2008 Statewide Strategic Plan for Eurasian Watermilfoil in Idaho

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix 2. Control Options Available for Idaho Option How it Works Pros Cons Suitable Areas for use in Idaho 1. No Treatment Don't treat EWM No control cost, but financial cost of doing nothing could be astronomical if the plant becomes widespread. 2. Cultural Control Could eventually impair all uses and functions associated with the water body. Certain recreational uses may be impeded or lost Navigation and water flow may be impeded Allows EWM to spread None per Idaho Noxious Weed Law 22-2401 Boatwashing Stations Boatwashing stations are installed at boat launches to prevent the spread of EWM Relatively inexpensive compared to control Maintenance and upkeep ongoing Any public boat launch facility Effectiveness questionable 3. Biocontrol Living organisms eat or infect plants May be self-sustaining Insects May stress problem plant to allow growth of natives or facilitate other control methods Grass Carp Plants eaten by stocked grass carp Effective at removing plants Fairly inexpensive Must monitor boat launches Rely on volunteerism Insects such as the weevil may accelerate fragmentation Provides no to moderate control - complete control unlikely Effectiveness questionable, none are considered operational Control response may be slow Overstocking may result in impacts to non-target vegetation Difficult to contain in open, multiple use waterbodies Suitable in areas where EWM populations are dense. Currently none of the available agents are eligible for state funding. Isolated waterbodies, urban lakes and ponds with virtual monocultures of EWM. Not suitable in natural waterbodies. 75
Option How it Works Pros Cons Suitable Areas for use in Idaho 3.Biological Grass Carp Long term control Cannot control feeding sites EWM is not a highly perferred food 4. Physical control Drawdown Lake water lowered; plants killed when sediment dries, compacts or freezes Can be effective provided freezing and drying occur Reduces water volume to accommodate herbicide treatment – lowers cost. Species such as EWM growing in deep water can survive and increase, particularly if desirable native species are reduced Only useful for man made-made lakes or regulated rivers with a dam or water control structure. EWM seems well adapted to drawdowns in Idaho. Emergent plant species often rebound near shore, providing fish and wildlife habitat Low cost Can affect fish, particularly in shallow lakes if oxygen levels drop or if water levels are not restored before spring spawning Effectiveness questionable Bottom barriers Use natural or synthetic materials to cover plants Direct and effective Does not result in fragments (although they may occur during installation) May last several seasons Expensive, small scale, not selective May inhibit fish spawning in some areas Need maintenance or will become covered with sediment and ineffective Gas accumulation under material can cause them to dislodge from the bottom Anchored barriers can be difficult to remove Need to be moved on a regular basis Inhibits native species Around docks, boat launches, swimming areas and other small intensive use areas. Not suitable for infestations over 5 acres. 76
Page 1 and 2:
2008 STATEWIDE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR E
Page 3 and 4:
A Statewide Strategic Plan for Eura
Page 5 and 6:
I. Introduction In April 2006 the I
Page 7 and 8:
V. Idaho Eurasian Watermilfoil Peer
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: umors and public fear of management
Page 79 and 80: Option How it Works Pros Cons Suita
Page 81 and 82: Option How it Works Pros Cons Suita
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?