Success story eradication of hydrilla at lake murray and continued success in the rest of the state l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 33

Success Story: Eradication of Hydrilla at Lake Murray ( and continued success in the rest of the State) PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 235 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Success Story: Eradication of Hydrilla at Lake Murray ( and continued success in the rest of the State). Western Regional Panel La Jolla, CA Sep 10, 2003. Success Story. CDFA legal authority to eradicate hydrilla Quick overview of hydrilla

Download Presentation

Success Story: Eradication of Hydrilla at Lake Murray ( and continued success in the rest of the State)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Success story eradication of hydrilla at lake murray and continued success in the rest of the state l.jpg

Success Story: Eradication of Hydrilla at Lake Murray (and continued success in the rest of the State)

Western Regional Panel

La Jolla, CA

Sep 10, 2003


Success story l.jpg

Success Story

  • CDFA legal authority to eradicate hydrilla

  • Quick overview of hydrilla

  • Lake Murray (thanks to Jeffrey Pasek from the City of San Diego Water Dept.)

  • Overview of current hydrilla eradication projects

WRP 09/11/2003


Success story lake murray l.jpg

Success Story: Lake Murray

  • Why review Lake Murray ?

    • Good example of a successful large scale eradication effort

    • Demonstrates essential components of a successful eradication program

WRP 09/11/2003


Cdfa hydrilla eradication program l.jpg

CDFA Hydrilla Eradication Program

  • Legal authority

    • California Food and Agriculture Code

      • Section 6048: Secretary of Agriculture authorized to survey and eradicate hydrilla (1977)

      • Section 405: Secretary of Agriculture authorized to prevent introduction and spread of noxious weeds

    • California Code of Regulations

      • Section 4500: lists hydrilla as State noxious weed

    • Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations

      • Section 360: lists hydrilla as Federal noxious weed (1974)

WRP 09/11/2003


Hydrilla a federal and state aquatic noxious weed l.jpg

Hydrilla: a Federal and State Aquatic Noxious Weed

  • Two forms

    • Monoecious

    • Dioecious

  • Forms impenetrable mats

  • Tubers form a long term bank

  • Spread mostly by human activity

WRP 09/11/2003


Lake murray l.jpg

Lake Murray

171 surface acres

65 feet, max water depth

3.2 shoreline miles

WRP 09/11/2003


History of the project l.jpg

History of the Project

  • Hydrilla first detected in Lake Murray in 1976

  • Limited quarantine imposed in 1977

  • Full quarantine imposed in 1979

    • Lake closed to water-based public recreation

    • Boats, fishing, water contact prohibited

  • Project goals

    • Prevent spread of hydrilla to other waters

    • Eradicate hydrilla in Lake Murray

WRP 09/11/2003


History of the project cont l.jpg

History of the Project - cont.

  • Eradication began in 1979

    • 1977-1994: reservoir water level drawdown

    • 1979-1984: herbicide applications

    • 1985-1991: mechanical removal using SCUBA divers and suction dredge

    • 1992-1994: on-going inspections

  • Water-based recreation gradually re-established, beginning in mid-1980’s

  • Last plant found July 1991

  • Declaration of eradication November 1994

WRP 09/11/2003


Initial infestation 1977 l.jpg

Initial Infestation: 1977

  • Covered 80 acres(of a total of 170 surface acres)

  • All of the lake area less than 20 feet deep

  • Continuous mat along shoreline

  • Probably introduced from aquarium

WRP 09/11/2003


W ater level drawdown 1977 1994 l.jpg

Water Level Drawdown: 1977-1994

  • Water level dropped 30 feet

  • Late summer

  • Exposed plants killed by drying

  • Some roots and tubers survive

WRP 09/11/2003


Water level drawdown l.jpg

Water Level Drawdown

WRP 09/11/2003


Herbicides 1979 1984 l.jpg

Komeen

Herbicides: 1979-1984

®

Vapam

®

WRP 09/11/2003


Eradication initial phase l.jpg

Eradication: Initial Phase

  • Combination of water level draw downs and herbicides reduced infestation by 90%

  • By 1984 only isolated individual plants remained

  • Herbicides and drawdown not effective for remaining infestation

WRP 09/11/2003


Underwater inspections scuba l.jpg

Underwater Inspections,SCUBA

WRP 09/11/2003


Suction dredging 1985 1991 l.jpg

Suction Dredging: 1985-1991

  • SCUBA divers removed individual plants

  • Labor intensive

  • Removed remaining 10% of infestation

WRP 09/11/2003


Suction dredging l.jpg

Suction Dredging

WRP 09/11/2003


Eradication complete 1994 l.jpg

Eradication Complete: 1994

1977

1994

WRP 09/11/2003


Success story lake murray18 l.jpg

Success Story: Lake Murray

WRP 09/11/2003


Success story lake murray19 l.jpg

Success Story: Lake Murray

WRP 09/11/2003


Project costs l.jpg

Project Costs

  • Direct Costs $5,700,000

    • 1979 – 1984: ~$200K per year

      • herbicide applications, quarantine, drawdown

  • 1985 – 1991: ~$600K per year

    • mechanical removal, SCUBA inspections, drawdown

  • 1992 – 1994: ~$90K per year

    • on-going surveys and draw downs

  • ~$71,000 per acre of originalinfestation

  • WRP 09/11/2003


    Project costs21 l.jpg

    Project Costs

    • Indirect costs

      • Reduced use of Lake Murray as a water supply reservoir

      • Loss of revenue from public recreation program

      • Loss of use of Lake Murray for public recreation

    WRP 09/11/2003


    Lessons learned l.jpg

    Lessons Learned

    • Quarantine can be effective to prevent spread

    • Methods used for initial eradication probably won’t work in final stages

    • Eradication can be a long and costly effort

    WRP 09/11/2003


    Slide23 l.jpg

    Success Story: rest of the State

    WRP 09/11/2003


    Status of hydrilla in california l.jpg

    COUNTY*

    YR

    WATER BODY

    SIZE

    STATUS

    CALAVERAS

    88

    88

    96

    Bear Creek/ and 3 ponds

    Two ponds

    Bear Creek, 2 ponded areas

    23 acres

    0.6 acre

    26 acres

    Survey

     Active

    Active

    IMPERIAL

    77

    45 ponds/reservoirs

    Imperial Irrigation System

    270 acres

    600 miles of canals, ditches

    Survey

    Active

    LAKE

    94

    Clear Lake

    1,440 acres /

    43,000 acres

    Active

    LOS ANGELES

    80

    83

    85

    Eight ponds

    One pond

    One pond

    2 acres

    <1 acre

    <1 acre

    Erad.

    Erad.

    Erad.

    MADERA/

    MARIPOSA

    89

    Eastman Lake

    Chowchilla River

    100/1,800 acres

    26 miles

    Active

    Active

    MONTEREY

    78

    Private pond

    0.01 acre

    Erad.

    RIVERSIDE

    77

    84

    85

    One pond

    One pond

    Three ponds

    <1 acre

    <1 acre

    <1 acre

    Erad.

    Erad.

    Erad.

    Status of Hydrilla in California

    WRP 09/11/2003


    Status of hydrilla in california25 l.jpg

    SAN BERNARDINO

    88

    One pond

    <.01 acre

    Erad.

    SAN DIEGO

    77

    77

    Lake Murray

    One pond

    160 acres

    <1 acre

    Erad.

    Erad.

    SAN FRANCISCO

    88

    One pond

    2 acres

    Erad.

    SANTA BARBARA

    77

    93

    One pond

    One pond

    0.12 acre

    <.01 acre

    Erad.

    Erad.

    SHASTA

    85

    86

    94

    96

    Seven ponds

    Four ponds

    Two ponds

    Four ponds

    133 acres

    23.5 acres

    13 acres

    39 acres

    Erad.

    Erad.

    Survey

    Active

    SONOMA

    84

    Spring Lake

    72 acres

    Erad.

    SUTTER

    85

    One pond

    <.01 acre

    Erad.

    TULARE

    93

    96

    Three ponds

    Seven ponds

    0.6 acre

    20 acres

    Erad.

    Active

    YUBA

    76

    90

    97

    Lake Ellis

    One pond

    13 ponds and

    two spill basins

    30.8 acres

    6.0 acres

    20 acres and

    3.1 miles of canal

    Erad.

    Erad.

    Active

    Status of Hydrilla in California

    WRP 09/11/2003


    Springville ponds before after l.jpg

    Springville ponds, before/after

    Komeen treated

    lanes

    1996

    WRP 09/11/2003

    2002


    Chowchilla river before after l.jpg

    Chowchilla River, before/after

    1989

    WRP 09/11/2003

    Dec 2001


    Slide28 l.jpg

    WRP 09/11/2003


    Lake county project l.jpg

    Lake County Project

    • Surveys in Clear Lake

      • Visual, Grappling hook

      • 2001, 1042 surveys

      • 2002, 790 surveys

    • Treatments: aquatic herbicides

      • Fluridone slow release pellets

      • Copper ethylenediamine

    WRP 09/11/2003


    Slide30 l.jpg

    Clear Lake

    WRP 09/11/2003


    Success story rest of state l.jpg

    Success Story: rest of State

    • Lessons learned

      • Eradication is feasible

      • Requires early detection and rapid response

      • Requires long-term dedication of funds and manpower

      • Requires technology appropriate to the situation and phase of eradication

    WRP 09/11/2003


    Success story lake murray32 l.jpg

    Success Story: Lake Murray

    • Many thanks to Jeffrey Pasek for his slides for this portion of presentation

    • Thanks to City of San Diego and the San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner for their support in the eradication of hydrilla from Lake Murray.

    WRP 09/11/2003


    Cooperators l.jpg

    COOPERATORS

    • U.S. Department of the Interior-Bureau of Reclamation

    • U.S. Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Eastman Lake

    • Dept. of Boating and Waterways

    • Dept. of Water Resources

    • Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

    • County Dept.s of Agriculture

    WRP 09/11/2003


  • Login