Pretty Lake Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2014 Update LaGrange County, Indiana

Transcription

1 Pretty Lake Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 2014 Update LaGrange County, Indiana Prepared for: The Pretty Lake Conservation Club C/O Mr. Rod Bergstedt 4545 S 890 E Wolcottville, IN March 1, 2015 Prepared by: Aquatic Weed Control P. O. Box 325 Syracuse, IN 46567

2 Executive Summary 2 Pretty Lake, located in LaGrange County, Indiana has 184 surface acres with a maximum depth of 82 feet and an average depth of 25.6 feet. Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) is an invasive aquatic plant that is present in approximately 28 acres of Pretty Lake. The following report summarizes Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM) control practices implemented on Pretty Lake in 2013 and 2014 through the Lake and River Enhancement Program (LARE). It also outlines a future management strategy for the continued control of invasive species. The Pretty Lake Conservation Club helped to fund a lake-wide aquatic vegetation management plan (AVMP) which was completed in 2008 by J.F. New and Associates. As part of the integrated management strategy for Pretty Lake, J.F. New estimated that EWM was present in approximately 16 acres of Pretty Lake. It was recommended that treatment was not immediately necessary but that the EWM population should be monitored closely in future years for any significant increase in abundance. No widespread EWM treatments were conducted between 2008 and However, since 2008, lake residents have noticed an apparent increase in EWM acreage and abundance in Pretty Lake. In fall of 2012, Aquatic Weed Control conducted a visual survey of Pretty Lake with the help and input of Rod Bergstedt. Handheld GPS units were used to identify EWM beds in Pretty Lake. This survey found an estimated acres of EWM infestation. This survey indicated that the perceived increase in EWM abundance since 2008 was most likely accurate. The Pretty Lake Conservation Club applied for and received LARE funding to treat all areas of EWM infestation in the spring of On May 2, 2013, Aquatic Weed Control treated all areas of known EWM infestation (27.85 acres) on Pretty Lake with diquat herbicide at a rate of 2 gallons per acre in combination with copper sulfate at a rate of 1.0 part per million (ppm). This treatment was designed to selectively control EWM without causing damage to the native plant community in Pretty Lake. The same strategy and the same treatment areas were used in the spring of 2014 after a visual survey confirmed EWM abundance and distribution. On May 12, 2014, acres of EWM on Pretty Lake were treated with diquat herbicide at a rate of 2.0 gallons per surface acre and copper sulfate at 1.0 ppm. The tier II survey on July 30, 2014 found 3.19 acres of EWM re-growth, which were treated with diquat at 2.0 gallons per acre on August 7, The use of diquat in this second treatment was an error, as project specifications called for liquid 2, 4-D. The IDNR was notified of the error, and billing details were worked out accordingly. For 2015, it is recommended that the current EWM treatment strategy be continued. If possible, funding should be set aside to treat up to 30 acres of EWM with diquat at a rate of 2 gallons per acre in combination with copper sulfate at 1.0 ppm. This treatment strategy is not likely to eradicate EWM from Pretty Lake but should be able to help native plants compete with EWM while providing greater access to the lake in EWM infested areas.

3 Table of Contents 3 Executive Summary... 2 Problem Statement... 4 Aquatic Vegetation Management History Vegetation Treatments... 5 Tier II Survey Results... 9 Tier II Data Water Clarity and Water Quality Fisheries Update Action Plan Budget Estimates References Cited Appendix Data Sheets and GPS Coordinates Tier II GPS Coordinates Aquatic Vegetation Control Permit List of Tables Table 1: Pretty Lake Herbicide Treatment History... 4 Table 2: Pretty Lake Treatment Area Details (May 12, 2014)... 8 Table 3: Pretty Lake Summer 2014 Tier II Data Table 4: Pretty Lake Multi-Year Data Presentation Table 5: Pretty Lake Secchi History List of Figures Figure 1: Pretty Lake EWM Treatment Areas - May 12, Figure 2: Pretty Lake Summer 2014 EWM Re-Growth Treatment Areas... 7 Figure 3: Pretty Lake Tier II Sample Locations... 9 Figure 4: Pretty Lake Spiny Naiad Locations Figure 5: Pretty Lake 2014 Dissolved Oxygen Profile Figure 6: Pretty Lake 2014 Temperature Profile Figure 7: Pretty Lake 2014 Public Use Survey... 20

4 Problem Statement 4 Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM) is impacting the use and ecology of Pretty Lake in an estimated acres. The milfoil forms dense mats in shallow areas, which can inhibit fishing, swimming, and boating. Dense milfoil beds may also prevent the growth of beneficial native species which often provide less recreational interference and more desirable fish habitat. Objectives: The following specific, quantifiable objectives are recommended to evaluate the success of EWM management activities on Pretty Lake. These objectives differ from those presented in the original 2008 AVMP as EWM abundance appears to have changed substantially. 1. Limit EWM abundance to less than 10% site frequency each summer in tier II surveys. 2. Maintain at least 12 native species collected each summer in tier II surveys. (IDNR, 2014) 3. Maintain a native species diversity of no less than 0.84 each summer in tier II surveys. (IDNR, 2014) 4. Reduce the abundance of EWM to less than 10% site frequency in a spring tier II survey by (IDNR, 2014) Treating EWM is not likely to eradicate it from Pretty Lake. However, if these objectives are met each year, the indication would be that EWM is being controlled effectively on a seasonal basis, without causing damage to the native plant community. Aquatic Vegetation Management History Prior to 2013, no widespread treatment strategy had been implemented on Pretty Lake. Some small private treatments in the past had been permitted with a maximum total acreage of 1.34 acres per year (J.F. New, 2008). Herbicides permitted for use in these areas include Reward, Aquathol K, Hydrothol 191, Komeen, and copper sulfate. The first LARE funded herbicide treatment took place in the spring of Table 1 summarizes recent herbicide treatments on Pretty Lake. Table 1: Pretty Lake Herbicide Treatment History Year Target Species Acreage Herbicide Rate EWM,CLP Up to 1.34 Various contacts NA May 2, 2013* EWM Diquat, Copper Sulfate 2 gal/ acre, 1.0 ppm August 1,2013* EWM re-growth 0.25 Navigate 2.0 ppm May 12, 2014* EWM Diquat, Copper Sulfate 2 gal/acre, 1.0 ppm August 7, 2014* EWM re-growth 3.19 Diquat, Copper Sulfate 2 gal/acre, 1.0 ppm *LARE funded

5 2014 Vegetation Treatments 5 On May 12, 2014, acres on Pretty Lake were treated for the selective control of EWM with diquat herbicide at a rate of 2 gallons per acre in combination with copper sulfate at 1.0 ppm. This was an early season treatment designed to control EWM without harming native vegetation. The acres treated on May 12, 2014 included all known areas of EWM infestation on Pretty Lake. The goal of the treatment was to kill all of the EWM as opposed to only treating small areas of the problem. This more aggressive strategy will hopefully result in more effective and longer lasting control. Figure 1 shows all areas of EWM treatment on Pretty Lake on May 12th. Blue areas in Figure 1 are considered low density beds, while the red areas are considered high density beds that can cause impairment of the water body. After surveying the lake on July 30, 2014, it was determined that 3.1 acres of re-growth had occurred. These 3.1 acres were treated with diquat at a rate of 2 gallons per surface acre in combination with copper sulfate at 1.0 ppm. The use of diquat in this second treatment was an error, as project specifications called for liquid 2, 4-D. Diquat is effective on EWM at any time of year, but only selective in spring before native plants are actively growing. The IDNR was notified of the error, and billing details were worked out accordingly. Figure 2 shows the areas of EWM re-growth that were treated with diquat on

6 Figure 1: Pretty Lake EWM Treatment Areas - May 12,

7 Figure 2: Pretty Lake Summer 2014 EWM Re-Growth Treatment Areas 7

8 8 Table 2 shows the acreage, average depth, the herbicide, and concentration used for each treatment area in Table 2: Pretty Lake Treatment Area Details (May 12, 2014) Area Date Acrea Avg. Herbicide Rate ge Depth (ft.) 1 May Diquat 2 gal/acre 2 May Diquat 2 gal/acre 3 May Diquat 2 gal/acre 4 May Diquat 2 gal/acre 5 May Diquat 2 gal/acre 6 May Diquat 2 gal/acre 7 May Diquat 2 gal/acre 8 May Diquat 2 gal/acre 9 May Diquat 2 gal/acre 10 May Diquat 2 gal/acre 11 May Diquat 2 gal/acre 12 May Diquat 2 gal/acre Portions of 1 August Diquat 2 gal/acre (figure 2) Portions of 5 August Diquat 2 gal/acre (figure 2) Portions of 10 (figure 2) August Diquat 2 gal/acre

9 9 Tier II Survey Results Aquatic plant sampling methods used for surveys on Pretty Lake are outlined in the Tier II Aquatic Vegetation Survey Protocol (IDNR 2014). The current sample locations are the same locations that have been used by IDNR fisheries biologists in recent years. This was done to help ensure consistency in data between different surveyors on Pretty Lake. These same locations will continue to be used in the future to help maintain consistency in tier II data from year to year. Common and scientific names mentioned in the tier II results are consistent with those mentioned in the original AVMP in 2008, and a list of common and scientific plant names is included in the appendix to this report. Figure 3 shows rake sample locations for the Pretty Lake tier II surveys. Fifty sample sites are spaced throughout the lake. Figure 3: Pretty Lake Tier II Sample Locations

10 Exotic Plant Distribution 10 EWM In the summer 2014 tier II survey, Eurasian watermilfoil was found at only one sample location. This sample location is located within treatment area 10 as is shown as a labeled red dot in Figure 2. In addition to the EWM found in Area 10, EWM was observed growing in portions of treatment areas 1 and 5. All locations where EWM was found in the summer 2014 tier II survey are shown as blue polygons in Figure 2. Spiny Naiad Spiny naiad (Najas marina) is another exotic species that is very common in Pretty Lake. In the summer 2014 tier II survey, spiny naiad was the second most collected species in the entire lake, with a site frequency of 32.0 percent. However, data from 2007, 2010, and 2013 indicates that spiny naiad does not appear to be increasing significantly in abundance in Pretty Lake. Spiny naiad does not appear to be causing any major use impairment in Pretty Lake. Figure 4: Pretty Lake Spiny Naiad Locations

11 Tier II Data 11 Results from the July 30, 2014 tier II survey on Pretty Lake are summarized in Table 3. Site frequency, dominance, diversity, and other metrics are shown for the entire survey (overall) and also for each 5 foot depth contour where plants were present. In this survey no plants were found deeper than 19 feet. Table 3: Pretty Lake Summer 2014 Tier II Data Occurrence and Abundance of Submersed Aquatic Plants in Pretty Lake County: Lagrange Secchi (ft): 18.2 Mean species/site: 1.52 Date: 7/30/2014 Sites with plants: 40 SE Mean species/site: 0.16 Littoral Depth (ft): 19.0 Sites with native plants: 38 Mean native species/site: 1.18 Littoral Sites: 49 Number of species: 14 SE Mean natives/site: 0.14 Total Sites: 50 Number of native species: 12 Species diversity: 0.80 Maximum species/site: 4 Native species diversity: 0.74 All Depths Frequency of Rake score frequency per species Plant Species Occurrence Dominance Chara Spiny naiad Illinois pondweed Eel grass Coontail Nitella Flat-stemmed pondweed Richardson's pondweed Canada waterweed Eurasian watermilfoil Large-leaved pondweed Sago pondweed Slender naiad Small pondweed Filamentous Algae 2.0 Occurrence and Abundance of Submersed Aquatic Plants in Pretty Lake County: Lagrange Secchi (ft): 18.2 Mean species/site: 2.07 Date: 7/30/2014 Sites with plants: 14 SE Mean species/site: 0.30 Littoral Depth (ft): 19.0 Sites with native plants: 14 Mean native species/site: 1.79 Littoral Sites: 14 Number of species: 9 SE Mean natives/site: 0.26 Total Sites: 14 Number of native species: 8 Species diversity: 0.74 Maximum species/site: 4 Native species diversity: 0.68 Depths: 0 to 5 ft Frequency of Rake score frequency per species Plant Species Occurrence Dominance Chara Illinois pondweed Spiny naiad Eel grass Coontail Large-leaved pondweed Richardson's pondweed Sago pondweed Slender naiad

12 Pretty Lake Summer 2014 Tier II Data Continued Occurrence and Abundance of Submersed Aquatic Plants in Pretty Lake County: Lagrange Secchi (ft): 18.2 Mean species/site: 2.00 Date: 7/30/2014 Sites with plants: 14 SE Mean species/site: 0.26 Littoral Depth (ft): 19.0 Sites with native plants: 13 Mean native species/site: 1.50 Littoral Sites: 14 Number of species: 7 SE Mean natives/site: 0.27 Total Sites: 14 Number of native species: 6 Species diversity: 0.75 Maximum species/site: 4 Native species diversity: 0.66 Depths: 5 to 10 ft Frequency of Rake score frequency per species Plant Species Occurrence Dominance Chara Spiny naiad Illinois pondweed Eel grass Coontail Flat-stemmed pondweed Small pondweed Filamentous Algae 7.1 Occurrence and Abundance of Submersed Aquatic Plants in Pretty Lake County: Lagrange Secchi (ft): 18.2 Mean species/site: 1.17 Date: 7/30/2014 Sites with plants: 8 SE Mean species/site: 0.32 Littoral Depth (ft): 19.0 Sites with native plants: 7 Mean native species/site: 0.67 Littoral Sites: 12 Number of species: 6 SE Mean natives/site: 0.19 Total Sites: 12 Number of native species: 4 Species diversity: 0.77 Maximum species/site: 3 Native species diversity: 0.69 Depths: 10 to 15 ft Frequency of Rake score frequency per species Plant Species Occurrence Dominance Spiny naiad Chara Eel grass Eurasian watermilfoil Nitella Richardson's pondweed Occurrence and Abundance of Submersed Aquatic Plants in Pretty Lake County: Lagrange Secchi (ft): 18.2 Mean species/site: 0.50 Date: 7/30/2014 Sites with plants: 4 SE Mean species/site: 0.22 Littoral Depth (ft): 19.0 Sites with native plants: 4 Mean native species/site: 0.50 Littoral Sites: 9 Number of species: 4 SE Mean natives/site: 0.22 Total Sites: 10 Number of native species: 4 Species diversity: 0.72 Maximum species/site: 2 Native species diversity: 0.72 Depths: 15 to 20 ft Frequency of Rake score frequency per species Plant Species Occurrence Dominance Nitella Coontail Canada waterweed Flat-stemmed pondweed

13 Multi-Year Data Presentation 13 Data from recent tier II surveys of Pretty Lake is summarized in Table 4. This summarization helps to track plant trends from year to year. As more data is added each year, it should help to give a better picture of long term changes in the plant population in Pretty Lake. Table 4: Pretty Lake Multi-Year Data Presentation Pretty Lake Multi-Year Tier II Data Presentation Date: 5/30/2007 7/30/2007 8/18/2010 7/26/2013 7/30/2014 Total Sites: Secchi (ft): Number of Species: Number of Native Species: Sites with Plants Sites with Native Plants Maximum Plant Depth (ft) Species Diversity: Native Species Diversity: Mean Native Species/Site: Surveying Organization J.F. NEW J.F. NEW IDNR AWC AWC Species Frequency of Occurrence - All Depths Chara Spiny naiad Illinois pondweed Nitella Coontail Eel grass Flat-stemmed pondweed Canada waterweed Richardson's pondweed Eurasian watermilfoil Sago pondweed Slender naiad Small pondweed Variable pondweed Northern watermilfoil Large-leaved pondweed Southern naiad Curly-leaf pondweed Water stargrass Long-leaf pondweed Various-leaved watermilfoil Species Frequency of Occurrence - 0 to 5 ft Chara Illinois pondweed Spiny naiad Eel grass Coontail Flat-stemmed pondweed Small pondweed Variable pondweed Northern watermilfoil Large-leaved pondweed Richardson's pondweed Sago pondweed Slender naiad Eurasian watermilfoil Long-leaf pondweed

14 14 Pretty Lake Multi-Year Data Presentation Continued Species Frequency of Occurrence - 5 to 10 ft Chara Spiny naiad Illinois pondweed Eel grass Coontail Eurasian watermilfoil Flat-stemmed pondweed Richardson's pondweed Small pondweed Sago pondweed Slender naiad Large-leaved pondweed Northern watermilfoil Variable pondweed Curly-leaf pondweed Nitella Southern naiad Water stargrass Long-leaf pondweed Species Frequency of Occurrence - 10 to 15 ft Spiny naiad Chara Coontail Flat-stemmed pondweed Illinois pondweed Nitella Eel grass Canada waterweed Richardson's pondweed Eurasian watermilfoil Slender naiad Northern watermilfoil Sago pondweed Southern naiad Curly-leaf pondweed Large-leaved pondweed Variable pondweed Species Frequency of Occurrence - 15 to 20 ft Nitella Spiny naiad Chara Coontail Canada waterweed Slender naiad Eel grass EWM Flat-stemmed pondweed Sago pondweed Various-leaved watermilfoil Northern watermilfoil Species Frequency of Occurrence - 20 to 25 ft Nitella NA NA NA

15 15 Water Clarity and Water Quality Table 5 summarizes the Secchi readings taken in each tier II survey since 2007 at Pretty Lake. Although water clarity can fluctuate greatly based on weather, rain events, and algal blooms, it appears that water clarity in Pretty Lake is excellent. Table 5: Pretty Lake Secchi History Date 5/30/2007 7/30/2007 8/18/2010 7/26/2013 7/30/2014 Secchi Depth (ft.) During the summer 2014 tier II survey, Aquatic Weed Control collected data to construct dissolved oxygen and temperature profiles for Pretty Lake. These profiles are described in Figure 5 and Figure 6. Dissolved oxygen in Pretty Lake is excellent, with adequate oxygen to support fish life down to at least 28 feet. Data from the temperature profile indicates a large amount of cool, oxygenated water which should foster good fish habitat and general good health for the biological community in Pretty Lake. Figure 5: Pretty Lake 2014 Dissolved Oxygen Profile Depth (feet) Pretty Lake Dissolved Oxygen Profile Dissolved Oxygen (Mg/L)

16 16 Figure 6: Pretty Lake 2014 Temperature Profile Depth (feet) Pretty Lake Temperature Profile Temperature ( degrees F) Fisheries Update District 2 Fisheries Biologists Neil Ledet and Larry Koza were contacted to summarize recent fisheries data collected in the years since the original Pretty Lake AVMP was completed in spring of The most recent reports are available online at the links below

17 Tier II Discussion 17 Tier II surveys on Pretty Lake have found 11 to 14 native plant species per survey since The IDNR has set native species richness and diversity targets of 12 species and 0.84 respectively (IDNR 2014). The actual values for these statistics are likely to vary from year to year based on weather, but the native plant community should continue to be monitored for any significant decline in future years. Twelve native species were found in 2014, meeting the native species richness target. Native plant diversity was 0.74, which did not meet the IDNR target. Based on results from the past two years, it appears unlikely that the native diversity target of 0.84 will be met in This could be due to weather patterns or herbicide impacts but this was an aggressive goal based on data from 2010 and before. It appears the plant community has changed since then and one major factor might be the increased abundance of EWM. Eurasian watermilfoil has been collected in each tier II survey since It reached a maximum site frequency in the summer of 2010 when no widespread EWM treatments were being conducted. In the summer of 2013 and the summer 2014, EWM frequency was just 2.0 percent (1 site). This is encouraging and indicates that the current management strategy appears to be effective at reducing EWM abundance from spring to summer. Curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) (CLP) was found only in the spring 2007 tier II survey. This is not surprising since the life cycle of CLP usually dictates that it will be at maximum abundance in the spring of each year. As the water temperature warms each year, CLP naturally dies back and is generally at very low abundance by July. With the exception of the spring 2007 survey, every other tier II survey has taken place in the summer and would not be expected to accurately represent CLP abundance. However, observations from the spring 2014 visual survey would indicate that the CLP is not causing any major impairment, nor is it extremely abundant in Pretty Lake. Spiny naiad is another abundant exotic species in Pretty Lake. It was collected at 32.0 percent of sample locations in the summer 2014 tier II survey. Even though it is somewhat abundant in Pretty Lake, spiny naiad is generally not present in nuisance quantities. It does not appear that spiny naiad is causing any lake use problems in Pretty Lake. Looking back at tier II data from 2007 and 2010, it does not appear that spiny naiad is increasing rapidly. Spiny naiad frequency was 30.5 percent in 2007, 36.7 percent in 2010 and 36.0 percent in 2013 (AWC, 2014). At this time it is not believed that any management of spiny naiad is needed. Action Plan For 2015, it is recommended that the entire acreage of EWM be targeted for treatment in Pretty Lake. EWM is estimated to be present in acres of Pretty Lake. Potential treatment areas for 2015 are described in Figure 1 and Table 2. Areas shaded red in Figure 1 are considered to be dense EWM beds and would be considered the highest priority treatment areas should funding not be available to treat all of the EWM in Pretty Lake in Areas shaded in blue in Figure 1 are beds where EWM is present but scattered. Areas of EWM infestation should be treated with diquat herbicide at a rate of 2.0 gallons per acre in combination with copper sulfate at 1.0 parts per million. This treatment should take place early in the spring while water temperatures approach 50 F (warming trend) and are not higher than 60 F. Although diquat is not a selective herbicide, most native plants are not actively growing at the time of this treatment. This early timing of the treatment will help create selectivity and protect beneficial native vegetation in Pretty Lake.

18 18 After the initial diquat treatment, it is likely that some re-growth of EWM will be seen later in the season. In 2014, this EWM re-growth totaled 3.1 acres. Aquatic Weed Control recommends setting aside funding to treat up 10 acres of EWM re-growth in Re-growth should be treated with a 2, 4-D product (liquid or granular) at 2.0 parts per million. Granular 2, 4-D might be appropriate for use on drop-offs and open water areas while liquid 2, 4-D might be appropriate for confined spaces. Using 2, 4-D treatments later in the growing season will protect native plants which will likely be actively growing during any re-treatment of EWM. 2, 4-D is selective by mode of action and should not significantly harm native plants regardless of treatment timing. Surveys and Planning A visual survey should be sufficient in spring of 2015 to use a GPS to map EWM beds and check for any expansion or new areas of EWM. This visual survey will be used to develop the final treatment map for A summer tier II survey should be conducted after treatment in The main purposes of this survey will be to evaluate treatment success, identify any areas of EWM re-growth, and to monitor both exotic and native plant populations. Quantifiable data from this survey will be used for comparison to past surveys and can help to identify any long term plant trends in Pretty Lake. An AVMP update should also be developed in fall of This update will summarize 2015 management activities, evaluate treatment success, and further outline future management strategies for the control of exotic plant species in Pretty Lake Budget Estimates Treat up to 30 acres of EWM with liquid diquat (early season) at 2 gallons per acre and copper sulfate at 1.0 ppm (up to 6 ft avg depth) $ 12,000 Treat up to 10 acres of EWM re-growth with 2, 4-D at 2.0 ppm. $ 3,500 Spring visual survey, summer Tier II survey and plan update $ 5,000 Total cost estimate $ 20,500 LARE share (80%-subject to availability) $ 16,400 Assocaitions share (20%) $ 4,100

19 19 Public Involvement Parties interested in the improvement of Pretty Lake include members of the Pretty Lake Conservation Club as well as others who access the lake at the IDNR owned access site. The most common and often most effective methods for keeping the public informed about aquatic vegetation management practices are lake association meetings as well as periodical newsletters sent out by the associations. It is recommended that association members encourage neighbors and other lake users to attend lake association meetings so that interested parties are well informed about the LARE program. Making sure that meetings are well advertised and planned well in advance of the meeting dates are ways to help ensure good attendance. Carry-in dinners, door prizes, contests, guest speakers, and discussion panels are all excellent ways to boost attendance, encourage involvement, and keep association members informed about lake management activities. The Pretty Lake Property Owners Association held a public meeting on July 19, 2014 to discuss issues related to the LARE program. Attendance was good with 28 lake use surveys being returned. Jim Donahoe of Aquatic Weed Control attended this meeting to summarize LARE activities on the lake. Association members were very much in favor of continuing treatments for invasive plant species. Responses from all returned lake use surveys and are summarized in Figure 7. Please note that not every person answers every question in pubic surveys, so the sum of responses for each question may not equal the total number of surveys returned.

20 Figure 7: Pretty Lake 2014 Public Use Survey 20

21 21 References Cited J.F. New Inc. (C/O Sara Peel) Pretty Lake Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan Roosevelt Road, Walkerton IN, IDNR Tier II Aquatic Vegetation Survey Protocol. IN Department of Natural Resources. Indianapolis, Indiana. Aquatic Weed Control Pretty Lake Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan Update P.O. Box 325 Syracuse, IN

22 22 Appendix Common and Scientific names of aquatic plants mentioned in this report. Common Name Chara Coontail Curly-leaf pondweed Eel grass Canada waterweed Eurasian watermilfoil Flat-stemmed pondweed Illinois pondweed Large-leaved pondweed Leafy pondweed Long-leaf pondweed Nitella Northern watermilfoil Richardson's pondweed Sago pondweed Slender naiad Small pondweed Southern naiad Spiny naiad Variable pondweed Various-leaved watermilfoil Water stargrass Whitestem pondweed Whorled watermilfoil Scientific Name Chara sp. Ceratophyllum demersum Potamogeton crispus Vallisneria americana Elodea canadensis Myriophyllum spicatum Potamogeton zosteriformis Potamogeton illinoensis Potamogeton amplifolius Potamogeton foliosus Potamogeton nodosus Nitella sp. Myriophyllum sibiricum Potamogeton richardsonii Potamogeton pectinatus Najas flexilis Potamogeton pusillus Najas guadalupensis Najas marina Potamogeton gramineus Myriophyllum heterophyllum Heteranthera dubia Potamogeton praelongus Myriophyllum verticillatum

23 23 Data Sheets and GPS Coordinates

24 Tier II GPS Coordinates 24 Latitude Longitude Depth WPT

25 This page intentionally left blank 25

26 26 Aquatic Vegetation Control Permit APPLICATION FOR AQUATIC VEGETATION CONTROL PERMIT State Form (R4 / 2-04) Approved State Board of Accounts 2004 Whole Lake Multiple Treatment Areas Check type of permit INSTRUCTIONS: Please print or type information FOR OFFICE USE ONLY License No. Date Issued Lake County Return to: Page 1 of DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Fish and Wildlife Commercial License Clerk 402 West Washington Street, Room W273 Indianapolis, IN FEE: $5.00 Applicant's Name Rural Route or Street Lake Assoc. Name Pretty Lake Conservation Club Phone Number City and State ZIP Code Certified Applicator (if applicable) Company or Inc. Name Certification Number Rural Route or Street Phone Number City and State ZIP Code Lake (One application per lake) Pretty Lake Does water flow into a water supply Nearest Town Wolcottville County Yes LaGrange X No Please complete one section for EACH treatment area. Attach lake map showing treatment area and denote location of any water supply intake. Treatment Area # Total acres to be Maximum Depth of Treatment (ft) x 10 1 LAT/LONG or UTM's See map- Exact areas to be determined in in spring by visual survey controlled up to 30 Proposed shoreline treatment length (ft) Treatment method: Chemical Expected date(s) of treatment(s) Physical Early May Mechanical Based on treatment method, describe chemical used, method of physical or mechanical control and disposal area, or the species and stocking NA Biological Control Perpendicular distance from shoreline (ft) NA rate for biological control. Diquat, Copper Sulfate, Navigate, DMA-4, Plant survey method: Rake Visual Other (specify) X Aquatic Plant Name Eurasian Milfoil chara spiny naiad illinois pondweed sago pondweed Check if Target Species X Relative Abundance % of Community

27 27 Page 2 of Treatment Area # Total acres to be controlled Maximum Depth of Treatment (ft) Treatment method: Chemical Physical LAT/LONG or UTM's Proposed shoreline treatment length (ft) Expected date(s) of treatment(s) May or June Biological Control Perpendicular distance from shoreline (ft) Mechanical Based on treatment method, describe chemical used, method of physical or mechanical control and disposal area, or the species and stocking rate for biological control. Plant survey method: Rake Visual Other (specify) Aquatic Plant Name Check if Target Species Relative Abundance % of Community Treatment Area # Total acres to be controlled Maximum Depth of Treatment (ft) Treatment method: LAT/LONG or UTM's Proposed shoreline treatment length (ft) Expected date(s) of treatment(s) Chemical Physical Biological Control Perpendicular distance from shoreline (ft) Mechanical Based on treatment method, describe chemical used, method of physical or mechanical control and disposal area, or the species and stocking rate for biological control. Plant survey method: Rake Visual Other (specify) Aquatic Plant Name Check if Target Species Relative Abundance % of Community

28 Permit Map- final treatment areas will be determined in the spring of 2015, but EWM is expected to be present in all of the areas on this map, totaling acres. 28