HomeMy WebLinkAbout55-19 - Res. Regarding the Establishment of Lake Management District No. 3 Spencer Lake RESOLUTION NO:
A RESOLUTION adopting findings and determinations consistent with RCW 36.61.070 regarding
the establishment of Lake Management District No. 3 for Spencer Lake, and submitting the
establishment of Lake Management District No. 3 to a vote of property owners within the
proposed district.
WHEREAS, the Board of Mason County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 37-19 on
May 7, 2019 setting out its intention to consider formation of Lake Management District No. 3 for
Spencer Lake (LMD No. 3); and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 11, 2019 to consider formation of LMD No.
3 and the County Commissioners heard support from persons affected by the formation of LMD
No. 3 and other comments regarding the proposed work program; and
WHEREAS, a representatives from the Department of Ecology, the Department of Fish
and Wildlife and Department of Natural Resources had the opportunity to make presentations
and comments on the proposal.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DOES
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Board of County Commissioners adopts the following findings and
determinations:
1. The formation of LMD No. 3 is in the public interest as evidenced by the Integrated Aquatic
Vegetation Management Plan (Exhibit A) of lake improvement and maintenance activities,
which is approved as part of these findings. The proposed LMD will:
a. Manage noxious aquatic plants in Spencer Lake to meet recreational and aesthetic
needs.
b. Employ proven techniques based on environmental safety.
c. Conduct inspections to determine areas of invasive species infestation and
effectiveness of treatments.
d. Investigate and promote the best management practices for treatment of noxious
weeds.
e. Monitor for occurrence of as well as emergence of other lake plants that have been
identified by the State of Washington as noxious.
f. Maintain a volunteer advisory committee of lakefront owner representative to direct
the efforts and funds of the LMD.
2. The financing of the lake improvement and maintenance activities is feasible. The LMD will
guarantee the fees needed to continue with control measures of fragrant waterlily and other
noxious aquatic plants and the costs of permits, monitoring, printing and mailing.
3. Adequate provisions have been made to protect fish and wildlife. Aquatic herbicides have
been approved for use by the US Environmental Protection Agency for the use in lakes and
reservoirs used for human drinking water consumption.The herbicide will not harm fish or
wildlife, and by eliminating the noxious aquatic plants, the native flora and fauna should be
restored.
4. LMD No. 3 will exist for a period of 10 years, beginning in 2020.
5. The estimated amount that will be raised by the LMD rates in 2020 is $13,996. The total
estimated LMD rate revenue for the 10 year LMD including a maximum 5% annual increase
LMD—Spencer Lake—Resolution No.
for inflation is $176,043. The annual 5% increase would only occur if approved by the LMD
#3 Advisory Committee.
6. The proposed boundaries of the District are all properties with lakefront access to Spencer
Lake in Mason County, Washington.
7. Annual Charge per Parcel: The formula of rates and charges that is to be used to establish
the 2020 assessment for the LMD is 23 (twenty-three) cents per thousand valuation.
Property owners within Lake Management District No. 3 currently enrolled in the Senior
Citizen Exemption Program with the Mason County Assessor's Office will receive a reduction
in their LMD rates &charges for the years in which they are entitled to the exemption with
the County. In order to receive the reduction in any given year, property owners must have
qualified on or before November 1 of the prior year.
Section 2. The question of whether to form Lake Management District No. 3 for Spencer Lake
shall be submitted to the property owners within the proposed district. The Support
Services Department shall prepare the ballots for submittal to the property owners.
Ballots will be received by the Office of the County Commissioners, 411 N. Fifth
Street, Shelton, WA 98584 no later than 5:00 pm, July 17, 2019.
Section 3. Ballots will be available for public inspection after they have been counted.
Dated this 11th day of June, 2019.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MASON CO ASHINGTON
Kevin Shutty, hair
ATTEST:
_Sharon Trask, Com issioner
Melfi sa ry, Cler of the Board l /
Ran4 t4eaiherlin, Commissioner
Approved as to form:
i
Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Timothy Whitehead
J:\Lake Management District\Spencer Lake\LMD-Resolution to Form&send ballot 42.doc
Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan
Exhibit A
SpencerLake
Mason County, Washington
JA
_ _�_ �Ty—_ -_. � - ��_+'.•-�_ _ � �- �''� -yam
ZT
Prepared by
Mason County Noxious Weed Control
303 N 4th Street
Shelton, WA 98584
360.427.9670 Extension 592
hgp:Hextension.wsu.edu/mason/natural-resources/noxious-weed-program
SPENCER LAKE INTEGRATED AQUATIC
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN - 2018
Prepared for
Citizens of Spencer Lake and Mason County
Prepared by
Mason County Noxious Weed Control
303 N. 4th Street
Shelton, WA 98584
Phone: 360-427-9670 extension 592
Funded by
Washington State Department of Ecology
Aquatic Weeds Management Fund
Grant Number WQAIP-2016-MasNWB-00013
June 30, 2018
Mason County Board of Commissioners
Randy Neatherlin-Chair
Terri Drexler
Kevin Shutty
Mason County Noxious Weed Control Program
Patricia Grover
Connor Cordray
Brayden Raber
Keith Reitz
Kendall Carman
Aaron Kirby
Spencer Lake Community Steering Committee
2016-2017
Doris Zacher Steve Evander
John Tolton Dave Mortensen
Stephanie Brooks Bill Estep
Diane Cox Patricia Grover
2018
Doris Zacher Tricey Kruger
John Tolton Lynda Ring-Erickson
Stephanie Brooks Jack Urstadt
Diane Cox Patricia Grover
Steve Evander
Acknowledgement
The Mason County Noxious Weed Control Program wishes to thank the members of the Steering
Committee for their role in development of the Spencer Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation
Management Plan. Members include Doris Zacher, Stephanie Brooks,Diane Cox, Steve Evander,
Dave Mortensen, John Tolton, Bill Estep, Tricey Kruger, Lynda Ring-Erickson, Jack Urstadt and
Patricia Grover.
In addition, Mason County Noxious Weed Control Board staff, including Patricia Grover, Keith
Reitz, Aaron Kirby, and Kendall Carmen participated in the process, completing surveys,
compiling data and document preparation. Jason Wells of the Mason County Public Works GIS
section provided GIS support.
Thank you to Doris Zacher who offered her home for the Steering Committee meetings, Kristin
Tolton, who provided the list of bird and animal species observed at the lake, and Stephanie
Brooks for her information about the history of the Spencer Lake Community.
Thank you to Lizbeth Seebacher for her administration of the project.
Finally, special thanks to the Spencer Lake community. Their enthusiasm and commitment to
improving the recreational opportunities,ecological integrity and aesthetic beauty of Spencer Lake
will be the ultimate driving force of this plan.
Contents
EXECUTIVESUMMARY----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- 1
SECTION 1 -PROBLEM STATEMENT.............................................................................3
SECTION 2 -MANAGEMENT GOALS
SECTION 3 -PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT...................................... 6
SECTION 4 -WATERSHED AND WATERBODY CHARACTERISTICS.................. 9
WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS...................................................................................... 9
WATERBODY CHARACTERISTICS-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17
BENEFICIAL AND RECREATIONAL USES------------------------------------------------------------------------18
WATERQUALITY--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18
FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMUNITIES------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21
CHARACTERIZATION OF AQUATIC PLANTS------------------------------------------------------------------24
NOXIOUS WEED SPECIES AT SPENCER LAKE---------------------------------------------------------------28
PAST MANAGEMENT EFFORTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34
SECTION 5 -MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES............................ 35
PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE (Lythrum salicaria) --------------------------------------------------------------38
FRAGRANT WATERLILY (Nymphae odorata)---------------------------------------------------------------------40
YELLOWFLAG IRIS (Iris pseudacorus)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------41
SECTION 6—INTEGRATED TREATMENT PLAN........................................................43
PERMITS -------------------43
FRAGRANT WATERLILY (Nymphae odorata)-----------.......................................................... 4
PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE (Lythrum salicaria)-------------------------------------------------------------------------45
YELLOWFLAG IRIS (Iris pseudacorus)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------45
SECTION 7—PLAN ELEMENTS,COSTS,AND FUNDING 46
COSTS OF THE PLAN 46
SOURCES OF FUNDING----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46
SECTION 8—IMPLEMENTATION,MONITORING,AND EVALUATION 49
IMPLEMENTATION 49
MONITORING 50
EVALUATION 50
REFERENCES 52
Appendices
Appendix A: Public Notification,Agendas,Meeting Notes
Appendix B: Best Management Practices
Appendix C: Control Method Options
Appendix D: Aquatic Herbicide Products Labels
Figures
Figure 1. Spencer Lake Vicinity Map---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9
Figure 2. Spencer Lake Watershed Topography----------------------------------------------------------------------10
Figure 3. Soil Map of Spencer Lake area..................................................................................12
Figure 4. Lobelia dortmanna----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
Figure 5. Spencer Lake 1990 Aerial Photo-------------------------------•-----------------------------------------------15
Figure 6. Dike and outlet at southwest end of Spencer Lake-------------------------------------------- ___••16
Figure 7. Spencer Lake Bathymetric Map--------------------------------------------------------------------------------17
Figure 8. Spencer Lake Fish Report---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22
Figure 9. Mapped locations of Lobelia dortmanna..................................................................27
Figure 10. Survey of fragrant waterlily---- ----------------------------••-•---- .....................................29
Figure 11. Fragrant waterlily survey results 2016-------------------------------- _________________________________ 30
Figure 12. Yellow flag iris survey results 2017........................................................................30
Tables
Table1. Soil types----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11
Table 2. Physical Characteristics of Spencer Lake and Watershed----------------------------------------.13
Table 3. Priority salmonid species documented for Spencer Lake or Malaney Creek----------13
Table 4. 2018 Listing for Lobelia dortmanna---------------------------------------------------------------------------14
Table 5. Average values for Spencer Lake Trophic Data--------------------------------------------------------19
Table6. Fish survey data----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------21
Table 7. Spencer Lake Bird and Animal List---------------------------------------------------------------------------23
Table 8. Aquatic Plant List for Survey August 03, 2016---------------------------------------------------------25
Table 9. Comprehensive Plant List, 1994-2016-----------------------------------------------------------------------26
Table 10. Summary of Permitted Aquatic Herbicide Use for Spencer Lake-------------------------34
Table 11. Summary of Management Alternatives___________________________________________________________________36
Table 12. Proposed Spencer Lake IAVMP Implementation Budget_____________________________________48
Executive Summary
Spencer Lake is a 213-acre lake located in Mason County, Washington. It is located in Water
Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 14, the Kennedy-Goldsborough Basin. It is approximately 7
miles northeast of Shelton and 1.5 miles east of Oakland Bay. Spencer Lake has a drainage basin
area of approximately 1.7 square miles, no surface inlets and drains via Malaney Creek, which
flows to Oakland Bay.
Surveys at Spencer Lake and the surrounding shoreline document two Class B noxious weed
species, purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and Bohemian knotweed (Polygonum X
bohemicum), and two Class C noxious weeds, fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata) and yellow
flag iris (Iris pseudacorus). An additional Class C noxious weed, reed canarygrass (Phalaris
arundinacea)is found at the lake margins but is not considered for control in this plan.The fragrant
waterlily and the yellow flag iris infestations are well developed, however, several additional
species from nearby lakes have the potential to spread to Spencer Lake. At Mason Lake,
approximately 4.7 miles north of Spencer Lake, the community has been working to reduce the
infestations of Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and grass-leaved arrowhead
(Sagittaria graminea) since 1998. At Lake Limerick, approximately 4.5 miles northwest of
Spencer Lake, efforts to control Brazilian elodea(Egeria densa)have been underway since 1996.
Due to the close proximity of these lakes, plants from them have the potential to infest Spencer
Lake by vectors such as wind, animals, humans, boats, and boat trailer movement. All three of
these species,if introduced,have the potential to greatly hinder recreational activities,and decrease
habitat and water quality at Spencer Lake.
Several members of the Spencer Lake community brought their concerns about the expansion of
noxious weeds,specifically fragrant waterlily,to the attention of the Mason County Noxious Weed
Control program in October 2014. The opportunity to apply for an Aquatic Weeds Management
Fund grant through the Washington Department of Ecology(Ecology)was sent to individuals who
had expressed concern at a Mason County Noxious Weed Control booth at Oysterfest 2014. When
contacted, those individuals supported the application. If the grant application was successful,
residents were willing to volunteer time and materials for survey efforts and meeting requirements.
Knowing that eradication will be difficult to achieve, Spencer lake volunteers are preparing for the
long term effort that will be required and remaining vigilant of new introductions.
This Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan(IAVMP)is a planning document developed
to ensure that the applicant and community have considered the best available information about
the waterbody and watershed prior to initiating control efforts. Mason County Noxious Weed
Control program staff and members of the Spencer Lake community worked in partnership to
develop this IAVMP. To address the task of generating community appreciation of, and action
towards preserving the important ecological, aesthetic and recreational values of Spencer Lake, a
core group of residents, along with the Coordinator for the Mason County Noxious Weed Control
Board, formed an IAVMP Steering Committee. The Committee has worked to educate the
community about the issues impacting Spencer Lake and developed a social media network for
sharing information.
In development of the IAVMP, control goals were prioritized, focusing on the control measures
that could be accomplished based on funding and other resource limitations. The community
ultimately agreed on an IAVMP plan that incorporates an integrated treatment strategy to address
the three target plants listed in priority of control: purple loosestrife,fragrant waterlily,and yellow
flag iris.Mason County Noxious Weed Control is working with several property owners to control
Bohemian knotweed and residents are organizing to begin control measures for the yellow flag iris
and remove the few purple loosestrife plants located during the survey.
This 2018 IAVMP proposes to treat one quarter of the fragrant waterlily with glyphosate annually
for the first four years (approximately 5 acres each year from 2019-2022). Each treatment will
involve an initial treatment, with a possible second treatment a few weeks later. After four years,
a majority of the waterlilies targeted for control will have been treated. Follow up spot treatment,
or manual methods, will take place in year five and beyond. If waterlily root mats float to the
surface,they will likely be towed to the WDFW access and hauled off.
Control activities will be done by a combination of hired contractors, Mason County Noxious
Weed Control staff, and Spencer Lake community volunteers.
This IAVMP presents an overview of the aquatic weed problems, details about the community
planning process, watershed and lake characteristics, a review of suitable control options, a
management plan, budget and funding plans, and an implementation plan. The Appendix section
contains background and supporting documents.
Section 1 - Problem Statement
Spencer Lake is a 213-acre lake located in Mason County, Washington. It is located in Water Resource
Inventory Area (WRIA) 14, the Kennedy-Goldsborough Basin. It is approximately 7 miles northeast of
Shelton and 1.5 miles east of Oakland Bay. Spencer Lake has a drainage basin area of approximately 1.7
square miles, no surface inlets and drains via Malaney Creek, which flows to Oakland Bay. It has
approximately 93 acres of wetland, a portion of which extends from the southwest portion of the lake
surrounding the Malaney Creek outlet and another area that extends from the lake to the northwest.
Surrounding ownership consists of 187 parcels, ranging from smaller, less than 0.5 acre lots to 10 acres.
Over 80% of these parcels are identified as"developed" by the Mason County Assessor's office. The lake
has a public boat ramp operated by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,year round fishing and is
used for boating,fishing, swimming,wildlife viewing and ecosystem processes.
Two Class B noxious weed species purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and Bohemian knotweed
(Polygonum X bohemicum), and two Class C noxious weeds fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata) and
yellow flag iris(Iris pseudacorus)were documented in surveys conducted at Spencer lake in 2016. While
the purple loosestrife and knotweed infestations are at their early stages of development, infestations of
fragrant waterlily and yellow flag iris are rapidly expanding. Several nearby lakes are known to have
infestations of several noxious weeds that are not yet documented at Spencer Lake. At Mason Lake, 4.7
miles north of Spencer Lake, the community has been working to reduce infestations of Eurasian
watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and grass-leaved arrowhead (Sagittaria graminea) since 1998. At
Lake Limerick, 4.5 miles northwest, local community efforts have been undertaken to control Brazilian
elodea(Egeria densa)since 1996.The close proximity of these lakes increases the potential for introduction
of other noxious weeds into Spencer Lake by vectors such as: wind, animal, human, boat, and boat trailer
movement. Eurasian watermilfoil has the potential to greatly hinder recreational activities, and decrease
habitat and water quality at Spencer Lake. The outflow from Spencer Lake flows approximately 3.0 miles
to Oakland Bay
Purple loosestrife(Lythrum salicaria) is an emergent aquatic noxious weed that degrades native wetland
plant communities. Purple loosestrife can quickly adapt to environmental changes and expand its range to
replace native plants used for groundcover, food, or nesting material. This noxious weed species was not
found in abundance at the lake, however it will certainly disperse further around the lake and into the
wetland if not controlled. The plant threatens to lower plant diversity and can alter hydrologic dynamics
through sediment accretion along the shoreline. This emergent weed fails to provide the same forage and
habitat for birds, mammals, and invertebrates as provided by native plant communities. Purple loosestrife
has not been observed along Malaney Creek. Historic stream survey data suggests that the creek supports
two species of salmonids and the potential exists for purple loosestrife infestations to spread from the Lake
to Malaney Creek. Purple loosestrife produces a prolific number of seeds (up to two million seeds per
mature plant)that could easily be transported downstream to degrade this valuable resource.
Fragrant waterlily(Nymphaea odorata)is the species that was the community's call to action.It is quickly
expanding its distribution in the lake.When uncontrolled,this species can form dense,monospecific stands
that can persist until senescence in the fall.Mats of these floating leaves prevent wind mixing and extensive
areas of low oxygen can develop under the waterlily beds in the summer. Waterlilies can restrict lakefront
access and hinder swimming,boating,and other recreational activities.They may also limit the distribution
of the native waterlily(Nuphar polysepala)which occupies the same niche and provides food and habitat
for a variety of animals and fish. Residents report that the fragrant waterlily is rapidly expanding on
Spencer Lake.
Yellow flag iris(Iris pseudacorus) is an emergent aquatic noxious weed that grows in dense stands along
the lake shoreline. The plant spreads through floating seeds and rhizomes, both of which spread by wind
and wave action. Yellow flag iris,crowds out native species with impenetrable mats and is found in many
areas along the Spencer Lake shoreline.The plant is very difficult to effectively control.
Recently, the non-native species, swollen bladderwort (Utricularia inflata), has become more obvious at
the lake. Many plants were observed in late May 2018 at the southern end of the lake. The native
bladderwort, Utricularia vulgaris,was found during the aquatic vegetation survey of the lake conducted in
2016 for this IAVMP.
Collectively,these invasive plants:
■ Pose a safety hazard to swimmers and boaters by entanglement.
■ Snag fishing lines and hooks,eventually preventing shoreline fishing.
■ Crowd out native plants,creating monocultures lacking in biodiversity.
■ Significantly reduce fish and wildlife habitat,thereby weakening the local ecosystem and degrading
the wildlife and wildlife viewing opportunities.
■ Potentially impact water quality by decreasing dissolved oxygen under plant canopies and
increasing water temperature from reduced water circulation and solar absorption.
■ Pose a threat to adjoining ecosystems.
■ Reduce property value.
While individual landowners and the Mason County Noxious Weed Control program have initiated control
efforts for some of these species, there has not been a coordinated effort to control the widespread
infestations of fragrant waterlily or yellow flag iris. Immediate lake-wide action is necessary to control
these invasive weeds. Without action, the lake will likely become more infested with aquatic weeds,
severely degrading the lake ecosystem and making eradication difficult.Additionally,a plan which includes
prevention and detection strategies is needed to reduce the potential for new plant invasions that could
become problematic. The community is in support of this IAVMP and recognizes that the effort to control
these species, and prevent the introduction of new species,will be a long term commitment.
Section 2 - Management Goals
The overall management goal for this Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP) is the
control of noxious aquatic weeds at Spencer Lake in a manner that allows sustainable native plant and
animal communities to thrive, maintains acceptable water quality conditions, and facilitates recreational
enjoyment(boating,fishing,and swimming)of the lake.
The following objectives will be pursued to ensure success in meeting this goal:
■ Control of fragrant waterlily to reduce existing populations to reduce impact on recreational
activities and ecological function of the lake.
■ Prevent the introduction of floating and submerged aquatic noxious weeds.
■ Control of regulated shoreline noxious weeds to reduce existing populations below the level of
significant impact and to prevent spread.
■ Involve the Spencer Lake community in planning and implementation of the IAVMP.
■ Utilize the best available science to identify and understand likely effects of management actions
on aquatic and adjoining terrestrial ecosystems prior to implementation.
■ Review the efficacy of management actions through monitoring.
■ Adjust the management strategy as necessary to achieve the overall goal.
■ Seek funding sources to continue long term control of invasive aquatic plants.
■ Maintain good water quality and prevent toxic algae blooms.
With adoption of the IAVMP,the Spencer Lake IAVMP Steering Committee will coordinate initial aquatic
vegetation management activities. Work plans will be developed annually for implementation of specific
activities to further management goals.
Section 3 - Public and Community Involvement
Community Commitment
Support for aquatic vegetation management at Spencer Lake continues to grow. The IAVMP provided a
catalyst for community members to come together and learn about the issues associated with noxious
weeds.Several members of the Steering Committee have expressed interest in creating a Lake Management
District to continue the momentum of the plan into the control phase.
Steering Committee, Outreach, and Education Process
October 2014: Work began to contact and meet with members of the Spencer Lake community about the
opportunity to control aquatic noxious weeds at the lake through creation and implementation of an IAVMP.
March 2015: Background research related to the Spencer Lake IAVMP began in March 2015,shortly after
learning about receiving funding from the Department of Ecology.
May 2015: The Agreement was fully executed on May 13,2015.
February 2016: Several blue green algae blooms during the winter of 2015/2016 prompted action by local
residents.On February 22,2016, 5 Spencer Lake residents met with Lizbeth Seebacher from Department of
Ecology and Margaret Bigelow from Washington's Department of Fish and Wildlife.
March 2016: Project planning begins;first informal meeting of property owners.Email messages and word
of mouth about the first meeting provided an informal network of sharing information. Twenty-six
community members and the Mason County Noxious Weed Control Board coordinator, Patricia Grover,
attended a March 19, 2016 meeting held at the Zacher residence. Pat provided a brief presentation about
noxious weeds at Spencer Lake,history of the grant request and the process for developing the IAVMP as
written in the A Citizen's Manual for Developing Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plans.
Consistent with the message received at Oysterfest in 2014, those in attendance were supportive of the
process of developing the IAVMP. Attendees asked questions about the timeline and goals of the IAVMP
and seven attendees volunteered to be on the Steering Committee.
April 2016: The first meeting of the Steering Committee was held on April 09, 2016 at the Zacher
residence. Doris Zacher volunteered to chair the committee with a request for a co-chair. The meeting
followed the process outlined in A Citizen's Manual for Developing Integrated Aquatic Vegetation
Management Plans with development of a Problem Statement and discussion about the Public Meeting
(See Appendix A for agenda and meeting minutes).
June 2016:
■ The second Steering Committee Meeting was held on June 11, 2016.
■ Agenda and meeting minutes can be found in Appendix A.
■ On June 24,2016, letters informing recipients about the plan and the public meeting were sent to
188 Spencer Lake property owners(Appendix A). The mailing indicated that the meeting would
provide a community update about the plan and a discussion of the IAVMP planning process. In
addition, steering committee members visited additional waterfront residences by boat to share
information.
■ Information was sent to the local newspaper and radio and a social media page, Spencer Lake
Aquatic Invasive Species,was created.
June — July 2016: Arline Fullerton, an aquatic plant specialist and MCNWCB staff completed plant
surveys. During these surveys, frequent contacts were made with local residents or lake users and the
IAVMP was discussed.
July 2016: On July 22, 2016, a public meeting was held at the Mason PUD 3 building with over 49
community members in attendance. Doris Zacher provided an introduction for the meeting. Arline
Fullerton,local aquatic plant specialist and experienced surveyor of Mason County lakes and Katie Otanez,
an environmental health specialist with Mason County Public Health,provided additional information.
January 2018: Draft IAVMP provided to Co-Chairs.
March—June 2018:
■ Steering Committee meetings were held on March 24,2018,April 14, 2018 and May 04, 2018.
■ Agenda and meeting minutes can be found in Appendix A.
■ On April 14,2018, 160"Save the Date"postcards were sent to Spencer Lake property owners.
■ On May 11, 2018, a second public meeting was held at the Mason PUD 3 building with over 50
community members in attendance. After a brief introduction and power point presentation, the
audience was invited to ask questions and provide comment. Those in attendance were also asked
to complete a brief survey.The survey and results may be found in Appendix A.
June 2018:
■ Completion of draft Spencer Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan
■ Notification to meeting attendees and interested parties and posting of the management plan to the
Mason County website.
Appendix A contains the following"Community Involvement and Outreach"materials:
■ February 22, 2016 Meeting notes
■ March 19, 2016 Steering Committee agenda
■ April 09, 2016 Steering Committee agenda
■ April 09, 2016 Steering Committee meeting notes
■ June 11, 2016 Steering Committee agenda
■ June 11, 2016 Steering Committee meeting notes
■ June 24, 2016 Letter to Spencer Lake property owners
Public Meeting flyer
■ July 22, 2016 Public Meeting Agenda
■ March 24, 2018 Steering Committee agenda
■ March 24, 2018 Steering Committee meeting notes
■ April 14, 2018 Steering Committee agenda
■ April 14, 2018 Steering Committee meeting notes
■ April 14, 2018 Public Meeting"Save the Date"postcard
■ May 04,2018 Steering Committee agenda
■ May 04,2018 Steering Committee meeting notes
■ May 11, 2018 Public Meeting Agenda
■ May 11, 2018 Spencer Lake Community Survey
■ May 11, 2018 Spencer Lake Community Survey Results
Section 4 — Watershed and Waterbody Characteristics
Watershed Characteristics
Location and Size of Watershed
Spencer Lake is located in Mason County, Washington, approximately 11 miles northeast of Shelton.
(Figure 1). State resource agencies frequently use a system of Water Resource Inventory Areas(WRIA)
to refer to the state's major watershed basins. Spencer Lake is located in WRIA 14,which refers to the
Kennedy-Goldsborough combination watersheds and includes Mason Lake,Lake Limerick and the city
of Shelton.
1.
lll: .I n>k L
Ialf
,N
Spencer
Lake
Tx Orn a
la+ena
na�tf fl ne �_
Unl+ersny
_. PI aSe IM1�.1
I.I• Ln1,glY.enh Ik W,1aanl fro
YW
ii]II
Aoxf;e�
I,Lwf]
L.alenco�
AnOf qa+h;r!e --Vall.flil-511
Splf>R Evl MERE C.L—Inlwn,.p.�np�nyn(P Cafp (i Of{FAO NPS.MCA//.
IGN.Yent-NL.Crena—Swey,Eln.�p— I ,6 Chi- K( V` .lmlfbpe.
C crSt_tM17sp ZZ7V,b tut ab Ner GIs tifm Cpr. ily
0 375 75 15tAlles Vicinity Map
-� A
Figure 1 Spencer Lake map shows location of Spencer Lake and the cities ol'Shelton,Allvn, and Tacoma, [Washington
Spencer Lake has a drainage basin area of approximately 1.7 square miles,no surface inlets, and flows
to Oakland Bay via Malaney Creek. Spencer Lake is controlled by a concrete outlet structure that is
twelve feet wide and five feet tall; the concrete span poses no barrier to fish migration into and out of
Spencer Lake.
The drainage basin of Spencer Lake has been modified to varying degrees in the past. Some of the
process modifications include:
■ Conversion of pervious to
UMimpervious areas
■ Logging adjacent to the
lake
■ Construction of an outlet
control structure
■ Residential development
along the shoreline
N
' A
Figure 2 Spencer Lake Watershed Topography
Streams and Wetlands in the Watershed
Spencer Lake has approximately 93 acres of wetland. A large wetland area extends from the
southwest portion of the lake surrounding the Malaney Creek outlet. Wetland also extends from the
lake to the northwest to E. Spencer Lake Road.
Geology and Soils
There are 13 major soil types in the area surrounding Spencer Lake (Figure 3). The most common soil
type is Alderwood gravelly sandy loam(Ab).This soil covers about 75 percent of the area and dominates
the Spencer Lake shoreline.
Table 1 —Soil Types
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AAr a of Interes percent of AOI
Ab Alderwood gravelly sandy loam,8 to 15 percent slopes 1,186.8 74.3%
Ac Alderwood gravelly sandy loam,15 to 30 percent slopes 12.6 0.8%
Be Bellingham silty clay loam,0 to 3 percent slopes 13.9 0.9%
Ee Everett gravelly loamy sand,5 to 15 percent slopes 9.8 0.6%
Ib Indianola loamy sand,5 to 15 percent slopes 12.8 0.8%
Kb Kitsap silt loam,5 to 15 percent slopes
3.3 0.2%
Kd Kitsap silty clay loam,0 to 5 percent slopes 3.9 0.2%
Ke Kitsap silty clay loam,5 to 15 percent slopes 6.3 0.4%
Mg Mukilteo peat,0 to 2 percent slopes 48.1 3.0%
Ne Norma silt loam,0 to 3 percent slopes 1.9 0.1%
Oa Orcas peat,0 to 2 percent slopes 18.2 1.1%
Sb Semiahmoo muck,0 to 2 percent slopes 14.1 0.9%
So Sinclair shotty loam,5 to 15 percent slopes 18.7 1.2%
W Water 248.0 15.5%
Totals for Area of Interest 1,598.2 100.0%
r - `
Mc r
Afth
Olt
i 1•..J� l 111 r I .• 'f —
-16
�z M
Kb
•rl' � Kd Ab p, •��
Ng
lb
56
4 t
f 4 `
�. rr 41.
A?]
r r r r
Spencer Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan I?
Physical and Ecological Features
According to the MASON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Inventory and
Characterization Report(Mason SMP 2012), Spencer Lake at 213 acres constitutes nearly 55%of the
391.2 acres of the Spencer Lake reach. The land cover within the reach consists of 3%developed,49%
open water,3%beach, 17%forest,6%wetland and 21%floodplain/riparian.There are no listed erosion
or landslide areas identified in the reach.
The elevation of Spencer Lake is approximately 174 feet(USGS)and,utilizing Shelton's climate data,
receives an average annual precipitation—rainfall of 65.7 inches.
Table 2-Physical Characteristics of Spencer Lake and Watershed
Reach Area 391.2 acres
Surface Area 213 acres
Lake Volume 5,060 acre feet
Maximum Depth 3 6 feet
Average Depth 22 feet
Shoreline Length 5.0 miles
Critical or Priority Habitat and Species
Multiple state and federally-listed priority salmon and trout species are documented in Spencer Lake or
Malaney Creek. Malaney Creek drains Spencer Lake and fish occur in the creek. No barriers to fish
migration are presented by the concrete span at the outlet(Mason SMP).
Table 3—Priority salmonid species documented for Spencer Lake or Malaney Creek
(Mason SMP, page 6-30)
Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Use Federal Listing State
Listing
Coastal cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus darki clarki Migration/Spawning
fall Chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta Migration/Spawning
Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Migration/Spawning Concern
Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Migration/Spawning
winter Steelhead trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Migration/Spawning Threatened
Spencer Lake has
approximately 93 acres
Lobelia dortmanna L. of wetland,a priority
water lobelia habitat,which includes
Campanulaceae-harebell family
status: State Threatened,BLM strategic,USES strategic palustrine emergent and
rank:G4G5/S2
scrub shrub habitat
General Description:Submerged aqualrc perennial,hlrHess,up to I m
tail,wrlh till,i,nore%cence generally extending out of the water,%tear types.A large wetland
usually scll[ary,hollow,mostly unbranched.Leaves cyllndrcal,hollow,
in a basal rosette.Sten leaves few.inconspicuous,reduced to area extends from the
threadlike bracts.
.: southwest portion of the
Floral Wrsctetristica:Racerre generally emergent;peoicels without
bracelets.Flowers Pow,1-2 cm long,pale blue or whlte.Corolla Irregular, lake surrounding the
the 3-lobed lower lip halry at the base and nearly as long as the lube;
i crolla lube entire except Int a deep split above.Calyx lubes delloid or Maloney Creek outlet.
nanower,not sharply pointed,1.5.2.5 mm long.
hubs:Capsules 5.10 x 3-5 mm,the apex free from the hypanthlum. Wetland also extends
Seeds less than r mm long,roughened,with a prominent square base at
nor end.Flowers lnnn to Ai gu%t,wHh matt fnrif ng in July. from the lake to the
Ylvr�ruorq aynu,xv.+1v.
IdontNicat Ion Tl L.dortmannallowe,s are self-pollinated.Underwrite• oleo u^ie s'jdwc'ary:
Tips: p northwest to Spencer
flowers do not produce a corolla,remain closed,and their fruits open
lust.L.bafr»0 has flat,linear to spatula-shaped leaves,pedicels Lake Road.No priority
generally with 2 bractlets near the middle,and seeds that are po,nted at
both ends.Additionally,though the bass:leaves generally remain wildlife species
submerged,the stem,stem leaves;and flowers off.kaYmN are emergent.
Rang:Inlerrupledly curumbnrral:northwestern Europe,A K, riall of occurrences have been
Canada,south to northern OR,M N,WI,MI,PA,and M D.
mapped in the vicinity
Habitat/Easlo":Generally In shallow water at the margins of lakes and
ponds,but-t can grow at depths of 11.10 fret.Associated species of the lake. The
Include western 9uilwart(Isartrs occidmta ts)and pondwoed
(Pntamrtgrton nitans).Elevations in WA:1-300 m(5-1000 R).This Washington State
evergreen retains a living,reduced stem rot at least 3 consecutive
growing seasons.Individuals grow year round.However,those in the ,s Natural Resources
shallowest portion of a pupulalloWs habitat may not overwinter as well.L.
donmanna is an indicator or oligotraph.c takes,which possess (DNR)Natural Heritage
exceptionally clear and transparent waters.
Canrnenta•-Threat s Ines ludri herbicides used to control aquatic weeds, Program(NHP)has
%horrlinr development,water pollution,end trampling.This sprcirs is identified 28.5 acres of
also rare In AK,OR,Alberta,Sask..Manitoba,PA,NI,RI,and Prince
Edward Island.
water lobelia,a State
References:Srmcia 1987a,1987h.
Sensitive perennial
plant species within
= ,• Spencer Lake.
Adaptec fora r.ed—de N tae Rare lilit,p p/Wefh nptM
hu_^llwww nntmtos.rdu/uwa»s;(4gar+/t:w�4srCANfLr n•.ra
Figure 4.Lobelia dortmanna Washington State Department of Natural Resources,Natural
Heritage Program
A survey of Spencer Lake on June 19,2018 by Jenifer Parsons,aquatic plant specialist with the
Washington State Department of Ecology,and Patricia Grover,coordinator for the Mason County
Noxious Weed Control Board, documented several locations for the water lobelia.
Table 4 — From 2018 Washington Vascular Plant Species of Special Concern
Species Heritage State Federal Dist. County Eco- Managed
Common Name Rank Status Status Pattern Region Area
Lobelia dortmanna G4G5/S3 Sens Strat Sparse Clm,Kin,Mas,Saj, NC,PC,PT Moran SP
water lobelia Skg,Sno,Whc Olympic NP
Spencer s Aquatic Vegetation '
Land Use
Existing land use and ownership within the Spencer Lake reach is characterized as over half of the area
(54%)classified as residential; 29% forestry; 16% vacant/rural; and Parks, Open Space and recreation
areas accounts for 1%. There are individual docks/piers associated with many residences and a
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) public boat launch at the southwest end of
Spencer Lake.
Summary of Key Management Issues
Key management issues for Spencer Lake:
1) protect and preserve lake water quality; for example through management of fertilizers,
pet waste,and herbicides used on residential properties
2) protect in-water habitats and cold water sources for salmon including coastal cutthroat
trout
3) control of invasive aquatic plant species,and
4) limit dock proliferation and construction of new overwater structures
There is potential for more development as year round homes replace summer cabins. Residential
development in the past 40 years may have resulted in increased water flow, in the form of runoff into
Spencer Lake.
Residents also
report evidence of '
increased times of -
high water. This
rise in levels may
provide for '
leakage from old,
residential septic
systems and17
contribute to
nutrient loading
in the lake.
(Discussion, vi
)tJ
March 2016) -
Googlefarth
Figure S.Spencer Lake 1990
Community History
Stephanie Brooks provided the following information:
History of the Lake Water Level: (This information was gathered from long-time residents,property
owners in the area of the outlet/dike and from observations during January 2016). Spencer Lake in
Mason County was the 2nd cleanest lake in the state for many years prior to the 1960s. It was the
drinking water source for several families on the lake and the water didn't require any treatment. There
was virtually no sediment at that time on the bottom of the lake while there is quite a bit now.This is a
220 acre spring fed lake. There is another very small spring fed pond just to the northwest that drains
into Spencer Lake through a wetland area. There are no known storm drains that flow into the lake.
During the mid-1960s,the WA state Department of Fish and Wildlife treated the lake with rotenone
several times to purge the lake of all aquatic species so that it could be stocked as a pure trout lake for
fisherman.As part of this plan,the state built a dike and concrete outlet structure at the southwest end
of the lake to prevent fish from leaving the lake and other native species from coming back. The dike
was constructed primarily of gravel and,as you can see in the google earth photo below,trees have
grown in a line along the high ground/dike over the last 50 years but a low swampy/wetland area is
still behind the dike. The entire south end of the lake was the drainage for this lake prior to the dike
and outlet.The
concrete outlet
e' structure had a
screen and a
powered turbine
! 0 type device
!� intended to keep
the screen from
!-'^ getting clogged
with vegetation.
A `'-''• The screen and
f. 1 turbine were
removed a
• ' number of years
ago as the
screen could not
Figinv 6, be kept clean by
the turbine
(more than 20 years ago according to residents). In addition to the dike and outlet,the state dug deep
ditches to direct the water flow in Malaney Creek. I was told that the banks of this ditch were up to 5'
high above the water in many places.From the information I was able to get from long-time residents,
these ditches were located between the outlet structure and East Agate Road,but not necessarily that
whole length.As a result of the installation of the dike and outlet structure,the level of the lake rose
several feet over the following year or two. In the subsequent 50+years,the lake continues to creep
higher every year with an estimated total increase in water level since the lake was altered of about 4
feet.The outlet,ditches and dike have not been maintained by the state in many years.
Currently, as the lake level recedes in the summer months, there is no water flow through the outlet. It
appears that sediment/rocks/sand have built up in this area preventing any water flow once the lake drops
below a certain level. When the dike and outlet were first put in, water flowed through the outlet opening
year round even with the lake level being lower from what I've been told by longtime residents.Before the
dike and outlet went in,the lake also drained year round through the entire south end wetland(behind the
dike). Currently, there are two natural "breaches" in the dike in a low area although the water flowing
through these sections is only 2-3"deep and a few feet wide.These breaches are marked on the map above
and are not very close to the outlet structure.Beaver dams have also blocked the water flow and historically
have been removed by the state and residents. This is no longer permitted under Fish and Wildlife rules
however there are certain possible alternatives if there is property damage or ecosystem damage occurring
from beaver related high water.
Waterbody Characteristics
Spencer Lake is a 213 acre
lake located in Mason
County,Washington. It has a
maximum depth of 36 feet N o e
and a mean depth of 22 feet.
It has an estimated volume of
5060 acre-feet.
0 250 500 1,000 1.500 :.000
Feel
C t0
Figure 7. Spencer Lake Bathymetric Map
Spencer Lake Integrated Aquatic
Beneficial and Recreational Uses
Spencer Lake supports a variety of beneficial and recreational uses. A wide variety of boaters recreate on
Spencer Lake using motorized, electric, wind, and human propelled vessels. Many of the developed lake-
front properties have boats at the shore ready for use,and small docks from which to experience the water.
During warmer weather,swimming is a popular activity,mainly from private docks. Residents and visitors
also use the lake for bird watching and wildlife viewing. Spencer Lake's one public boat ramp is located in
the southwest part of the lake and managed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW).
The boat ramp exists largely to facilitate recreational fishing on the lake. Public access to the lake is
confined to the WDFW access.
The lake is a popular local fishing destination and used by both visitors and lake residents. WDFW stocks
Spencer Lake annually with rainbow and cutthroat trout. The busiest fishing time is in the spring,after the
lake has been stocked.
Spencer Lake and watershed support a variety of additional recreational uses. Many who live within the
watershed and those who come from elsewhere utilize its resources.
Water Quality
Water quality data for Spencer Lake was collected by the Washington State Department of Ecology from
1990-1998. The data record for this period is largely complete with data missing for 1997.
The assessment of biological activity,or trophic state,results in the classification of lake water quality into
three general categories: oligotrophic, mesotrophic, and eutrophic. Lakes with low biological activity are
considered oligotrophic, lakes with high biological activity are considered eutrophic. Lakes whose quality
ranges between eutrophic and oligotrophic are considered mesotrophic.One of the most common measures
used to calculate a lake's water quality classification is the numerical trophic state index(TSI)developed
by Robert Carlson (1977). This index allows comparison of lake water quality by rescaling water clarity,
phosphorous, and chlorophyll a along a trophic continuum based on a scale of 0 to 100 related to algal
biovolumes.
Average summer total phosphorus,chlorophyll a,and Secchi disk readings are each used to calculate TSIs.
TSI of 0 to 40 indicates an oligotrophic,or low productivity lake,TSI of 41-50 indicates a mesotrophic,or
moderately productive lake. TSI of greater than 50 indicates a eutrophic, or highly productive lake
characterized by poor water clarity and high algae growth.
The Lake was sampled in 1998(Bell-McKinnon)and was given atrophic status of OM(oligomesotrophic).
This is atrophic state that is borderline between oligotrophic and mesotrophic.
Table 5-Average values for Spencer Lake Trophic Data, 1990 to 1998.Compiled from the Washington State Department of Ecology's Environmental
Information Management System
Year e
Dissolved Specific * * Total Persulfate
No. of Secchi . Tmperature Ch] a TP
oxygen pH Conductivity Nitrogen
Samples (meters) (mg/L) (umbos/cm) (degree C) (ug/L) (ug/L) (mg/L)
1990 19 7.5 6.4 40 17.6
11.28 0.306
1991 11 4.47
1 0.218
11 3.51 _
1992 4 11 0.313
1.205
3.165
18 7.0 7.1 32.2
1993 22.25 0.270
12 4.05
1 1.83
10 7.58
1994 19 1 31.3 18.3
14.15 0.172
11 3.74
1.9
17 8.10 7.12 34.6 16.3
1995 4 12.45 0.242
12 4.18
1 ' 2.5
18 8.98 7.03 30.17 16.8
2 10.3 0.219
1996 11 4.64
1997 1 No Data
1998 25 5.75 7.32 43
10 1 4.6
*Chl a=chlorophyll a,TP-total phosphorus
f
�t
r
Photos courtesy of Ben Legler
Spencer Lake is included on Ecology's 303 (d) list of impaired waters for possible impairments
related to the presence of big floating bladderwort (Utricularia inflata), otherwise known as swollen
bladderwort, identified in 2002.Big floating bladderwort is a non-native, invasive aquatic weed that
is freely floating, rootless and carnivorous.This aquatic weed is native to the southeastern US,
primarily Florida.
Fish and Wildlife Communities
Spencer Lake and the surrounding terrestrial habitat in the watershed support a variety of fish, birds, and
animals by providing nesting,forage, and cover.
Fish
Bluegill, brown bullhead, largemouth bass, pumpkinseed, rainbow trout, general sculpin, smallmouth
bass and yellow perch are fish species identified during Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
surveys in 2012(Caromile 2012).
Table 6-Species composition by weight and by number,from fish population
surveys at Spencer Lake, Mason County,June and September 2012.
WeWt Nuniher Size Ranw
Species Kg %of Total n °o of Total Min. Max
Sr)ring,2012
BkL-gll 0.6 0.6 14 0.6 97 190
Bron Bullhead 5.2 5.4 21 0.9 171 375
,.mouth Bass 4.6 4.8 29 1.3 88 521
Puunpkniseed 5.7 5.9 141 6.2 84 127
Rainbow'l'rout 16.5 17.2 38 1.7 256 495
Sculpin, General 0.4 0.4 33 1.4 80 120
Suxilknoith Riss 2.6 2.7 31 1.4 87 405
Yeflow Perch 60.4 62.9 1973 86.5 80 203
Fall 2012
Bkiegil 2.6 2.9 105 6.5 80 165
Bmwn Bullhead 4.0 4.5 21 1.3 150 361
Citthroat Troia 2.1 2.4 2 0.1 450 521
Largemouth Bass 18.3 2 0.5 162 10.0 80 517
Ptunpkinseed 8.4 9.4 235 14.5 80 175
Ran'ibow Trout 2.4 2.7 26 1.6 137 382
Sculpin, General 0.2 0.2 11 0.7 87 117
Snilhnmlth Bass 3.1 3.4 35 2.2 118 395
Yellow Perch 48.1 53.9 1026 63.2 81 285
In addition,residents report catfish and sunfish in the lake.
Spencer Lake is managed for recreational trout fishing.While coho and chum salmon have been found
in Malaney Creek,as close as one mile from the lake,these species are not known from the lake.
According to the WDFW's 2018 Trout and Kokanee Stocking Plan for Region 1, the stocking plan for
Spencer Lake includes 12,644 Catchable rainbow trout in April/May,440 Jumbo rainbow trout in March,
4,400 Jumbo rainbow trout in October and 520 Jumbo cutthroat in February. Spencer Lake is a popular
fishery and is open all year to recreational fishing. Spencer Lake falls under the General Statewide
Regulations for limits and size restrictions set by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW).
(t'.I..„I:,,.IInL.•. kki1i,16 Laikes rM..f..
Faw.r.e7.. 11 i 1
1 d Lo lees Laplan0 Lakes M County v Ffra7 Spepes
�+ LoW �n _ ---
Spencer Lake
lslkea5p.sl�lA. MyPkiu
Spann,L..ep."o'Mnoupopufar apN..abrn Masan C b-1 lt+canas.rly and ml6 spiny Lake Ylfer.nstlen
plank
a..”
f be poum.amppw.la4 phM,W WWI on.Pw -Mb-mWnp II a wry sYady Droduar wan
Cuing Vw aanl..rmMbs In addXlm b R0N SP°ncw kas wttllnnbasf ab patch fisnmg RUson bounty
Lab Am, 2121
B.-1]5 FM
Fishing Prospects Cdenllar vwree.w.Mnpan
Ld.Frr�ea�a T,P.
Jan Feb Mar AV kuy Jun JO auq �P Oa Nw N, M.°d V.cef-Troul.rrybava
rnaat�eumoa O 0
Sport Flf laing Regulaliona 8 Seaf ora
Lagmmub ass 1^J ( ) i 0 • • • A fnni ItukU
II.YLw nwl C) 0 Q 0 • 0 O 00
erou99oN iba lea dT�I�a ERules beD NusuPbdYs
bwPwcM1 �� I 0000000
LFCEao
Locate this lake
Fb1:nq E�gacsalim•F.celanl 0GId 0F, •Pau tHs laPn Mewfe0na�al brdvm olPe srlded
o�om.wl.sox zro;c
TyppJOpp.nubry•Full monlb At.tbaX only�:M baF only No oPPOMnnI .Xbm o'pYa�dob.,psWs�w�p Y+Y ��
wwm
SP.cYz gnu miyM.x.A TV,tI-Pole F11111ng Allaw,d
Access S es 1 Boat Ramps on this lake
wpFwwr.Afa�.sla.
•So.—Lake(10"
O6.La A—
R.wd
Fish Plante s StodJng Reports
A—el fl.aslq sck.a.l.
•Mnua.SUUnde HalMesy TroN 9ocYrg
Pan
t✓bftueda"aw b
•C pcnaf!TrpN RvX NY.Yy P.pvb
P®.. J+•.n.n v ..dp..way.m.mmrgwaGlt lani j
4017.2018 Sport1Fish rig Regulation Pamphl SCO►. m
gUsl ngstsstf n..u,..°wn w.r�awr.w r�.�w. a q.. � O��\F4 Gi�eau cl L>nJ Manageeren;IFylfl
'ay Emergency Fisnnq FUHa br Vpaw: Fora9 San to NSFSI
'r<s�ng RagvlaOon Haan.Numban S Naapnal Para Sn[.(NPSI
a�,a•s>ww.o.+a—gron(R.won s)F-N Home ..a.. �.o�, u�nae s ae F a �weileue S r a(Srws)
Figure 8. Spencer Lake fish report
Spencer Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan
Birds, Mammals, Reptiles and Amphibians
A variety of mammals,reptiles and amphibians utilize the Spencer Lake watershed during various times
in their life cycle. Birds are attracted to Spencer Lake due to the mix of forest,wetland, and open water
habitats. A resident of Spencer Lake has generated a list of birds and mammals seen at Spencer Lake in
the past several years (Table 7). This list includes six species of regulatory significance including the
great blue heron, bald eagle, osprey, common goldeneye, hooded merganser, and bufflehead.
Table 7 Spencer Lake Bird and Animal List"
BIRDS Great Blue Heron
Ban-tailed Pigeons Killdeer
Mourning Doves Spotted Sandpiper
Anna's Hummingbird
Rufous Hummingbird DUCKS:
Belted Kingfisher Canada Goose
Red Breasted Sapsucker Wood Ducks
Downy Woodpecker Gadwall
Northern Flicker American Widgeon
Steller's Jay Mallards
Western Scrub Jay Northern Shoveler
American Crow Northern Pintail
Violet Green Swallows Ring Neck Duck
Barn Swallows Lesser Scaup
Black-capped Chickadee Bufflehead
Chestnut Backed Chickadee Golden Eye
Red Breasted Nuthatch Barrows Golden Eye
Brown Creeper Hooded Merganser
Robin Common Merganser
Varied Thrush Ring Necked Pheasant
European Starling Common Loon
Cedar Wax wing Pied Billed Grebe
Western Tanager Red Necked Grebe
Spotted Towhee
Chipping Sparrow
MAMMALS:
g P
Song Sparrow Snakes
White Crowned Sparrow Frogs
Dark Eyed Junco Beavers
Black Headed Gross Beak Squirrels
Red Winged Black Bird Fruit Bats
Brewer's Black Bird Raccoon
Brown Headed Cow Bird Possum
Purple Finch Deer
House Finch
Pine Siskin
American Gold Finch
Evening Gross Beak
Bald Eagle
Osprey
Sea Gulls
Cormorant
"List compiled by Spencer Lake residents, John and Kris Tolton 2016
ManagementSpencer-Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation 23
Characterization of Aquatic Plants
Spencer Lake hosts a wide range of plants from emergent species to submersed species.Aquatic vegetation
serves an array of ecological functions such as supporting food chains, providing habitat for a variety of
animal species, intercepting sediments at the upland/water interface, removing toxic compounds from
runoff,and providing erosion controlfbank stabilization.Generally,native plants are considered beneficial,
however they may become a nuisance when their growth is excessive and out of balance to the point of
impacting the beneficial uses of the lake.
As part of this IAVMP, a plant survey was conducted on August 03, 2016 by Arline Fullerton, a contract
aquatic plant specialist and Keith Reitz, MCNWCB staff. The survey started at the public boat launch and
proceeded clockwise around the lake. The lake was divided into 5 separate survey districts.
Table 8 lists those plant species identified at Spencer Lake during the August 03,2016 survey,including 17
emergent types, six floating types,three free floating types and two plant like algae:
■ Emergents are plants that are rooted in the sediment at the water's edge but have stems
and leaves which grow above the water surface.
■ Floating rooted plants are rooted in the sediment and send leaves to the water's surface.
■ Submersed plants are either freely-floating or are rooted in the lake bottom but grow within
the water column.
Table 8 - Aquatic Plant List for the Spencer Lake Survey August 03, 2016
Plant Type Common Name Scientific Name Status
Emergent Plants Bulrush Schoenoplectus spp. Native
Common cattail Typho latifolia Native
Douglas'spiraea Spiraea douglasii Native
Hairy-leaf rush Juncus supiniformis Native
Mint Mentha spp. Native
Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Noxious Weed-Class B
Purple (marsh) cinquefoil Comarum polustre Native
Quillwort Isoetes spp. Native
Rush Juncus spp. Native
Sedges Carex spp. Native
Spikerush Eleocharis spp. Native
Water horsetail Equisetum fluviotile Native
Water lobelia Lobelia dortmanno Native
Waterpepper Polygonum hydropiperoides Native
Western water-hemlock Cicuto douglasii Native
Yellow-flag iris Iris pseudocorus Noxious Weed-Class C
Floating Leaved Fragrant waterlily Nymphaea odorato Noxious Weed-Class C
Rooted Plants Grass-leaved pondweed Potamogeton gramineus Native
Large-leaved pondweed Potamogeton amplifolius Native
Thin-leaf pondweed Potamogeton spp. Native
Watershield Brasenia schreberi Native
Yellow pond lily Nuphar pol sepala Native
Submersed Common bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris Native
Free Floating Common waterweed Elodea canadensis Native
Plants Whorl-leaf watermilfoil Myriophyllum verticillatum Native
Plant-Like Algae Muskcirass Chara spp. Native
Nitella Nitella spp. Native
AquaticSpencer Lake Integrated
The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has records of plant surveys on Spencer Lake
dating back to 1994 (Ecology 2018). The following comprehensive aquatic plant list for Spencer Lake has
been derived from the Washington State Department of Ecology's Lakes data. Table 9 includes the aquatic
plant species found at Spencer Lake during the period 1994-2016. Of those species, four are classified as
noxious weed species in Washington State and are included on the Washington State Noxious Weed List
(WSNWCB 2018). Most of the remaining plant species are native species.
Table 9 - Comprehensive Plant List, Spencer Lake Surveys 1994-2016
Plant Common Name Scientific Name Status Abundance
Type 2016
American water-plantain Alisma triviole Native N/A
Buckbean Menyanthes trifoliata Native N/A
Bulrush Scirpus spp. Native N/A
Cattail Typho spp. Native N/A
Common cattail Typha latifolia Native 1
Creeping loosestrife Lysimachia nummularia Native N/A
Dulichium Dulichium orundinoceum Native N/A
Grass sedge or rush-like Pooles spp. Native N/A
Knotweed Polygonum Noxious Weed-Class B N/A
Mint Mentha spp. Native 1
Naked-stemmed bulrush Schoenoplectus Native 2
Narrowleaf bur-reed Sparganium angustifolium Native N/A
Purple(marsh)cinquefoil Comarum palustre Native 2
Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Noxious Weed—Class B 1
Quillwort Isoetes spp. Native 2
Reed canary grass Phaloris arundinacea Noxious Weed—Class C N/A
Rush Juncus spp. Native 2
Emergent Sedge Carex spp. Native 2
Plants Small fruited bulrush Scirpus microcarpus Native N/A
Softstem bulrush Schoenoplectus Native N/A
tabernaemontani
Spike-rush Eleocharis spp. Native 1
Spiraea,hardhack Spiraea douglasii Native N/A
Spirea Spiraea spp. Native 2
Swamp smartweed Persicaria hydropiperoides Native 1
Tufted loosestrife Lysimachia thyrsiflora Native N/A
Water clubrush Schoenoplectus subterminalis Native N/A
Water gladiole,Water lobelia Lobelia dortmanna Native 2
Water horsetail Equisetum fluviotile Native 1
Waterplantain Alisma spp. Native N/A
Water-plantain family Alismatoceae spp. Native N/A
Water-purslane Ludwigia palustris Native N/A
Western water-hemlock Cicuto douglasii Native 1
Wool-grass Scirpus cyperinus Native N/A
Yellow flag Iris pseudocorus Noxious Weed—Class C 2
Plant Type Common Name Scientific Name Status Abundance
2016
Fragrant waterlily Nymphoea odoroto Noxious Weed—Class C 3
Grass-leaved pondweed Potamogeton gramineus Native 1
Large-leaf pondweed Potamogeton omplifolius Native 2
Floating-Leaved Pondweed thin leaf Potamogeton spp. Native 2-3
Rooted Plants Ribbonleaf pondweed Potamogeton epihydrus Native N/A
Rocky Mountain pond-lily Nuphar polysepola Native 1
Slender pondweed Potamogeton pusillus Native N/A
Watershield Brasenio schreberi Native 2-3
Big floating bladderwort Utriculoria inflata Non-native—Monitor N/A
Bladderwort Utriculoria spp. Native N/A
Common bladderwort 1 Utriculoria vulgaris Native 2
Submersed Plants Common elodea Elodeo conodensis Native 2
Sago pondweed Stuckenio pectinoto Native N/A
Water-milfoil Myriophyllum Native N/A
Waterweed Elodea spp. Native N/A
Whorled watermilfoil Myriophyllum verticillatum Native 2
Plant-Like Algae Muskwort Chora spp. Native 3
Stonewort Nitello spp. Native 3
N/A-Species not recorded during 2016 survey
A rare native species,Lobelia dortmanna
is found at Spencer Lake. Water lobelia
(Lobelia dortmanna), is a Washington
State Sensitive species and is mapped at
two locations within the lake. Water
lobelia is an indicator of oligotrophic
lakes, which possess exceptionally clear
and transparent waters. The Washington
f State Department of Natural Resources,
s
Natural Heritage program, which is the
5,,— source of scientific information about
rare plants and ecosystems of the state,
r
i identifies herbicides to control aquatic
weeds, shoreline development, water
pollution, and trampling as threats to this
species
Figure 9.Mapped locations of Lobelia dortmanna
Spencer •
Noxious Weed Species at Spencer Lake
Included in the table are four listed noxious weed species: purple loosestrife(Lythrum salicaria),fragrant
waterlily(Nymphaea odorata),yellow flag iris(Iris pseudacorus),and reed canarygrass(Phalaris
arundinacea). Bohemian knotweed(Polygonum X bohemicum)has been documented at several locations
by the MCNWCB and is not included in this list.
The term"noxious weed"refers to those nonnative plants that are legally defined by Washington's
Noxious Weed Control Law(RCW 17.10)as highly destructive,competitive, or difficult to control
once established.Noxious weeds have often been introduced accidentally as a contaminant,or as
ornamentals.Nonnative plants usually do not have natural controls(i.e.,herbivores,pathogens)or
strong competitors to control their numbers as they may have had in their home range. In Washington
State,WAC 16.750 sets out three classes(A,B, and C)of noxious weeds based on their distribution in
the state,each class having different control requirements:
• Class A weeds are weeds that are limited in their distribution,and the goal is to prevent them
from gaining a foothold in Washington. By law,all Class A noxious weeds must be
eradicated.
• Class B weeds are non-native, invasive species that are abundant in some areas of the state,but
absent or limited in other areas. The statewide goal is to"draw the line"around and contain
infested regions,to keep these noxious weeds from spreading into new areas.They are
designated for mandatory control in areas where they have not yet invaded or where distribution
is still limited. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is decided at the
local level,with containment as the primary goal.
• Class C weeds are typically widespread in Washington,or are of special interest to the state's
agricultural industry. The State Weed Board provides educational resources about these
species but does not require control of them. The Class C status allows counties to require
control if locally desired. Other counties may choose to provide education or technical
consultation.
The state also maintains a monitor list for certain plant species,which are weeds that are under
consideration for future listing as noxious weeds.
There are no Class A noxious weeds at Spencer Lake,there are two Class B weeds,two Class C weeds,
and one plant on the state monitor list. The Mason County Noxious Weed Control Board has selected
purple loosestrife(Lythrum salicaria),a Class B Noxious Weed, as a regulated noxious weed,meaning
its control is required.Fragrant waterlily(Nymphaea odorata),yellow flag iris(Iris pseudacorus), and
reed canarygrass(Phalaris arundinacea)are Class C noxious weeds and Bohemian knotweed is a
Class B. Because of their widespread distribution in the county,control is not required for these
species.Big floating bladderwort(Utricularia inflata) is on the State Monitor list.
Recent surveys and mapping have documented the current location of the noxious weeds,except reed
canarygrass at Spencer Lake. During the summer of 2016, MCNWCB staff surveyed Spencer Lake for
purple loosestrife, fragrant water-lily, and Bohemian knotweed. In 2017 a survey was completed to
map the distribution and abundance of yellow flag iris.This survey was conducted by Mason County
Noxious Weed Control staff,Keith Reitz,from a kayak. Information was recorded utilizing Collector
software and transferred to,and compiled in,the Geographic Information System(GIS)program ArcMap
10.2.
' 1
• .d
M ♦ X11.` t � 1Cv .e ��',LtF...M� + - _ _
Figure 10.Points and polygons were collected for fragrant waterldy and yellow flag iris infestations.
AA
A(� j t�
`fig +az•3
i Wit` � • „�.
71
f
of
Spencer Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 30
Targeted Plant Descriptions
Fragrant waterlily, purple loosestrife, and yellow flag iris are targeted for control in this 2018 IAVMP.
Information about these plants and other aquatics can be found in An Aquatic Plant Identification
Manual for Washington's Freshwater Plants(Ecology 200 1)or on the Washington State Noxious Weed
Control Board website at: hMs://www.nwcb.wa.gov
Fragrant waterlily(Nymphaea odorata)
Fragrant waterlily is native to eastern North America. Its many subspecies and varieties may be found
floating in ponds, lakes and sluggish streams just about everywhere in North America.It was introduced to
Washington as a water garden plant and has since escaped into numerous natural lakes and ponds, often
growing so densely that it negatively impacts recreation and habitat.Fragrant waterlily is affecting Spencer
Lake, and is quickly expanding its distribution in the lake. When uncontrolled, this species tends to form
dense,monospecific stands that can persist until senescence in the fall.Mats of these floating leaves prevent
wind mixing and extensive areas of low oxygen can develop under the waterlily beds in the summer.Dense
mats can also increase water temperature,and the warm,shallow stagnant water among them creates perfect
mosquito breeding habitat.See appendix B for the Fragrant Waterlily Best Management Practices document
that describes the plant in-depth and reviews control techniques.
Legal status in Mason County,Washington
Fragrant waterlily is a Class C noxious weed on the Washington State Noxious Weed List, first listed in
2002. In Mason County, it is on the non-regulated noxious weed list. Property owners are not required to
control this species,however containment is recommended.
Identification
Leaves float on the water's surface and are nearly circular in shape.They are notched to the center and the
leaf lobes are pointed.The leaves are on the top of long stalks that extend from long rhizomes in the mud.
Fragrant waterlily flowers are showy,white to pink and aromatic. Flowers of unusual color and shape are
characteristic of hybrid waterlilies. The stems are flexible so when the water level lowers,the plants don't
stick up out of the water like they do with the native spatterdock(Nuphar polysepala).
Habitat and impact
This aquatic perennial herb spreads aggressively,rooting in murky or silty sediments in water up to 10 feet
deep. It prefers quiet waters such as ponds, lake margins and slow streams and will grow in a wide range
of pH. Fragrant waterlily spreads by seeds and by rhizome fragments. One rhizome can cover about a 15-
foot diameter circle in 5 years.
Waterlilies can restrict lakefront access and hinder swimming,boating,and other recreational activity.They
may also limit the distribution of our native waterlily(Nuphar polysepala)which occupies the same niche
and provides food and habitat for a variety of animals and fish. The fragrant waterlily has been expanding
in patches on Spencer Lake and, as these patches connect, recreational activities have become more
difficult.
Spencer Lake Integrated Aquatic Plan
Fragrant waterlily can contribute to algal growth and water quality problems. It is currently found in many
lakes and numerous ponds throughout Mason County.
Growth and reproduction
Usually flowers from June to October. After fertilization,the flower stalk curls like a corkscrew, drawing
the flower underwater. The seeds float back to the surface and are spread through water movement. The
thick, fleshy rhizomes can spread vegetatively when rhizome fragments break off. The plants die back in
the fall and decay on the water's surface.
Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)
Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) is an emergent aquatic noxious weed that degrades native wetland
plant communities. Purple loosestrife can quickly adapt to environmental changes and expand its range to
replace native plants used for ground cover, food, or nesting material. This noxious weed species occurs
intermittently along the shoreline and has the potential to spread around the lake,into adjacent wetlands or
along Malaney Creek if not controlled. The threat of infestation of these areas remains as long as the
infestation at Spencer Lake exists. This emergent weed fails to provide the same forage and habitat for
birds, mammals, and invertebrates as provided by native plant communities. Purple loosestrife produces
prolific seed(up to two million seeds per mature plant)that could easily be transported downstream. See
appendix B for the Purple Loosestrife Best Management Practices document that describes the plant in-
depth and reviews control techniques.
Legal status in Mason County,Washington
Purple loosestrife is a Class B noxious weed on the Washington State Noxious Weed List, first listed in
1988.In Mason County,it is selected for control and is on the regulated noxious weed list.Property owners
are required to control this species.
Identification
Purple loosestrife can reach up to 10 feet tall and 5 feet wide and has a persistent, perennial tap root and
spreading rootstock. Flowers are densely clustered on a 4-16 inch terminal flowering spike. Flowers are
showy and magenta with 5 to 7 petals. Leaves are alternate, opposite or in whorls of 3. They are 1.5 to 4
inches long, lance-shaped to narrowly oblong and sometimes are covered with fine hairs. Stems are
herbaceous and upright, branched or unbranched and somewhat square with 4 to 6 sides. Each plant may
have 30 to 50 stems with flowers that form at the ends. Seeds are in capsules.
Habitat and impact
Purple loosestrife occurs in freshwater and brackish wetlands. It is a successful colonizer and potential
invader of any wet, disturbed sites in North America. Associated species include cattails, rushes, sedges
and reeds. Purple loosestrife alters wetland ecosystems by replacing native and beneficial plants reducing
nesting habitat for waterfowl, animals, and birds. Agriculture may also be impacted by a loss of wild
meadows,hay meadows and wetland pastures.
Growth and reproduction
A mature plant can produce 2.7 million seeds. Water dispersal includes floating seedlings and floating
ungerminated seeds. Purple loosestrife also spreads vegetatively. Adventitious buds with the ability to
produce shoots or roots are found on buried stems.Disturbance to the plants,such as stomping and breaking
underground stems, or breaking off stems or roots during incomplete plant removal, does initiate bud
growth.
Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus)
When flowering,yellow flag iris is unmistakable with its showy yellow flowers colorfully displayed along
the edge of water and in wetlands. Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) was introduced as a garden
ornamental and erosion control species and is the only yellow iris found in Washington's wet areas, but
when not flowering it may be confused with cattail(Typha latifolia)or broad-fruited bur-reed(Sparganium
eurycarpum). Look for the fruits in the summer,or the fan-shaped plant-base at other times of year.
Because yellow flag iris is so prolific at the lake and difficult to control, the plant is not the target of this
management plan. However, individual homeowners are encouraged to begin control of yellow flag iris on
their own. See appendix B for the Yellow-Flag Iris Best Management Practices document that describes
the plant in-depth and reviews control techniques.
Legal status in Mason County,Washington
Yellow flag iris is a Class C noxious weed on the Washington State Noxious Weed List,first listed in 2002.
In Mason County, it is on the non-regulated noxious weed list. Property owners are not required to control
this species,however containment is recommended.
Identification
Yellow flag iris is a perennial,aquatic,herbaceous plant which grows 2-3 feet tall along shores in shallow
water. Rhizomes spread and form large clumps. Leaves are broad, sword-shaped and sessile. Stems are
solid.
Habitat and impact
Yellow flag grows in temperate wetlands along the margins of lakes and slow-moving rivers. It is most
commonly found in very shallow water or mud.It tolerates drying and anoxic sediment and is also tolerant
of some salinity,and high soil acidity.
It will sicken livestock if ingested,and is generally avoided by herbivores.Contact with the resins can cause
skin irritation in humans.
This noxious weed is well established at Spencer Lake, growing in multiple locations around the lake
(Figure 12). In addition to threatening to lower plant diversity, yellow flag iris can alter hydrologic
dynamics through sediment accretion along the shoreline. Yellow flag iris has not yet been observed
downstream along Malaney Creek, however this species produces prolific seed that could easily be
transported downstream to invade this area.
Growth and reproduction
Yellow flag dies back in harsh winter conditions,but the rhizomes will overwinter.In spring the long leaves
and flower stalks regrow from the rhizomes and flower by late spring or early summer.The rhizomes spread
to form dense stands that exclude native wetland species.
Yellow flag spreads by rhizomes and seeds. Up to several hundred flowering plants may be connected
rhizomatously. Rhizome fragments can form new plants if they break off and drift to suitable habitat.
Past Management Efforts
Noxious weed control history at Spencer Lake
While noxious weeds have been an issue at Spencer Lake for many years, there has not been a
coordinated control effort. While no lake-wide efforts have targeted submersed or floating noxious
weeds at Spencer Lake, some individual land owners have targeted plants on their waterfront.
Techniques employed by land owners have included cutting, raking and weed mats, all which can
control submersed and floating plants but not eradicate them. See the Management Alternatives section
later in this document for more details on these control methods.
Aquatic herbicide treatments in Spencer Lake are permitted through the Washington State Department
of Ecology's permit program. Only one documented treatment of aquatic plants was reported. (Table
10).
Table 10-Summary of Permitted Aquatic Herbicide Use for Spencer Lake
Date Target Plant Chemical Used Amount Acres Treated Permit Number
09-30-2006 Potamogetons Diquat 0.5 gallon 0.25 acres 994128
dibromide
Additional management efforts include:
1) Mason County Noxious Weed Control has been treating Bohemian knotweed at multiple
locations in the vicinity of Spencer Glen Homeowner's Association (HOA) and the WDFW
boat launch since 2013.
2) Mason County Noxious Weed Control manually removed fragrant waterlily at Spencer Glen
Homeowner's Association in 2016.
3) Release of the biocontrol agent, Galerucella spp., a loosestrife leaf beetle, has not been
documented at Spencer Lake. Due to the scattered occurrence of purple loosestrife, use of the
beetles would likely not contribute to control. These insects are most effective in large, dense,
contiguous patches of the plant where remaining flower heads/seed heads are regularly
removed.
Section 5 - Management Alternatives
A wide variety of control methods have been developed to address the general problem of aquatic noxious
weeds. The methods chosen for aquatic plant control vary depending upon several factors, including: the
species of aquatic plant targeted; whether the control goal is management or eradication; the cost of a
method and availability of funds; the impacts to water quality and habitat; the safety and feasibility of a
method;and support from lake residents. Control methods considered for Spencer Lake include:
■ Chemical treatments
■ Manual control methods
■ Mechanical control methods
■ Diver dredging
■ Bottom screening
■ No action
All control options have been considered and evaluated for each noxious weed species as it relates to the
conditions at Spencer Lake (table 11). This table provides a summary of each method considered, its
advantages and disadvantages, and suitability for Spencer Lake. The discussion below describes control
methods that warrant further consideration, both at the large scale (whole lake treatment) or small scale
(private property waterfront)and those methods that are not applicable at Spencer Lake.
Since control of Bohemian knotweed is well underway, control measures for this species are not included
in the table.
Full descriptions of each method,as well as advantages and disadvantages,permits,costs,and suitability
for Spencer Lake, are summarized in Appendix C. Much of the information in Appendix C is taken
directly from Ecology's Aquatic Plant Management website(Ecology 2016).This information,however,
is no longer available on Ecology's website.In addition,Appendix B provides information prepared by
King County Noxious Weed Control on best management practices for each target species.
Tahle 1I-Suntntarl,of Afanagentent Alternatives—page I
Effective in some Not practical for a large area,
situations,can be can be useful for individuals YES* Effective in some situations, YES*
Hand pulling/digging YES part of an IPM YES* to maintain open water in can be part of an IPM solution.
solution. small areas.
Not practical for a large area,
Diver hand pulling YES Not relevant no can be useful for individualsYES* Not relevant no
to maintain open water in
small areas.
Raking YES Not relevant no Not relevant no Not relevant no
Area of infestation Not practical for a large Not practical for a large area,can
Bottom barriers too large Not relevant no area,can be useful for no* be useful for individuals. no*
individuals.
Water level drawdown Not possible Not relevant no Not relevant no Not relevant no
When cut at the base
at flower drop,will Effective for short term Repeated cutting over several years
Cutting YES stop seed production. YES* YES* YES
control of small areas,must may be effective. Cutting *
�
Will not eradicate. be done frequently. Will flowering plants will stop seed
Can be part of an not eradicate. dispersal.
Can'be done Effective for short-term
Mechanical Weed around docks,logs Not relevant no control of large infestations. Ill) Not relevant no
Cutters and other in-water Expensive.Must be done
obstructions. frequently.
Difficult around
Rotovators docks,logs,and Not relevant no Will fragment rhizomes and
other in-water may spread infestation. Not relevant no
obstructions.
Diver dredging YES Not relevant no Not practical for a large area Ilk, Not relevant
Difficult around in- Can be effective.Causes
water obstructions, severe short-term water
Sediment dredge causes water quality Not relevant no quality disturbance. no Not relevant nes
issues and fish Requires extensive permits.
habitat degradation. Very expensive.
Sediment agitation Useful around individual
(weed rollers) YES Not relevant no docks,but not relevant for YES Not relevant no
larger infestation control.
*Starred methods can be employed by individual property omiers for small-scale temporary control
Table 11 -.Sinnntarl'u/'A/arragemer►t.llterrratin,es—page 2.
SpencerCompatible
Broad control with
Method category Specific Method Lake water purple loosestrife consideration waterlily consideration yellow-flag iris consideration
body
characteristics
Galerucella beetles for scattered populations..Not effective on
purple loosestrife 110 Not relevant no Not relevant to this species no
Biological Control
LMethods
Availability more
limited than Galerucella
beetles.Not currently
Other biocontrol agents known on site.Would
for purple loosestrife: YES take several years for 110
seed and root feeding populations to build up Not rcic�ant no Not relevant no
weevils to controlling levels.
Needs to be combined
with manual control of
seeds
Not desirable for purple Aquatic formulations can be
loosestrife control;it is very effective when applied
in Aquatic Aquatic formulations can be very
non-selective and by a skilled contractor.Can
Glyphosate formulations no YES effective when applied by a skilled YES
are compatible monocots(cattails, result in dead,floating root contractor.
grasses,and sedges) mats that may need to be
may be damaged dealt with.
Not desirable for purple
Aquatic loosestrife control;it is
q on-selective and Aquatic formulations can be very
n
Imazapyr formulations non-cele (cattails, 10 Not recommended no effective when applied by a skilled YES
are compatible grasses,and sedges)may contractor.
be damaged
Aquatic Very effective,if
properly applied. Not recommended
Triclopyr formulations Selective:won't harm YES 10 Not relevant no
are compatible monocots(cattails,
grasses,and sedges)
*Starred methods can be employed by individual property owners for small-scale temporary control
Integrated Pest Management
The preferred approach for weed control is Integrated Pest Management (IPM). IPM involves selecting
from a range of possible control methods to match the management requirements of each specific site.The
goal is to maximize effective control and to minimize negative environmental,economic and social impacts.
IPM uses a multifaceted and adaptive approach.Control methods are selected that reflect the available time,
funding,and labor of the participants,the land use goals,and the values of the community and landowners.
Management of noxious weed problems will require dedication over a number of years, and should allow
for flexibility in method as appropriate.
Purple loosestrife(Lythrum salicaria)
For more information on the following purple loosestrife control methods reference Appendix B—BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Purple Loosestrife and Appendix C—Control Method Options.
Hand-Pulling or Cutting(only suitable for small areas or used in combination with other methods)
Hand pulling or digging of purple loosestrife plants is possible in areas where plants are growing out of soft
substrate and the root mass of the plants are reachable.The entire root mass must be removed,bagged,and
disposed of. Plants that are growing in rock or riprap, in amongst large downed wood, or amongst woody
vegetation may not be able to be completely removed using this method. Hand pulling is feasible in the
small scale,and would be appropriate for the limited distribution of this plant at Spencer Lake.
Cutting plants at the base when in flower may prevent seeding, but cut plants may continue to produce
flowers. Sites should be consistently and regularly monitored until frost to cut and remove any subsequent
flowers. Cutting will not kill the plants, and they will need to be controlled every year. Care must also be
taken to properly dispose of root and stem fragments to prevent the growing of new plants.Cut plant parts
must not be left on site, because root and stem fragments can root and form new plants. Using cutting to
control purple loosestrife may work at Spencer Lake only if it is part of an IPM solution that incorporates
several control tactics such as hand pulling,bio controls,weed mats, and selective herbicide use.
Hand pulling or cutting to control purple loosestrife may work at Spencer Lake if it is part of an IPM
solution that incorporates other control tactics such as long-term persistent cutting,weed mats,bio controls,
and selective herbicide use.
Bottom Barriers/Weed Mats(only suitable for small areas)
The use of thick cardboard or plastic,staked down,and covered by six inches of mulch to cover closely cut
purple loosestrife plants can prevent seed spread but will not eradicate the plant. Weed mats are an option
where the terrain is flat, and not interrupted by logs, other vegetation, or rock. Weed mats need to be
checked often because they can become damaged and will need to be repaired or re- installed.Using weed
mats to control purple loosestrife may work at Spencer Lake only if it is part of an IPM solution that
incorporates several control tactics such as hand pulling, bio controls, long-term persistent cutting, and
selective herbicide use.
AquaticSpencer Lake Integrated
Biological Control(used in combination with other methods)
Purple loosestrife population density and the number of flowering plants can be reduced, but there will
always be some plants remaining when using biological control agents. Typically, biocontrol releases
should be made only at sites where loosestrife infestations are large and immediate eradication of the weed
is not the primary objective. Biological control can take up to six years to have a significant impact on the
infestation. Currently,purple loosestrife is known from only a few locations around the lake.
Release of the biocontrol agent,Galerucella spp,is unknown at Spencer Lake.(Jennifer Andreas,Integrated
Weed Control Project Director, Washington State University Extensions, personal communication, 2018)
The beetles, if present,need to be combined with the removal and bagging of plant flowers. By its nature,
biocontrol methods may result in reduced infestation of the target plant but not result in eradication.
Chemical Control
For large infestations of purple loosestrife, herbicide use may be necessary for effective control. The
application of herbicide to the emergent purple loosestrife is best conducted by manual spot applications.
Control of purple loosestrife is most effectively achieved using a selective herbicide such as an aquatic
approved version of triclopyr. Triclopyr-TEA in particular has been very effective in killing purple
loosestrife plants and has the lowest human and ecological side effects. Selective herbicides also have the
advantage of not harming monocot plants(cattails, grasses, sedges,etc).These aquatic herbicides must be
used with a Washington State Department of Ecology approved aquatic surfactant.
An experienced and licensed aquatic herbicide applicator can selectively target individual emergent weed
species and limit damage to other species. This is especially true when infestations are small so that large
areas with a diverse plant distribution don't have to be treated.Since the emergent noxious weed infestations
at Spencer Lake are small and still confined to the shoreline,it should be relatively simple for the applicator
to avoid off target damage and preserve the native plant community.
Treatment of purple loosestrife will likely have to occur twice during the growing season in order to ensure
that no plants were missed as the vegetative part of the plants can be hard to spot among other vegetation.
In sensitive areas, or areas prone to erosion, careful spot-spraying will create fewer disturbances than
manual or mechanical control. For several years following treatment, areas should be monitored for new
plants germinating from the seed bank.In some cases several years of treatment may be necessary.
IntegratedSpencer Lake Aquatic
Fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata)
For more information on the following fragrant waterlily control methods reference Appendix B—BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Fragrant Waterlily and Appendix C—Control Method Options.
Hand Pulling or cutting(only suitable for small areas)
Hand pulling and cutting can be used to temporarily control fragrant waterlily in a small area, such as
around a dock, if repeated on a regular basis. Hand pulling will likely not eradicate the plant from a water
body and is impractical for large infestations.While cuttings won't increase the spread of fragrant waterlily,
all pulled or cut plants and plant parts must be removed from the water, and an HPA pamphlet permit is
required. Several years of monitoring are needed for signs of plants growing from root fragments and from
the seed bank. Fragrant waterlily can be composted on dry land or placed in yard waste bins.
Bottom Barriers(only suitable for small areas)
An opaque bottom barrier can be used to suppress waterlily growth in small areas such as a boat launch or
around a swimming area. Barriers need to be regularly cleaned and maintained because plants will root in
the sediment that accumulates on top of them. Bottom barriers are not practical for large-scale infestations
such as the whole of Spencer Lake.
Sediment Agitation(Weed Rolling)(only suitable for small areas)
Weed rolling is a suitable way to temporarily control,not eradicate,waterlily in a small area such as at the
end of a dock but is not suitable for any larger area. Weed rolling involves the use of a commercially
available, low voltage power unit that drives an up-to-30-foot long roller set on the lake bottom through an
adjustable arc of up to 270 degrees. A reversing action built into the drive automatically brings the roller
back to complete the cycle.Fins on the rollers detach some plants from the soil,while the rollers force other
plants flat, gradually inhibiting growth. Detached plants should be removed from the water with a rake or
gathered by hand. Once plants are cleared from the area,the device can be used as little as once per week
or less to keep plants from re-colonizing the area. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
pamphlet, 2015 Aquatic Plants and Fish limits the area of removal to "no more than two thousand five
hundred square feet". Weed rolling is not applicable to a lake wide infestation.
Chemical Control
Chemical methods used to control fragrant waterlily can be very effective and are appropriate for whole
lake treatments.The most effective herbicide and environmentally low toxic herbicide suitable is an aquatic
version of glyphosate (see Appendix D for herbicide label). This aquatic herbicide must be used with a
Washington State Department of Ecology approved aquatic surfactant.Glyphosate is applied directly to the
floating leaves through precise foliar spraying by an approved aquatic herbicide contractor. Foliar
application of the herbicide reduces the chance that the herbicide will come in contact with and affect non-
target plants. Glyphosate also has the advantage of working through translocation whereby the chemical
gets moved through the plant and kills the plant to the roots.
Due to the extensive infestation of fragrant waterlily, treatment will need to occur multiple times over a
four to six year period. It is recommended that treatments identify satellite populations and that large
waterlily beds be treated gradually over the course of several years. This practice should minimize the
development of floating mats since there are live rhizomes that should hold the mass down at the bottom to
decay. If mats do float up, they are smaller and more easily managed. This could be accomplished by
treating a strip around the edge each year, gradually working toward the center or making strips through
the bed that gradually join over a few years (Parsons communication 2018). The control effectiveness of
fragrant waterlily is easy to measure through visual surveys due to the floating leaves.
A drawback of using herbicide to control waterlily is the potential for"uplifting"of mats of decomposing
waterlily roots that can form floating islands in the lake after the plants have died. The infestation of
waterlily at Spencer Lake consists of numerous newly formed, small, circular patches and several areas
with large monospecific stands.The smaller areas may not generate floating sediment mats because of their
size, but the larger areas would likely generate the floating mats. Natural decay of fragrant waterlily can
also often create these floating mats. Removal of the mats from the lake is possible using manual or
mechanical means(generally involving towing the mats to a take-out point and cutting them up with hand
tools or larger machinery).At minimum,a Hydraulic Project Approval(HPA)permit from the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife will be required to remove the mats. Other permits may also be required.
Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus)
For more information on the following yellow flag iris control methods reference Appendix B—BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Yellow-flag iris and Appendix C—Control Method Options.
Hand Pulling or cutting(only suitable for small areas)
Hand pulling of yellow flag iris is a feasible option for small to moderate infestations.In damp or wet soils
seedlings can be easily removed while mature plants may require the use of heavier tools such as pick axes,
pulaskis, or saws. When removing plants, care must be taken to remove all rhizomes as any rhizomes left
have the potential to sprout new plants. Manually cleared areas should be monitored for new growth.
Emergent plants that are continually inundated can be cut below the waterline for effective control. It is
recommended to cut them before flowering. Rhizomes can continue to grow up to 3 months without water
so disposal of plant material must be done in dry locations.
When removing yellow flag iris manually, care should be taken to protect the skin, as resins in the leaves
and rhizomes can cause irritation.
Bottom Barriers(only suitable for small areas)
Small patches of yellow flag iris can be controlled using a heavy tarp weighted at the edges.The tarp must
extend beyond the edges of the infestation and needs to be checked periodically to insure plants aren't
growing up around the tarp. Materials such as landscape fabric and heavy plastic may not be study enough
to effectively control the plants. Coverings must be left in place for up to several years.
AquaticSpencer Lake Integrated
Chemical Control
Chemical control for yellow flag iris can be an effective alternative and may be the only option for large
infestations. Yellow flag iris is a monocot and only non-selective herbicides are effective. These non-
selective herbicides can injure or kill any plants they come in contact with and special care must be used to
minimize off target damage when using these chemicals. Glyphosate is the most commonly used herbicide
for yellow flag iris control. It should be applied in late spring or summer and needs to be applied directly
to foliage or fresh cut leaves and stems. Yellow flag iris may require higher concentrations so the label
directions must be strictly followed. Imazapyr is also an effective treatment and may be applied in
conjunction with glyphosate for good control.Imazapyr has been shown to have some residual soil activity
so care must be taken to not spray the root zones of desirable plants or replant for several months. Both
herbicides are most effective in combination with a surfactant such as Competitor(selected surfactant must
be approved for aquatic use).Multiple treatments may be required for dense infestations and retreatment is
generally recommended.All aquatic herbicides must be applied by a licensed pesticide applicator and label
directions must be followed.
AquaticSpencer Lake Integrated
Section 6 — Integrated Treatment Plan
Spencer Lake and its associated shoreline contain five listed noxious weed species whose presence has
diminished the quality of Spencer Lake as an ecological and human resource. The goal of the treatment
plan is to halt and reverse the degradation caused by the targeted plants.The two wide spread target species
fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea odorata) and yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) each require different
treatment and monitoring techniques.Control efforts are underway for the Bohemian knotweed(Polygonum
X bohemicum) and property owners with purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) are being encouraged to
control this species.The infestation of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae) is too widespread and not
considered for control in this IAVMP(see: SECTION 5 -MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES).Although
the four species considered for control at Spencer Lake are highly aggressive and difficult to control and
eventually eradicate,the goal of control and reduced levels of infestation are reasonable for all of them and
may be achieved within the 5 year timeframe of the project. All methods suggested combine to form an
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategy that is a balance between target weed eradication and
environmental protection.
Permits
Most aquatic weed control activities require permits. Many manual and mechanical control methods are
covered under the "Aquatic Plants and Fish" pamphlet, a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.This HPA pamphlet permit applies only to use by individual
land owners,not the whole lake, and applies to some types of aquatic weed or plant control.Depending on
the method you select to control aquatic noxious weeds or beneficial plants, an individual HPA may be
required. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit must be obtained before
aquatic herbicides can be applied to natural water bodies in Washington State,including Spencer Lake.The
Washington Department of Agriculture holds an NPDES permit for the management of noxious weeds
growing in wet areas such as lake shores, freshwater wetlands, river banks, and estuaries. Licensed
applicators can obtain coverage under this permit free of charge. For herbicide treatment of in-lake plants
(floating or submersed weeds) the project will need an Aquatic Plant and Algae Management NPDES
permit from the Washington Department of Ecology. This permit must be held by the herbicide applicator
or the legal entity hiring the applicator,it must be applied for at least sixty days before beginning the aquatic
plant control activities that will result in a discharge to waters of the state.The herbicide application,and a
permit fee applies. Permit fees are set by rule in WAC 173-224-040. In 2018 the permit fee is $585.00
increasing to$618.00 in FY 2019.
The schedule laid out below prioritizes fragrant waterlily control and is tentative. It will be reassessed
each year depending on the density and distribution of fragrant waterlily found during surveys. Large or
dense fragrant waterlily patches will generally be treated using herbicide,but when surveys indicate sparse
coverage,diver pulling or other manual methods may be employed.
Fragrant waterlily (Nyrnphaea odorata)
Control(years 1-5)
A pre-treatment survey of fragrant waterlily is not necessary because the distribution of the plants was
well documented during surveys in 2016. The expected abundance and distribution can be based on
this survey and aerial interpretation.
Initial control of fragrant waterlily will be accomplished using a broad-spectrum aquatic herbicide
formulation of glyphosate(see Appendix D for herbicide label). Suitable formulations include, but
are not limited to: Rodeo®, Roundup Custom®,and AquaNeat®. The herbicide will be applied by
a licensed aquatic herbicide contractor,on a calm,dry day to ensure good herbicide contact with the
plants. Treatment of waterlily will occur in mid-summer(July)when the plant is storing energy in
the rhizomes for the next growing season.
Treatment will be accomplished over a 5-year period. Small satellite infestations will be prioritized for
treatment and large waterlily beds will be treated gradually over the 5-year period. Methods may
include,treating a strip around the edge of larger infestations, gradually working toward the center, or
making strips through the bed that gradually join over the multi-year period.Adopting this methodology
may reduce the potential for mud mat formation.
Follow-up control (years 5+)
Treatment beyond the 5 year project will consist of spot herbicide treatments in July/August.After several
years of herbicide treatments,the populations of lily will become smaller and cutting and/or hand pulling
may become a viable option for remnant infestations.
Floating mud mats
When waterlilies die, often their root masses will swell with gas and rise to the surface,bringing up all
the muck from the bottom of the lake around them.This is a natural process and will occur at the end of
the life cycle of a water lily patch whether it died naturally or was controlled using herbicide.
Occasionally these mats will sink again on their own, but just as often they will persist and become
floating islands of vegetation. Many lake communities choose to leave them in place, but they can also
be removed mechanically if desired.This plan provides for the removal of any mud mats that may form
during the second and fifth years.If they do form as a result of the waterlily control,the community can
assess their effect on the lake and decide at that point whether to remove them or leave them in place.
Monitoring
Surveys after the initial application are essential to determining the success of the effort, and will be
used to determine what measures need to be implemented to complete the waterlily control in successive
years.
Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus), Bohemian knotweed (Polygonum X
bohemicum) and Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)
Control(years 1-5)
Control strategies are underway by the Mason County Noxious Weed Control program and engaged
property owners for these three noxious weeds. The success of those efforts will be monitored during
the 5 year duration of the proposed fragrant waterlily treatment.
Section 7 — Plan Elements, Costs and Funding
Implementation of the Spencer Lake IAVMP is scheduled to span five years, at a total estimated cost of
$48,000.00. Table 12 outlines the tasks and estimated costs of implementation on an annual basis. The
budget is broken into five one-year segments. This partitioning will allow for more definitive budget
strategizing in the short term and adaptive management in the later years of the project.It is anticipated that
the majority of the costs would accrue in the first three years,the period of most aggressive treatment. As
the project progresses, more funds are dedicated at detecting and controlling reintroduction of aquatic
noxious weed species.
Costs of the Plan
Many of the planning costs have already been incurred through the creation of this IAVMP.Approximately
75%of the cost of surveys,researching, planning for and writing this management plan came in the form
of a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology's Aquatic Weeds Management Fund. The
remaining costs came in form of salary match from Mason County Noxious Weed Control staff and
volunteer participation by Spencer Lake residents on the Steering Committee. Total planning costs are
estimated to be$32,000.00.
Capital Costs
There are no capital costs associated with this IAVMP. It is not anticipated that any equipment will
need to be purchased.
Operational and Maintenance Costs
The majority of expenses associated with implementation of the Spencer Lake IAVMP are operational
and maintenance costs. These costs include hiring of herbicide contractors,mapping and surveying,
follow-up weed removal,community outreach,and project administration and management(Table 12).
Sources of Funding
Funding for implementation of the Spencer Lake IAVMP will come from a combination of sources that
may change as the project progresses. Potential sources of funding such as grants, formation of a Lake
Management District,and self-funding were all considered by the Steering Committee.The grant funding
option depends on a blend of contributed funds, matching cash funds, and matching in-kind volunteer
hours.
Grants
The Washington State Department of Ecology's Aquatic Weeds Management Fund(AWMF)is a
potential source of funding for IAVMP Implementation. The Spencer Lake IAVMP has been
developed to be consistent with all AWMF guidelines and requirements.The plan has overwhelming
support from the Spencer Lake community and Mason County Noxious Weed Control is willing to
work with the Implementation Committee on the application process.
Matching Funds
Awarding of the Ecology's AWMF grant requires matching funds.Requiring matching funds
distributes the responsibility of funding between the state agency(Ecology)and the local stakeholders
(Spencer Lake residents and the Mason County Noxious Weed Control Program).Both cash match
and in-kind match are proposed to be used to fulfill this requirement. Cash matching funds are
proposed to come from staff hours of Mason County Noxious Weed Control Program employees. The
value of Mason County staff hours includes the total hourly cost of that employee's time. These total
costs include: hourly rate,benefits,paid time off,and overhead. In-kind matching funds are proposed
to come from volunteer labor and services/supplies provided by Spencer Lake residents.
Table 12—Proposed Spencer Lake
IAVMP Implementation Budget
Task Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TOTAL Year 4 Year 5 TOTAL TOTAL
Years 1-3 Years 4-5 (5 years)
Fragrant waterlily Management:
Permitting,Public Notification, ,000.00 $6,000.0 $4,000.00 $18,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $8,000.00 $26,000.00
Herbicide Application
Waterlily mat cleanup 0 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $6,000.00
Contractor management $200.00 IW$200.00 $200.00 $600.00 $200.00 $200.00 $400.00 $1,000.00
Weed surveys 0 $1,000.00 $700.00 $1,700.00 $500.00 $400.00 $900.00 $2,600.00
Education and Outreach $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $600.00 $100.00 $100.00 $200.00 $800.00
(volunteers)
w o Education and Outreach $200.00 $100.00 $100.00 $400.00 $100.00 $100.00 $200.00 $600.00
(Mason County staff)
Project Administration and Report Writing $3,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $7,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $11,000.00
sub totals $11,600.00 $11,500.00 $9,200.00 $32,300.00 $7,900.00 $7,800.00 $15,700.00 $48,000.00
=hired
contractor
=Mason
County staff
=Spencer Lake
community
volunteers
Section 8 — Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation
Implementation
The implementation of the plan will follow the process outlined below:
Convene a project Implementation Committee.This group will most likely consist of members from the
Spencer Lake IAVMP steering committee, other interested community members and Mason County
Noxious Weed Control,acting in an advisory capacity.They will direct the implementation of the IAVMP.
Identify Funding Sources. The most likely source for funds to support the implementation of this plan is
the Washington State Department of Ecology Aquatic Weed Management Fund Grant (AWMF). Other
local and regional grants may be pursued as well.The AWMF grant requires matching funds and time from
the local agency and community and could fund the entirety of the plan. This type of grant requires that the
local community works in conjunction with a local government agency (Mason County Noxious Weed
Control).
Issue a Request for Proposal for noxious weed control work.
Select an Herbicide Contractor.An approved herbicide contractor will be selected by the Implementation
Committee for treatment of the weeds outlined in this plan. Contract proposals will include costs for the
permit application and annual invoices, herbicide applications, and notification and postings required by
the permits.
Public Education and Communication. The residents of Spencer Lake will be notified about any
upcoming herbicide applications as determined by the requirements in the NPDES permit, the results of
yearly monitoring efforts,and any major changes made to the plan via the Implementation Committee,the
Spencer Lake Facebook page or by the United States Postal Service. Much of this communication will
be carried out by active members of the community who are involved in the Implementation Committee.
The Committee will take into account public feedback when making decisions about the plan.
Application of Herbicide. Application of the herbicide will be completed as prescribed in this IAVMP
unless consultation with the community, Ecology and/or the applicator leads to defensible changes in the
plan and it is approved by the Implementation Committee and the Department of Ecology.
Apply follow-up treatment if necessary.
Long Term Monitoring and Maintenance. This will be done by Mason County Noxious Weed Control
or professional contractors. Funding and timing of continued monitoring and maintenance will be
determined by the Mason County Noxious Weed Control and Spencer Lake residents. Surveys will be done
at the same time each year in order to get a comparable measure of the plants distribution and density.
Members of the Spencer Lake community will evaluate the management of aquatic weeds and the
effectiveness of plant management strategies. Residents will be encouraged to combine efforts, including
manually removing aquatic plants.
Manual follow-up.Each year in late summer, a few weeks after herbicide treatment occurs, community
members will manually remove the reproductive parts of plants that were not treated. This will include
removal of purple loosestrife flower heads, removal of any yellow flag iris seedpods, and gathering of
any nuisance dead waterlily mats.
Monitoring
Yearly surveying and monitoring of emergent, floating and submerged aquatic noxious weeds will be
conducted at Spencer Lake. These surveys will evaluate the effectiveness of treatment strategies, help
guide noxious weed control efforts and provide a year-to-year baseline for progress towards weed
eradication. The surveys will be done by professional contractors, Mason County staff, or possibly
volunteers, using small boats. During the surveys, mapping of the aquatic noxious weeds will be done
using aerial photos and/or GPS data loggers. Collected data will then be transferred to GIS.
Change in the aquatic plant community will likely occur in response to any treatment. It is critical that
frequent and thorough surveys be conducted to document these changes and to detect any new infestation
of invasive plants.
Subject to funding availability,a GIS survey and mapping effort may be performed as a regular component
of the long-term management of noxious weeds at Spencer Lake. This survey effort will identify all plant
species present in the lake and their relative abundance. The survey map will include past management
areas for comparison to plant densities observed in previous surveys and assessment of management
effectiveness. The plant surveys will also help provide guidance for aquatic plant management in future
years.
Evaluation
The effectiveness of the plan will be evaluated yearly by Mason County staff and members of the
Implementation Committee. Adaptive changes will be made as needed. Year-to-year comparisons of the
monitoring data will be used to evaluate trends in specific target species abundance and distribution. The
results of these comparisons will guide control efforts and may result in a change in future control
strategies. Success of the plan will be measured by the reduction of the target noxious weed species.
Spencer Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 50
Long Term Sustainability
The long term sustainability of this project is dependent on the commitment of the property owners and
residents of the Spencer Lake community to undertake successive weed control and the ability of the staff
of the Mason County Noxious Weed Control Program to communicate weed control techniques,strategies
and priorities. In the absence of the Washington State Department of Ecology's AWMF funding, options
will be re-evaluated by the Steering Committee.
Through their participation in the development of this IAVMP, the Spencer Lake Community has
demonstrated their desire to support this plan for the long term. Mason County Noxious Weed Control
staff will be able to provide specific weed control strategies for situations as they arise in the future.Ideas
introduced by community members for long term maintenance of the project's control efforts include:
■ members of the Community acquiring and using an aquatic herbicide applicators license
■ formation of a Lake Management District
■ community weed pulling work days
■ a new dedication by property owners to control noxious weeds on their property
References
DiTomaso,J.M.,and E.A.Healy. 2003. Aquatic and Riparian Weeds of the West. University of California
Agriculture and Natural Resources. Publication 3421
Ecology. 1994.A Citizen's Manual for Developing Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plans.First edition.
Washington State Department of Ecology,Water Quality Financial Assistance Program,Olympia,Washington.
January 1994.Available online at:
https://fortress.wa.g_ov/ecy/publications/publications/93093.Rdf
Ecology.2001.An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington's Freshwater Plants.Publication Number
01-10-032.Washington State Department of Ecology,Olympia,Washington.June.
Ecology.2015.Washington State Lakes Environmental Data. Washington State Department of Ecology,Olympia,
Washington.Available online at:
hgps:Hfortress wa go`y/coastalatlas/tools/LakeDetail.asRx?ReachCode=17110019001181
Extension Toxicology Network(EXTOXNET). 1994.Pesticide Information Profiles:Glyphosate. Oregon State
University.Available online at:hU://pmen cce cornell edg/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-
ext.html
Extension Toxicology Network(EXTOXNET). 1993.Pesticide Information Profiles:Triclopyr.Oregon State
University.Available online at: h=://ymep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/pyrethrins-ziram/triclopyr-ext.html
Herrera Environmental Consultants,Inc.HICKS LAKE INTEGRATED AQUATIC VEGETATION
MANAGEMENT PLAN—2017.Online at:
h!Ws://www.ci.lacey.wa.us/Portals/0/docs/community development/planningand zoning/projects under review/H
icks%20Lake%20IA V MP%20Final%20Draft.pdf
King County.2011.Lake Desire Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan.Department of Natural Resources
and Parks,Water and Land Resources Division,Noxious Weed Control Program. Seattle,Washington. Online at:
hos:Hfortress wa gov/ecy/gisresources/lakes/iavmp reports/17110012000438 Desire.pdf
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks,Lake Sawyer Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management
Plan.2015.Online at:
h!Ws:Hfortress wa og v/ec�/gisresources/lakes/iavmp reports/17110013000395 Sawyer 2015 pdf
King County Noxious Weed Control program.2009 Best Management Practices Yellow Flag iris. Available at:
hgp•//your kin cg oun ov/dnrp/library/water-and-land/weedsBMPs/yellow-flag-iris-control pdf
King County Noxious Weed Control program. 2010 Best Management Practices Fragrant Waterlily.
Available at: h!Ws:Hyour kin cg ouniy_gov/d=/library/water-and-land/weedsBMPs/fragrant-water-lily-controI.12df
King County Noxious Weed Control program.2011 Best Management Practices Purple Loosestrife.
Available at: https•//your kin cg ounty.gov/dnrg/library/water-and-land/weedsBMPs/p=le loosestrife-control pdf
King County Noxious Weed Control program.2015 Best Management Practices Invasive Knotweeds.
Available at: https://, o�ngcoun!y. og v/dnrp/librm /water-and-land/weedsBMPs/Knotweed-Control.pdf
IntegratedSpencer Lake Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan
Mason County.2018.Mason County Noxious Weed List 2018.Mason County Noxious Weed Control Board.
Online at:haps://s3.wp.wsu.edu/unloads/sites/2064/2018/02/2018 Mason-Noxious-Weed-List revised FINAL pdf
Mason County.2012.MASON COUNTY FINAL DRAFT SHORELINE INVENTORY AND
CHARACTERIZATION REPORT.Online at:
haps://www.co.mason.wa.us/community-services/smR-update/inventory-characterization-report-102012.Rdf
United States Department of Agriculture(USDA). 2012. Web Soil Survey;National Cooperative Soil Survey.
Natural Resources Conservation Service,United States Department of Agriculture. Available at:
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/.Accessed 2018.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Aquatic Plant Management. No longer available on-line
Washington State Department of Ecology.Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit.2016 Online at.
hos:Hecology.wa.gov/DOE/files/e8/e8ce4f84-6df5-4209-8199-9b24005e655b.Rdf
Washington State Department of Ecology.The Washington Lake Book. Pub.#97-10 Available at:
b=s://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/9710.Rd
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.2015.Aquatic Plants and Fish.Online at:
hiips:Hwdfw.wa. og_y/publications/01728/wdfw01728.pdf
(This publication may serve as the Hydraulic Project Approval(HPA)for some types of aquatic weed or plant
control.)
Washington Natural Heritage Program.2018 Washington Vascular Plant Species of Special Concern,Natural
Heritage Report 2018-04.haps://www.dnr.wa.goy/publications/amp nh vascular ets.pdPhwibud
Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board.2018 Washington State Noxious Weed List.Accessed online at:
hgps://www.nwcb.wa.goy/Rdfs/2018-State-Weed-List Common Name-8.5xll.12df.
Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. 1997. Written Findings of the Washington State Noxious Weed
Control Board: Lythrum salicaria. Available at: hgps://www.nwcb.wa.gov/images/weedsd,,Zhrum-salicaria-
1997.pd
Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. 2004. Written Findings of the Washington State Noxious Weed
Control Board: Polygonum Bohemicum(Polygonum cuspidatum X sachalinense). Available at:
hns://www.nwcb.wa. ov�ges/weeds/Polygonum-bohimicum-2004.12df
Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. 2012. Written Findings of the Washington State Noxious Weed
Control Board: Iris pseudacorus. Available at: h!Ws://www.nwcb.wa.izov/imag-es/weeds/Yellow flag_iris.pdf
Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. 2013. Written Findings of the Washington State Noxious Weed
Control Board:Nymphaea odorata. Available at:
hUs://www.nwcb.wa.p-ov/images/weeds/WF_Nymphaea odorata June 2013.pdf
Whatcom County Noxious Weed Control Board.Swollen Bladderwort, Utricularia inflate.
httns://www.nwcb.wa.gov/images/weeds/SwollenBladderwort Whatcom.ndf
Spencer Lake Estimated Budget
EST
TOTALS EACH YR Total YR
TASK YR 0 YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YEARS 6-10 5-10 10 YR EST Avg/YR
Fragrant waterlily Management:Permitting,
Public Notification,Herbicide Application 9,200 6900 4600 4600 4600 29900 4400 22000 51,900
Waterlily mat cleanup 5000 5000 5000 3000 3000 21000 2000 10000 31,000
Contractor Management 200 200 200 200 200 1000 200 1000 2,000
Weed Surveys including lobela first 3 yrs) 2500 3550 3550 525 525 10650 525 2625 13,275
Education and Outreach(volunteers) 200 200 200 100 100 800 100 500 1,300
Education and Outreach(Mason County
Staff) 200 100 100 100 100 600 100 Soo 1,100
Project Administration and Report Writing
Added$1000/yr for LIVID reporting 4000 30001 30001 3000 3000 16000 1 30001 15000 31,000
**Lake Management District Fees(Paid by
Prop.Owners Upfront) 2500
Subtotals 2500 21300 18950 16650 11525 11525 79950 10325 51625 131575 13158
Total assessed value of Spencer Lake
Property Owners for 2019 61,665,260 61,665,260
Annual Revenue at 23%per 1000 assessed value 23%rate 14183
Adjustments to original budget in Lake
IAVMP:
Fragrant waterlilly management Increased by 15%for potential price increase by 2020 implementation.Original price est.received in early 2018.
Waterlily mat cleanup increased as information from other LIVID with this issue have incurred larger cost than the original IAVMP budget estimated. Cost should decrease years 5-10.
Weed survey cost for lobelia increased by$500 from estimated contractor proposal of$2000 for potential increase by yr 2020 and extended through yr 3 for contingency in the event
Ecology requires more than 2 surveys.
Balance of weed surveys increased by 5%for potential price increase by year 2020.
Lake management fee of$2500 is NOT incuded in tax rate as that must be paid upfront.
PLEASE NOTE: This budget reflects the current total assessed value based on actual 2019 data provided by the Assessors Office.
February 15, 2019
t �VED
Mason County Board of Commissioners E.O. 2-0 2019 ,
Randy Neatherlin
a
Kevin Shutty Al 1gon County r
Sharon Trask COtr Miasioners
411 N 5th St
Shelton, WA 98584
RE: Petition to Form a Lake Management District for Spencer Lake in Mason County
Dear Commissioners:
Residents of Spencer Lake desire to form a Lake Management District(LIVID). The LIVID funds will
finance efforts for the protection and enhancement of Spencer Lake in terms of noxious aquatic weed
control,water quality and aesthetic value.
The purpose of the LIVID is to:
a. Manage noxious aquatic plants in Spencer Lake to meet recreational and aesthetic
needs.
b. Employ proven techniques based on environmental safety.
c. Conduct inspections to determine areas of invasive species infestation and
effectiveness of treatments.
d. Investigate and promote the best management practices for treatment of noxious
weeds.
e. Monitor for occurrence of as well as emergence of other lake plants that have been
identified by the State of Washington as noxious.
f. Maintain a volunteer advisory committee of lakefront owner representatives to direct
the efforts and funds of the LMD.
The boundary of the proposed LIVID is all property with lakefront access to Spencer Lake.We are
seeking a duration of 10 years beginning in 2020.
Background:
Spencer Lake residents brought concerns about the expansion of noxious weeds in the lake to
the Mason County Noxious Weed Control staff in 2014. A Grant from the Washington State
Department of Ecology was granted in 2016 to develop an Integrated Aquatic Vegetation
Management Plan (IAVMP)and is attached for your reference. The IAVMP will be a core
guidance document for future management of Spencer Lake.
With the completion of the Plan, research was done to identify methods to fund the stated
purpose. Many of the lakes in Mason and surrounding counties use either LMD's or
Homeowners Associations,and our constituents favored the formation of the LIVID as being
more appropriate for the scope of our goals. We followed closely the example and process from
Mason Lake.
Recommended Revenue
The recommended tax revenue is twenty-three (23) cents per thousand of tax evaluation. The
estimated budget used to calculate this revenue is attached for review. Please note that the
values used on the petition to gather signatures was based on an estimated 2019 total assessed
value (received from the Assessors'office) prior to the final 2019 values. ($13,996 vs.$14,183)
which is still within a valid range.
Property Owner Support
During the development of the IAVMP, a steering team of interested residents worked with
various stakeholders to gather information and communicate activities. In addition,two public
meetings were held. Please refer to the IAMVP for more detailed information.
Subsequently,a Petition was developed,and signatures gathered this winter. We are providing
signatures from property owners representing 56 parcels(from a total of 184 or 30%)and 67.4
acres (from a total of 243 or 28%),well in excess of the 20%required to bring this forth to the
Mason County Commissioners.
We would be pleased to provide any additional information you may require to move this
process forward to the next step.
Sincerely,
Spencer Lake Steering Committee
Doris Zacher,Co-chair
John Tolton, Co-chair