Restoring Black Lake: Community Efforts to Enhance Water Quality and Preserve Ecosystem

1. Black Lake Efforts to Improve and Maintain Water Quality

2. Primary resources • Save Black Lake Website: http://saveblacklake.org/ • Black Lake Special Use District Website: http://blacklakespecialdistrict.org/ • Interviews with Vern Bonfield (Save Black Lake Organizer) and Lake Stintzi (both are Black Lake SUD Commissioners) • Invasive Aquatic Management Plan (IAVMP) prepared by Tetra Tech for Black Lake • Black Lake Phosphorous and Algae Control Plan prepared by Herrera • Dept of Ecology and other Public Websites

5. In the beginning Black Lake • A Couple of Guys • Aquatic plants interfering with recreational use of lake • Boating • Swimming • Fishing • Wildlife Habitat

6. Who takes care of these concerns • County • Aquatic Plant Survey • Toxic Algae Monitoring • Water Quality Measurements • Other County Services • Lake Community

7. County involved with Milfoil removal early • Thurston County Noxious Weed Board surveyed since 2007 • County received grant from Dept. of Natural Resources • Divers used hydraulic vacuum to remove • Removed over 600 pounds in one year • Additional early efforts included manual removal (pulling from roots)

8. Lake community involvement • Community meeting to gauge interest • County presentation • Barnes Lake presentation • Sept. 2010

9. Barnes lake

10. Community involvement • Formation of Save Black Lake Coalition • Originally no official status • County recommended development of Invasive Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) • Cost – appox $40,000

11. Funding for study and developing plan • Grant • $30,000 • County assisted in application • Received June 2011 • Formed non-profit to raise funds and apply for grants • Community Contribution • $10,000

12. Problem:Non-Native invasive Aquatic plants identified by tetra Tech • Eurasian Watermilfoil present (invasive non-native) • Limits recreation • Creates problems with navigation • Disrupts natural water flow • Adversely impacts aquatic habitat • Adversely effects water quality

13. Problematic Non-Native and Native Plants • Impact of Aquatic Weeds • Impedes water movement • Adversely impacts aquatic habitat and water quality • Limits recreation • Reduces valuable aesthetics • Increases evapotranspiration (water loss)

14. Aquatic plants of concern in black lake • Eurasian watermilfoil • Non-native invasive species • Found dense shoreline colonies • Alters aquatic habitat

15. Aquatic plants of concern in black lake • Yellow Iris • Non-Native Invasive • Dense shoreline colonies • Alters aquatic habitat • Class C Noxious Weed • All parts poisonous • Causing skin irritation

16. Aquatic plants of concern in black lake • White Waterlily • Non-Native Invasive • Dense shoreline colonies • Alters aquatic habitat • May respond to high nutrient availability • Accelerate nutrient over-enrichment

17. Native plants • Native but may still be nuisance • Upset Eco balance • Need balance of pros and cons • Water Nymph • Yellow Lily

18. Aquatic plants of concern in black lake • Slender water-nymph • Native nuisance species • Response to high lake nutrients • Dense colonies throughout lake • Alters aquatic habitat • Directly impact recreational uses

19. Aquatic plants of concern in black lake • Slender water-nymph • PROS • Direct aquatic habitat benefits to fish and invertebrates • Important food source for waterfowl • Direct and Indirect competition for nutrients (versus the cyanobacteria – blue-green algae)

20. Aquatic plants of concern in black lake • Yellow water-lily (Spatterdock) • Native Nuisance Species • Dense shoreline colonies • Alters aquatic habitat

21. Aquatic plants in black lake • Yellow water-lily (Spatterdock) • Pros • Provides aquatic habitat • Direct food source for aquatic biota • Coverage was not presenting a nuisance relative to the beneficial uses of the lake at time of study

22. IAVMP Presentation • Oct. 2011 Tetra Tech Completed Work • Under Budget • Presented findings • Options presented to community

23. Goals • Efficiently and effectively eradicate non-native milfoil, waterlily, and yellow iris from Black Lake • Provide for the balanced management of native plants • Maximize the beneficial uses of Black Lake • Water quality • Recreation • Fish and wildlife habitat • Aesthetics

24. Plans presented • Presented 4 possible plans • No action • Manual control • One year herbicide + manual control • Two year herbicide + manual control

25. Plan selection • Chose 2 year herbicide + manual methods • Most aggressive plan

26. Plan description • Combination of Management Tools • Manual • Mechanical • Chemical • Timing of Management • Multi-year effort • Prevention • Adaptive Management • Evaluation of management methods • Long-term surveys of native, non-native and new species

27. Estimated cost for implementing 2 year herbicide + manual

28. Implementation Funding • Fund Raising and Contributions • Grants • Long term sustainable revenue source needed

29. Grant (2 Year) Grant $75,000 • Project Cost • $110,000 • Funds Needed • $35,000

30. Fund raising Donations • Fund Raising • Bottom Screen – Save Black Lake Org Project • Lakefront Owners Purchased from Save Black Lake • Volunteers Placed Screens • Cash Contributions • Due to recent request didn’t want to go back to contributors

31. Special use district formation • Formed Special Use District (SUD) as means to have a sustainable, predictable method for obtaining revenue (Nov. 2013) • Retained Save Black Lake Coalition non-profit to apply for grants, sponsor community activities, to provide input to the Black Lake SUD, etc.

32. Mechanical and manual • Harvesting – Combine cutting, collecting, storing and transporting removal of cut vegetation (2015) • Short-term but immediately clears aquatic plants • Removal eliminates possible source of fall back nutrient inputs • Dive-assisted removal along with pulling vegetation (Continued)

33. Herbicide application • 2 year plan first application • Fluridone – targeting water nymph • Glyphosate – targeting yellow iris • Triclopyr – targeting fragrant waterlily and milfoil

34. Effectiveness (reported) • Harvester used 2015 to reduce Naiad (Najassp) • Minimal effectiveness (reported) • Implementation of 2 year herbicide plan • Reported effective • But requires long term maintenance

35. Additional Concerns Raised • After successful implementation of IAVMP Save Black Coalition raised additional concerns • Toxic Algae Blooms • Study completed by Herrera (2015) • Alum treatment applied (2016) • Budgetary constraints resulted in lighter than recommended application

36. Current Water quality Projects • Alum treatment applied (2016) • Budgetary constraints resulted in lighter than recommended application • Septic Systems • Ongoing Education • Inflow/Outflow maintenance and monitoring • Ongoing monitoring of water quality and invasive species

37. My Takeaways • Water Quality • Different Perspectives • Scientific – down to molecular level • Common – dependent on perspective • Swimmers have a different view than fisherperson

38. Factors effecting water quality • Water Flow • Water movement – in flow and out flow • In flow • What comes in from watershed • Septic Systems • Storm water systems • What comes in from Hick’s Lake

39. Additional Water Quality Factors • Aquatic Plants • Animals living in and around lake • Natural Life Cycles • Breakdown of organic materials releases organic breakdown • E.g phosphorous

40. My Takeaways • Effective management • Requires studies performed by professionals • Short and Longterm Plans • Organized approach • Ongoing education • Financial Support

41. Resources • Hand-pulling requires Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) by WDFW for limited control of nuisance aquatic vegetation. A copy of the pamphlet may be found online at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/aquatic_plant_removal/ • http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/management/index.html , A Citizen's Guide for Developing Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plans (Gibbons et al. 1994), Biology and Control of Aquatic Plants: Best Management Practices Handbook (Gettys et al. 2009), the WDFW

42. questions