Draft Stormy and Daniels Lake Elodea Eradication Project: Environmental Assessment Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Agriculture Plant Materials Center 5310 S. Bodenburg Spur Rd. Palmer, AK 99645 1 | P a ge Draft TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I: PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 4 A. Type of Proposed Action ................................................................................................................................. 4 B. Agency Authority for the Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 4 C. Estimated Commencement Date .................................................................................................................... 4 Name and Location of the Project ........................................................................................................................ 4 D. Project Size............................................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 1. Map of Stormy and Daniels Lake Area ............................................................................................. 5 Figure 2. Stormy Lake Bathymetry Map .......................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3. Daniels Lake Bathymetric Map ......................................................................................................... 7 E. Summary and Purpose of the Proposed Action .............................................................................................. 8 1. Background ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 4. Example of two specimens, Elodea canadensis (left) and Elodea nuttallii (right), displaying clear morphological differences. Photo by Paul Evald Hansen (Josefsson 2011)............................................ 8 Figure 5. Stormy Lake Survey Map ................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 6. Daniels Lake Survey Map ................................................................................................................ 13 2. Purpose ................................................................................................................................................ 13 3. Proposed Activities .............................................................................................................................. 13 4. Funding ................................................................................................................................................ 18 PART II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND COMMENTS ................................................................................................ 19 A. Natural Environment .......................................................................................................................................... 19 1. Land Resources .......................................................................................................................................... 19 2. Water Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 19 3. Air .............................................................................................................................................................. 21 4. Vegetation ................................................................................................................................................. 22 5. Fish and Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................ 23 B. Human Environment ........................................................................................................................................... 25 6. Noise/Electrical Effects .............................................................................................................................. 25 7. Land Use .................................................................................................................................................... 26 8. Risk/Health Hazards .................................................................................................................................. 26 9. Community Impact .................................................................................................................................... 27 10. Public Services/Taxes/Utilities................................................................................................................. 28 11. Aesthetics/Recreation ............................................................................................................................. 28 12. Cultural/Historical Resources .................................................................................................................. 29 13. Summary Evaluation of Significance ....................................................................................................... 30 PART III. ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................................... 31 Alternative 1 - No Action ..................................................................................................................................... 31 Alternative 2 – Fluridone and Diquat treatment (Proposed Action) ................................................................... 31 Alternative 3 – Lake Draining .............................................................................................................................. 31 Alternative 4 – Mechanical Removal and Tarping .............................................................................................. 31 REFERENCES CITED ...................................................................................................................................................... 32 APPENDIX 1. ELODEA PHOTOS FROM STORMY AND DANIELS LAKES ......................................................................... 35 APPENDIX 2: DECISION TREE FOR FUNDING TREATMENT OPTIONS ........................................................................... 36 2 | P a ge Draft APPENDIX 3. FLURIDONE MSDS (MATERIAL DATA SAFETY SHEET) ............................................................................. 37 APPENDIX 4. SONAR ASTM (FLURIDONE) PRODUCT LABEL .......................................................................................... 38 APPENDIX 5. DIQUAT MSDS (MATERIAL DATA SAFETY SHEET) ................................................................................... 39 APPENDIX 6. REWARDTM (DIQUAT) PRODUCT LABEL .................................................................................................. 40 APPENDIX 7. STORMY LAKE WATER QUALITY DATA COLLECTED IN 2006 AND 2007.A ............................................... 41 APPENDIX 8. STORMY LAKE AREA WELLS .................................................................................................................... 42 APPENDIX 9. DANIELS LAKE AREA WELLS .................................................................................................................... 43 APPENDIX 10. APDES PERMIT ...................................................................................................................................... 44 APPENDIX 11. MEMO ON GROUNDWATER RISK FOR THE STORMY LAKE AREA ......................................................... 45 APPENDIX 12. SAFETY AND SECURITY PLANS .............................................................................................................. 48 A. Worker Safety Training ........................................................................................................................ 48 B. Worker Safety Plan .............................................................................................................................. 48 C. Safety Training Plan ............................................................................................................................. 50 D. Site Security Plan ................................................................................................................................. 53 E. Spill or Crisis Contingency Plan ............................................................................................................ 53 3 | P a ge Draft ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE Environmental Assessment of the proposed fluridone and diquat treatment of Stormy Lake and Daniels Lake for the purpose of eradicating the invasive aquatic elodea population and maintaining ecological integrity of waterways on the Kenai Peninsula. PART I: PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION A. Type of Proposed Action The proposed action is to apply the pesticides fluridone or diquat to eradicate or reduce the biomass of the invasive aquatic plant elodea in both Stormy and Daniels Lakes. Elodea has the potential to spread throughout Kenai Peninsula waterways, affecting ecological and economic values. Eradicating the elodea population will also reduce the threat that the highly invasive plant population will disperse elsewhere in the Swanson River and Bishop Creek drainages, or into other lakes, waterbodies, wetlands, streams, and rivers. Eradicating elodea will also reduce the potential of damage to wild fisheries. The preferred removal method is killing the plant or reducing the biomass of the plant with the application of aquatic pesticides called fluridone and diquat. After treatment, divers may inspect the lake bottom in treated locations and handpull any remaining stems. B. Agency Authority for the Proposed Action The Alaska Department of Natural Resources is authorized to perform such acts per Alaska Statue (AS 44.37.030). C. Estimated Commencement Date The earliest that the fluridone or diquat treatment would occur is July 2013 if funding and all required permits are available. If project funding is problematic the commencement date could be delayed by months or until 2014. Post-treatment monitoring of water quality and biological parameters would continue through 2014. Name and Location of the Project The project is named the Stormy and Daniels Lake Elodea Eradication Project. Stormy Lake is located in T8N, R10W, within Sections 15,20,21,36 and 37 (Seward Meridian, Kenai Peninsula). Stormy Lake is in the lower Swanson River drainage and is located about one third mile east of Cook Inlet and about 8.5 miles northeast of Nikiski and just east of the Kenai Spur Highway. Stormy Lake is a natural lake. The land surrounding the lake is publicly owned (Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) and Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR)) Daniels Lake is located at in T8N, R11W, within Sections 33, 34 and 35 and within T7N, R11W, Sections 2 and 3 Daniels Lake is in the Bishop Creek drainage and is 2.2 miles south of the Cook Inlet shore, 2 miles northeast of Nikiski and south of the Kenai Spur Highway. Daniels Lake is also a natural lake, and is entirely within private land ownership (Figure 1). D. Project Size (Acres Affected) 1. Developed/residential - 0 acres 2. Industrial - 0 acres 4 | P a ge Draft 3. Open space/Woodlands/Recreation - 0 acres 4. Wetlands/Riparian - Stormy Lake covers 403 surface acres, has a maximum depth of ~50 feet, and a volume of ~6,000 acre-feet. Daniels Lake covers 621 surface acres, has a maximum depth of ~50 feet, and a volume of ~12,237 acre-feet (Figures 3 and 4). 5. Floodplain - 0 acres 6. Irrigated Cropland - 0 acres 7. Dry Cropland - 0 acres 8. Forestry- 0 acres 9. Rangeland - 0 acres Figure 1. Map of Stormy and Daniels Lake Area 5 | P a ge Draft Figure 2. Stormy Lake Bathymetry Map 6 | P a ge Draft Figure 3. Daniels Lake Bathymetric Map 7 | P a ge Draft E. Summary and Purpose of the Proposed Action 1. Background a. Elodea Traits Elodea is a submerged aquatic plant within the Hydrocharitaceae or waterleaf family. Elodea canadensis is known by the common name Canadian waterweed in North America, while Elodea nuttallii is known as Nuttall’s waterweed (Josefsson 2011, Bowmer et al. 1995). Elodea grows in still or slow-moving neutral or alkaline waters with reduced iron and bicarbonate available as carbon sources. E. nuttallii is very similar to E. canadensis, but has shorter and narrower leaves that are bent and folded along the midrib. E. nuttallii is generally smaller and paler green with more branches than E. canadensis (Figure 4). Characteristics often overlap making the species difficult to tell apart. Hybrids with intermediate Figure 4. Example of two specimens, Elodea canadensis characteristics occur naturally between the (left) and Elodea nuttallii (right), displaying clear two species (Catling and Wojtas 1985, Cook morphological differences. Photo by Paul Evald Hansen and Urmi-König 1985). Elodea historically has (Josefsson 2011). had a confused classification; currently five distinct species are recognized globally (Bowmen et al. 1995, Cook and Urmi-König 1985). Growth forms (phenotypes) in native versus introduced ranges can vary considerably in terms of leaf morphology and lateral shoot number in E. nuttallii (Thiebaut and Di Nino 2009). The life history traits of these two species are similar (Barrat-Segretain et al. 2002). Both species are resistant to varying water current rates and have high regeneration (regrowth into viable plants) and colonization ability by fragments (establishment in sediment). In experimental tests, both species were shown to withstand strong current and survive long distance dispersal, increasing invasion capabilities (Barrat- Segretain et al. 2002). Few invertebrate species find either species to be palatable. Reproduction is primarily vegetative. Elodea readily breaks into transportable fragments which root in sediments. Fragments can spread in water and by birds such as geese and swans, although these propagules do not withstand drying (Barnes et al. 2013, Sand-Jensen 2000). Plants are dioecious with separate male and female plants. Elodea is tolerant of cold water and can survive freezing, with documented rapid invasion as far north as northern Finland (Heikkinen et al. 2009, Sand-Jensen 2000) and Norway (Rorslett et al. 1986). Flowering can be uncommon, with few records of ripe seed (Bowmen et al. 1995). Elodea has high light requirements and occurs primarily in clear waterbodies with low or slight current. Elodea is not able to use the C4 photosynthetic pathway like many aquatic invaders, but is a facultative HCO - species (Raghavendra 3 and Sage 2011). In alkaline conditions, elodea is able to use bicarbonate as a carbon source either directly by converting bicarbonate into carbon dioxide by acidification of the cell walls (Bowmen et al. 1995). Elodea, when biomass levels are high, can cause primary productive to decline (Rorslett et al. 1986). b. Elodea Distribution E. canadensis distribution in North America includes northern portions of the US and southern Canada excepting southern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan. Distribution is highest in the parts of Quebec, 8 | P a ge Draft the St. Lawrence Valley, the Great Lakes region, southern British Columbia, and the Pacific West Coast. E. nuttallii distribution is similar but is more common further south (Bowmen et al. 1995, Catling and Wojtas 1985). E. canadensis aggressively invaded European waterways in the 19th century after it was first recorded in 1876 in an Irish pond (Josefsson 2011). Although much of Europe has seen a population decline, invasion continues at high rates in Scandinavia, northern Europe, parts of Asia and Africa, Australian, and New Zealand (Josefsson 2011, Bowmen et al. 1995). E. nuttallii was recorded as early as 1914 although specimens were often incorrectly identified as other aquatic species. This species has been observed to displace E. canadensis, possibly due to its ability to tolerate more turbid and nutrient-rich or polluted waters (Josefsson 2011, Bowmen et al. 1995). Elodea species are absent from northern Canada including the Yukon and northern British Columbia, displaying a sizeable gap in distribution between confirmed locations in Alaska and the northernmost other known locations in North America. The only confirmed locations in Alaska prior to 2010 were Eyak Lake near Cordova in 1982 and Chena Slough near Fairbanks in 2009. Extensive floristic surveys across the state have taken place for over 100 years. The University of Alaska Fairbanks herbarium (ALA) includes over 1500 aquatic plant specimens entered in the Arctos database for Alaska, only two of which are elodea (the specimens from Eyak Lake and Chena Slough) (Wurtz et al. 2013). Elodea has since been found in other locations near Cordova, in three lakes in Anchorage, and in Stormy and Daniels Lakes on the Kenai Peninsula. Elodea is currently considered not native to Alaska, due to limited distribution, sparse herbarium records, and published literature on aquatic invasives identifying elodea as non-native within the state (Wurtz et al. 2013). At this time, elodea is commonly used as an aquarium plant and is readily available in pet stores. Elodea is also used in university biology labs for classroom experiments in plant cellular structure, living protoplasm, respiration, photosynthesis and other physiological processes (Catling and Wojtas 1985). The introduction to Chena Slough is likely the result of an aquarium dump at a point at Plack and Repp Roads near Fairbanks, as the population is dense below this point, but nonexistent above (Wurtz et al. 2013). Suitable habitat for elodea may increase in response to global climate change resulting in physical and chemical changes to freshwater systems. Predictive bioclimatic models of elodea suggest that elodea will continue to aggressively colonize even further northern locations in Europe (Heikkinen et al. 2008). E. canadensis shows high competitive ability compared to other invasive aquatic species including Brazilian waterweed (Egeria densa) and oxygen weed (Lagarosiphon major) in a variety of low to high temperature conditions and varied light availability (Riis et al. 2012). c. Kenai Peninsula Population Invasive freshwater plants were not known to occur on the Kenai Peninsula until September 2012, when elodea (Elodea Michx. spp., hereafter “elodea”) was incidentally found while Stormy Lake was being treated with rotenone for northern pike. Shortly thereafter, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) surveyed the distribution of elodea in Stormy Lake, detecting it at ~ 20% of 150 rake throws, mostly at 7-9 foot depths (Figure 5). In October, ADF&G and the USFWS Kenai Fisheries Office conducted windshield surveys of nine other lakes: Salamatof, Longmere, Island, Sport, Scout, West Mackey, East Mackey, Wik and Daniels. A single strand of Elodea was detected in Daniels Lake at that time. In February 2013, agency staff surveyed Daniels Lake by augering through the ice at 25 sites (3 holes per site) distributed systematically around the 10-mile perimeter; elodea was detected at 2 sites adjacent to each other on the southern shore (Figure 6). Photos of the Stormy and Daniels Lakes surveys are found in Appendix 1. In addition, Vogel, Johnson, and Longmere Lakes were surveyed in 2005 but no exotic aquatic plants were found (Pfauth & Sytsma 2005) At this time, elodea distribution is thought to be constrained to Stormy and Daniels Lakes, although it may occur in other water bodies on the Peninsula. Genetic analysis of samples from Stormy and Daniels Lakes indicate that both populations originated from a hybrid between E. canadensis and E. nuttallii (Dr. Donald H. Les, University of Connecticut, pers. comm.). d. Ecological and Economic Effects 9 | P a ge Draft Elodea is a particularly injurious aquatic perennial. Elsewhere in North America, it has compromised water quality, grown so abundantly that boat traffic is hindered, reduced dissolved oxygen, and severely impacted native fisheries. Elodea is also insidious, in that only a plant fragment is needed to infest a water body because it reproduces vegetatively. The connected waterways of the Kenai Lowlands, where Stormy and Daniels Lakes lie, could potentially support large infestations of elodea if plant fragments are transported to new locations. Inflow and outflow of the known infested lakes are a concern as plant fragments may spread to adjacent water bodies, and from there to the entire wetland complex of the eastern Kenai Peninsula. Likely initial vectors on the Kenai Peninsula are aquaria and discarded commercial lab kits. However, as elodea becomes more established, motor boats, anchors, fishing gear, and float planes will become the greater risk. The sooner elodea is eradicated from Stormy and Daniels Lakes, the more likely it is that other water bodies on the Kenai Peninsula will remain free of elodea. Elodea can develop into dense, monospecific stands that prevent light from reaching other species. These dense stands limit water movement as well. Many stands experience 5-6 year growth cycles, possibly related to iron availability and depletion cycle, then collapse and cause oxygen depletion with massive amounts of decaying vegetation (Josefsson 2011). Chemical composition, pH, and oxygen level are all affected by elodea infestation, thereby affecting fish, amphibian, and invertebrate populations in the waterbody. Elodea can impede recreational activities such as fishing, boating, and swimming. Fish populations have crashed in areas in Europe with high elodea population. Elodea, along with other non-native aquatic plants, has affected Chinook (king) salmon spawning rates by reducing spawning habitat in California (Merz et al. 2008). Elodea can clog water intake pipes at hydropower and industrial plants, or even cause scrape damage to boats in calcium encrusted stands (Josefsson 2011). In some cases, submerged aquatic vegetation communities with a mixture of non-native and native species may remain stable or even have natives increase over time, and waterfowl communities may show positive response to invaded waters (Rybicki and Landwehr 2007). Elodea and other aquatic invasive species can reduce property values for landowners on infested lakes. Policies with successful invasion prevention have significant benefits to lakefront properties and community members. A study in New Hampshire determined 21-43% decline in property values by the presence and increase in variable milfoil, which can clog waterbodies, crowd out native aquatic species, and reduce recreational activities like boating and swimming (Halstead et al. 2003). In a study in Wisconsin on 170 lakes infested with Eurasian watermilfoil, property values were reduced by 8-13%, and spread rate increased due to the number of lakes infested (Horsch and Lewis 2009). A similar study in Vermont also with Eurasian watermilfoil showed a 1%-6% decline in values (Zhang and Boyle 2010). e. Treatment Methods Pending the results of surveys by the Kenai Fisheries Office and Kenai National Wildlife Refuge of other water bodies on the Kenai Peninsula in 2013, we continue to assume that the long-term goal is to eradicate elodea from Stormy and Daniels Lakes, beginning in 2013 with diquat and/or fluridone treatments. In the interim, planning for public outreach and agency monitoring is already underway to minimize spread during the summer of 2013. The mandate to eradicate infestations at Stormy and Daniels Lakes is not clear until a more comprehensive survey of other water bodies on the Kenai Peninsula is completed. If elodea is found to occur in many lakes and waterways around the Kenai Peninsula, then eradication of populations in these two lakes will not address the overall invasion risk of elodea. If elodea is only found in these two lakes, complete eradication is the best preventative approach to eliminate future spread. A key measure in preventing elodea spread is to inform the media, schools, and public about the risk associated with dispersal and spread. Restriction of movement of boats, fishing gear, or other vectors between waters could help in preventing spread, along with disinfection of gear (Josefsson 2011). Elodea is difficult and expensive to eradicate. The only economical, safe, and effective methods of controlling elodea are draining and drying the channel or waterbody, application of herbicides, or introducing herbaceous fish (grass carp) (Josefsson 2011, Bowmen et al. 1995). Mechanical methods, such as cutting and 10 | P a ge