016

3

How you can help this summer • Iris surveying

– When on the lake, keep a lookout for yellow flag iris plants, especially those not noted on the Sept. 2015 map

– Let me know how iris plants are reacting to the June 21 herbicide treatment, especially if plants were missed

– Cut, bag and remove any remaining seed pods

• Knotweed – Keep a lookout for additional knotweed infestation sites

• Fragrant water lily and milfoil – Hand pull plants in your waterfront area (diligence pays!) – Borrow the lake weed cutter to cut and rake-up larger areas of lily pads – Both activities require an “Aquatic Plants and Fish booklet” permit, (plant

removal period July 16-September 30)

• Share ideas of what works with neighbors, help each other out • Talk up the idea of lake-wide control efforts with neighbors

What do you think?

Ben Peterson 206-477-4724

[email protected]

Notes from June 8 2016 Shadow Lake IAVMP meeting

We had a good meeting this past Wednesday night at the Fairwood King County Library.

There were nine in attendance.

We discussed how the planned June 21 iris herbicide spraying would proceed.

Effects of iris spraying would take about two weeks to become apparent on the sprayed plants

Landowners are encouraged to cut iris flowerheads/seed heads before or after spraying occurs (to prevent further spread of the plants).

Complete control of iris plants may take several years of re-treatment, however we expect 80-90% control with the first round of spraying.

We will be accessing all plants via canoe.

I will communicate iris spray results with the community (probably via email).

We talked a little about long term funding options for larger scale weed control work (milfoil and water lily control) at the lake

o Options include a Lake Association http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/lakes/organizations.html

o A Lake Management District http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/lakes/organizations.html

o And Grants http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/grants/focusgrant.html

We talked about use of our program’s Lake Weed Mower : https://www.lakemower.com/ and how the WDFW permit that regulates the use of the machine (and other control methods in the water). The WDFW permit ( http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/aquatic_plant_removal/ ) allows use of the permit from July 16-September 30. Contact Ben if you want to borrow the machine.

I am ~ 75 done with the first draft of the IAVMP. Please let me know if you would like me to send you

the Word document for review and feedback.

Please contact me with any questions you might have,

Ben Peterson

Aquatic Noxious Weed Specialist

King County Noxious Weed Control Program

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/lakes/organizations.html

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/lakes/organizations.html

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/grants/focusgrant.html

https://www.lakemower.com/


Shadow Lake IAVMP Public Meeting, December 7, 2016 Page 1

Shadow Lake IAVMP Public Meeting

December 7, 2016, 7:10pm, Fairwood Library, 17009 140th Ave SE, Renton WA

Meeting Notes by Sasha Shaw

Introductions

There were 16 people attending the meeting including two King County Noxious Weed Control Program

staff members Ben Peterson and Sasha Shaw and two SHADOW staff members, Emily Carlson and

Isabelle Feraudo. The other people attending were property owners living on or near Shadow Lake and

community volunteers working on monitoring and protecting the lake through King County’s lake

monitor and/or weed watcher programs. The attendance list is at the end of these notes for reference.

During introductions, some attendees shared their observations and/or key concerns about the lake’s

weeds. Steve shared that after he returned to the lake after being gone for a few years he noticed that

the fragrant water lily problem was much worse now than before on the north side of the lake. Gloria

shared that water lilies were her big concern and she has begun to control them manually. She is also

very concerned about water quality. Dean shared that his son helped rescue a swimmer in the lake and

that the water lilies may have contributed to the swimmer’s heart attack, or may not, it is hard to know

for sure. Dean also shared that he has fished in the lake for many years.

Review of 2016 Weed Control Work: Lake Residents Manual Control Efforts

Steve, Gloria, Holly and Bryan described the efforts of lake owners to control fragrant water lily with

manual methods. They wanted to see if it would be possible to avoid using chemicals for controlling this

plant.

Steve shared that there were two work parties held this summer. The first one had good attendance and

they removed a large pile of water lily. However, it look much more time and effort than they

anticipated and the participants were discouraged. The second event just had Steve and Don and they

did a lot of work but again didn’t make as much progress as hoped. Steve expressed concern that raking

and other methods are not selective enough and can impact native vegetation as well as the weeds. He

also observed the water lily coming back quickly after being removed, either from seed or regrowth.

Steve suggested that chemical control may be the appropriate method for some areas on the lake. Holly

commented that this shouldn’t be used in areas where people swim. Steve suggested that there could

be different strategies used in different parts of the lake. Erin commented that people who have been at

the lake for a long time can see how bad the water lily has gotten and Steve agreed that he has noticed

how much worse it has gotten since he came back.

Holly, Gloria and Bryan described their efforts to remove the water lily along their shorelines. Working

individually worked out better for some people because of the difficulty of scheduling work parties

during the summer. Holly also reported on her efforts to remove watermilfoil by hand removal. She said

it was possible but very slow and labor-intensive. She wants to continue to try manual control methods

for her area of the lake.


Ben offered to schedule time next summer to snorkel and pull watermilfoil to show anyone interested

how to do that. He suggested it might be a good approach to reduce milfoil around docks and beaches.

Noxious Weed Program Chemical Control of Yellow Flag Iris and Knotweed

Ben reported on the noxious weed program’s control work in 2016. He first sent letters to all

landowners on Shadow Lake notifying them about plans to spray yellow frag iris and knotweed on the

shoreline. Ben explained that he chose to control these species on the lake because they were relatively

limited in extent and to contribute to and “jumpstart” the efforts to control invasive weeds on the lake.

Overall, about 97% of the yellow flag iris and all of the knotweed was treated in 2016. Previous mapping

of yellow flag iris estimated that it was present on 5% of the shoreline but this summer Ben found it was

on closer to 8-10% of the shoreline. After receiving permissions from landowners, Ben and his assistant

Joe sprayed the majority of the iris in June with aquatic glyphosate. One large patch of iris was treated

after flowering in September due to concerns of a property owner who keeps bees. The knotweed was

all sprayed in September, which is the most effective time to treat it chemically.

Ben said that he plans to do follow up treatment on all the yellow flag iris and knotweed in 2017 in order

to keep the progress made this year.

In response to questions about the best time to spray knotweed and possible skipped knotweed

patches, Ben explained that knotweed spraying happened in September because that is when the plant

stores sugars in its roots for the winter. Because the reaction to spraying is very slow, it is hard to tell if

the plant is dying back naturally or from the spraying. Next year it will be easier to see results based on

how much comes back up.

Holly was concerned about the lawn grass dying around where the iris was sprayed and asked how long

it would take for it to grow back. Ben explained that glyphosate kills grass as well as the iris where it is

sprayed but that it should fill back in by next year from the surrounding area. He also said some of the

grass killed was invasive reed canary grass so that is a good thing.

Steve asked why King County has resources for controlling yellow flag iris but not for other lake weeds.

Ben explained that the yellow flag iris and knotweed were much more limited in amount and simpler

and less expensive to control. He was only able to contribute a small amount of staff time and didn’t

have a budget for large scale weed control on the lake. The cost of water lily and milfoil control would

be much larger than for iris and knotweed. Ben explained that the iris and knotweed control was

intended to be a “jumpstart” and a contribution towards getting the ball rolling. Ben’s longer term goal

is to teach willing lake owners how to do the control themselves and how to get the appropriate licenses

and permits.

A few people had questions about glyphosate and Roundup, so Ben described the difference between

aquatic formulations of glyphosate that are approved by Washington Dept of Ecology and Roundup,

which is not labeled for use in water. He also described the difference between non-selective


glyphosate (kills both grasses and broadleaf plants) and selective triclopyr and 2,4-D (that only kill

broadleaf plants).

Gloria asked whether King County can contribute to the cost of lake weed control because they own a

large property on the southwest side of the lake, Shadow Lake Natural Area. Ben explained that the

agency that owns the property is King County Parks and that he didn’t believe they had any funds for

lake weed control. Erin explained that this was the property that was donated to the county by her

husband Max. Ben said he would look into whether Parks could contribute in some way.

Steve explained that Shadow Lake Community Association has a very small budget of $14/property so it

is difficult for them to contribute very much to the effort. Jim commented that low volunteer

participation is a problem even though there are lots of people using the community beach.

Review of Estimated Budget for IAVMP potential activities

Ben reviewed the estimated budget distributed to the attendees. He explained that he tends to estimate

high in order to be cautious about what resources would be needed. The costs are broken down by

plant species. The costs for lake wide control of milfoil are estimated to be much higher than for the

other weeds. Milfoil control would also require a lot of follow up from the community to be successful in

the long term because the plant always regrows to some extent and requires annual maintenance

control.

There was some discussion about the use of 2,4-D versus fluridone for milfoil. At Lake Desire, the milfoil

came back pretty quickly after the 2,4-D treatment. Fluridone may be more effective but is more

expensive, kills all plants in the lake, and takes longer. Holly requested to see examples of where

different chemicals had been used for milfoil in other lakes.

Holly requested that the group consider asking about getting a water spigot and hose at the boat launch

to encourage people to wash off their boats and trailers. Ben explained that Washington State Fish and

Wildlife would have to be one to do that and he didn’t believe that had ever been done before. Jim

agreed that it wasn’t something the state could or would do. Also he was concerned about the cost of

upkeep and repairing vandalism if it was installed.

Steve proposed prioritizing between the different weeds by focusing on water lily control first, because

it was less expensive and we could get some early success and also because it was the bigger concern for

most people.

There was discussion about water lily control and whether it would be a problem if the roots get

dislodged and surface, creating floating mats. Ben said it does happen sometimes but it didn’t happen

at Lake Desire so it might not happen. Steve said that the rake that came with the weed cutter could be

used to gather the roots that did come up.

Ben explained that control of milfoil wouldn’t be hampered by the presence of water lily but agreed that

the community concerns might be great initially about the water lily so would make sense to control


those first. Holly asked if more sun on the water would mean more milfoil and Ben said he would look

into that.

Holly and Ben discussed the WDFW HPA permit and fish window for Shadow Lake. Holly would like Ben

to help her apply for a lake-specific HPA to request a longer fish window so she could control water lily

over the winter. Holly said she would pay the permit fee if Ben would help her apply for it. Ben

estimated it would cost about $200 for the permit and take a couple of months to receive it. Joanne

agreed that an HPA for the lake would be a good idea.

Don and Ben discussed how to make waterlily control effective by repeat control whenever the plants

emerge, to keep them from growing up to the water’s surface.

Ben compared fragrant water lily control with milfoil control. Water lily control would require a much

smaller amount of herbicide because it is just sprayed on the leaf surface whereas for milfoil the

herbicide needs to fill a certain part of the water volume to get enough contact on the plants. Ben

explained that most of the cost of any of the weeds is labor. The herbicide cost is a small portion of the

total costs.

The group discussed the logistics and feasibility of the lake owners controlling the waterlily with

chemicals in some parts of the lake in 2017. Ben described how some people on Lake Alice had

obtained the needed pesticide licenses and permits and done weed control on their own, after initially

hiring a contractor. He explained how he could assist anyone who wanted to go that route. The

Department of Ecology grant costs about $500 per year, takes about 2 months and requires quite a lot

of public notification.

Emily explained that she has a WSDA pesticide license with an aquatic endorsement so she could

oversee others and help out. She also offered to share her study guides and notes and tutor anyone who

wanted to study for getting a pesticide license themselves. Ben also offered to provide study guides.

Isabel asked if they needed consent from every property owner on the lake and Ben explained that they

only need permission from the State but that it is ideal to have cooperation from everyone and not to

spray if there are people who are very strongly opposed. However, everyone within 400 feet of the lake

does need to be notified.

Ben explained that the process for controlling yellow flag iris and knotweed is easier and less expensive.

The permit for shoreline weed control is free from WSDA and the amount of herbicide needed is very

low in comparison.

Isabel asked about possible grant from Ecology for weed control on the lake. Ben explained that it is

possible to get up to $75,000 per lake, with a required 25% local match, or up to $25,000 match. The

match can include in-kind volunteer time, charged at $15/hr. The grant has to be administered by a

government entity such as a lake management district that taxes the property owners, KCD or King

County Noxious Weeds. The application period is October to November.


Ben suggests seeing if there is enough community support during the summer of 2017 before deciding

whether to apply for a grant. He would help the group with the technical aspects of the grant

application if needed.

The group asked if it was feasible to do get the needed permits to do control in 2017 if they had the

resources. Ben said there was time to apply and do notifications, it was just a matter of who had the

time and if they had the money. He explained that the county does not have time or funding to cover

the permit and control of the water lily or milfoil and does not have a pool of volunteers who could

assist, beyond some of his own time.

Ben said the time to spray milfoil was June and water lily was July/August.

Ben plans to control the yellow flag iris and knotweed at least one more year to ensure good control.

Joanne asked if it was feasible to use the diver suction method to control milfoil. Ben explained that this

works for smaller areas like around docks and swimming beaches but it would be very expensive to do

for the whole lake. Also, it creates a lot of soil disturbance so you can’t do it for long periods of time.

WDFW controls when and where this can be done to avoid impact to fish. Ben also explained it is best to

hire a specialized contractor who would have all the needed equipment and expertise.

Steve is concerned that a method like this would damage good lake organisms as well as the milfoil,

such as fresh water sponges found in the lake.

Ben explained that since Shadow Lake is fairly dark the milfoil is somewhat limited by lack of light and

might not ever get really thick. He said there are also a lot of good native plants in the lake.

Gloria commented that fishing boats continually track milfoil into the lake from the canal and spread it

around the lake.

Steve commented that fragrant water lily is his biggest concern on the lake and that it is impeding

everything else they are trying to do on the lake. He thinks the community is burned out on trying to

control it manually. Holly said the group events just didn’t work because of scheduling.

Steve asked Ben for a checklist of everything that needs to be done so that they can control the fragrant

water lily with glyphosate in July 2017. Ben agreed to provide that.

Steve would like to start by just spraying some areas and see what that looks like.

Ben asked people to let him know if they hear of anyone with concerns about chemical control of water

lily on the lake.

Holly wants to continue with manual control for now, but is open to considering chemical control if that

ends up not working for her.

Don said he can’t access all of his waterlily to control it manually so chemical control makes sense for his

area.


Gloria asked if the meetings could be held in Covington in the future.

Next Steps for the IAVMP

Ben explained that he has incorporated all comments on the IAVMP that he’s received so far, and

welcomes any additional comments anyone has for the next couple of weeks while he finalizes the plan.

He asks people to email or mail him any comments.

Steve thanked Ben for all of the work he’s done on the report and commended him for its thoroughness.

Ben asked people to go door to door and see if neighbors supported the broad goals of the plan, namely

that invasive weeds are harmful to the lake and should be controlled and that native vegetation is

beneficial and should be protected. He distributed a signature sheet with a general statement of

support for people to gather signatures on. He explained that getting a large number of property

owners on board is very helpful in obtaining a grant from Department of Ecology. Erin and Holly took

signature sheets and Ben said he could get more for other people as well if they were interested.

Steve commented that it would be important to bring more fishermen into the group. Some of them

might be concerned about the impact on bass if too much water lily is removed. He asked what the

impact is on bass when water lily is controlled. Ben said he would look into that. Native floating leaved

plants can also provide shelter for bass. Jim explained that overhanging vegetation along the shore is all

they really need.

Ben explained that chemical control of milfoil would happen in 2018 at the earliest. Steve wants to look

into water lily chemical control for 2017. Ben said we couldn’t do the whole project, but could help out

with some staff time to provide technical assistance.

Ben explained that this is the last meeting he is holding for the planning phase of the IAVMP but that he

would be willing to come to any future meetings of the community if he is wanted. He also offered to

help apply for an Ecology grant and to administer it if needed.

Isabel asked when they should start planning for the grant application and Ben said they should start in

July.

Ben explained that the most important thing is to make sure everyone concerned is aware of what is

being planned and that there is lots of community support and commitment to help follow up and

ensure the long term success of the weed control.

Ben offered to send out one more round of postcards explaining what is being considered and seeking

input. He encouraged the group to seek support and get the word out as widely as possible.

The meeting ended at 8:50 pm.

List of Attendees: Ben Peterson, Sasha Shaw, Steve Cameron, Dean Kayler, Holly D’Annunzio, Jim

Monaghan, Emily Carlson, Isabelle Feraudo, Evan Bradley, Joanne Bradley, Don Wood, Gloria Foss, Bryan

Sundin, Erin Wojewodzki, Marilyn Acupandu, Jennifer VanPolaran (spelling might be wrong, sorry!).

contents of appendix 1- community involvement …...contents of appendix 1- community involvement...

Documents