2008 Statewide Strategic Plan for Eurasian Watermilfoil in Idaho

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Eurasian watermilfoil impacts power generation and irrigation by clogging intake pipes and dam trash racks, and can affect the hydraulic conductivity (waterhandling capacity) of water management systems. Stagnant water created by Eurasian watermilfoil mats provides mosquito breeding grounds. This aquatic plant interferes with recreational activities such as swimming, boating, fishing, snorkeling, and water skiing. Eurasian watermilfoil degrades water body aesthetics by forming windrows of decaying plants along shorelines. It has a negative impact on native biota and impedes general access and enjoyment of water bodies. III. Goals The overall goal of the Idaho Eurasian watermilfoil eradication program is to protect the integrity of the state’s water bodies from the biological degradation caused by the invasion of Eurasian watermilfoil. By achieving this goal, economic, recreational and aesthetic uses of water bodies are protected, water quality is maintained, and natural aquatic systems are not impaired. As described in Section IX, Idaho’s Eurasian watermilfoil populations can be divided into three fairly distinct regions, 1) North, 2) Southwest and 3) East. Specific goals and tasks for each of these regions vary, and this regionalized concept is discussed in detail in Section VI. The purpose of this document is to present a set of strategies that when implemented can lead to the eradication of Eurasian watermilfoil from an Idaho water body. Users of this document should take local uses, conditions and constraints into consideration when developing site-specific management strategies. Eradication may take a number of years and require a sustained, concerted effort on the part of local governments and/or lake management groups. Follow-up and maintenance are key and will require the development of long-term water body-specific management plans and dedicated funding for continuous management. It should be understood that once an invasive species like Eurasian watermilfoil enters a water body, management activities such as surveys and spot treatments must be continued in perpetuity. Even if eradication is achieved, Eurasian watermilfoil or other invasive species can be easily reintroduced. IV. Objectives The overarching goal can be achieved through the following objectives: 1. Achieve an overall reduction of Eurasian watermilfoil such that maintaining Idaho’s water bodies Eurasian watermilfoil-free is economically feasible. 2. Support an effective public information awareness and participation program that will encourage support for Eurasian watermilfoil management in Idaho and alert citizens and visitors of the dangers associated with spreading Eurasian watermilfoil. 5
V. Idaho Eurasian Watermilfoil Peer Panel Recommendations In September 2006, the ISDA invited the University of Florida, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants to convene and chair an independent panel of recognized aquatic plant management experts to review Idaho’s Eurasian watermilfoil program and to recommend short- and long-term program enhancements. Aquatic plant management and research personnel from Florida, California, and Minnesota (Figure 2) reviewed the program during the period of October – December 2006 and submitted a report to the ISDA on December 22, 2006. The review process had four phases: (1) initial review of numerous documents related to grant applications for the 2006 Eurasian watermilfoil eradication program; (2) a visit to northern Idaho lakes and interaction with the Milfoil Task Force by one panel member; (3) review panel formal meetings at the ISDA headquarters with various entities, visit to two sites that received treatments in 2006, and exit briefing with selected ISDA personnel; and (4) information synthesis and report preparation. During the review, the panel identified major and minor issues and provided specific and general recommendations. Figure 2. Idaho Eurasian Watermilfoil Peer Panel. From left to right, Joseph Joyce, Robert Leavitt, Jeff Schardt, Bill Haller, Chip Welling and Ken Langeland (not pictured). Several issues and recommendations addressed short term improvements in the administration and operations of the current Eurasian watermilfoil program. The panel also offered long-term recommendations necessary to ensure a responsive and effective aquatic invasive species program. These long term recommendations will require ISDA organizational changes, interagency cooperation and delegation of authority, educational programs, stable/recurring funding, and action by the Idaho Legislature. The full report and ISDA responses to these recommendations can be found in Appendix 1. A summary of the identified issues and recommendations are: A. General • The ISDA and county weed superintendents have extensive experience in the management of noxious terrestrial weeds. However, the influx of significant funding for Eurasian watermilfoil eradication by the Idaho Legislature in April 2006 required rapid action by the ISDA to develop an aquatic weed eradication effort. It is the opinion of the panel that the 2006 Eurasian watermilfoil eradication program was a monumental effort of agency action and interagency cooperation and was an overall success in meeting its objectives. The panel was very impressed with the amount and quality of the work accomplished, given the extent of the Eurasian 6
Page 1 and 2: 2008 STATEWIDE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR E
Page 3 and 4: A Statewide Strategic Plan for Eura
Page 5: I. Introduction In April 2006 the I
Page 9 and 10: and contractor oversight to effecti
Page 11 and 12: Figure 3. Eurasian watermilfoil sur
Page 13 and 14: • Task 3: Establish appropriate m
Page 15 and 16: appear first. Eastern Idaho should
Page 17 and 18: B. Description A number of milfoil
Page 19 and 20: and boating activities, with each f
Page 21 and 22: the state. The highest priority wee
Page 23 and 24: and provides assistance to cooperat
Page 25 and 26: the boat with a GPS to the predeter
Page 27 and 28: IX. Eurasian Watermilfoil Managemen
Page 29 and 30: Bottom barriers are appropriate in
Page 31 and 32: emaining root masses. Duration of c
Page 33 and 34: Search for a classical biological c
Page 35 and 36: sources of dilution need to be inve
Page 37 and 38: 3. Fluridone Fluridone (Trade names
Page 39 and 40: X. Current Eurasian Watermilfoil Ma
Page 41 and 42: 2007 Total project cost: $19,400 IS
Page 43 and 44: 2007 Total project cost: $82,660 IS
Page 45 and 46: C. Effect of sediment on efficacy o
Page 47 and 48: scientists and weevils could easily
Page 49 and 50: Surveys for pathogens were restrict
Page 51 and 52: Creed Jr., R.P. and S.P. Sheldon. 1
Page 53 and 54: Komarov, V.L. 1929. Flora poluostro
Page 55 and 56: Moody, M.L., Les, D.H. in Press. Di
Page 57 and 58:
Westerdahl, H.E. and K.D. Getsinger
Page 59 and 60:
as transparent and publicly availab
Page 61 and 62:
to amend if they require legal revi
Page 63 and 64:
Recommendation 2.3: Program intent
Page 65 and 66:
Excessive uncontrolled growth of aq
Page 67 and 68:
species or the reduction of their p
Page 69 and 70:
Some or many of these techniques ar
Page 71 and 72:
ISDA Response: Given that ISDA does
Page 73 and 74:
expertise found in warmer climates.
Page 75 and 76:
umors and public fear of management
Page 77 and 78:
Option How it Works Pros Cons Suita
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Costs include estimated raw materia
Page 85:
Office Visits Quantity What is the
show all

2008 Statewide Strategic Plan for Eurasian Watermilfoil in Idaho

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?