Post on 11-Mar-2020
Memorandum
To: Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) Board of Managers
From: Meg Rattei, Senior Biologist
Subject: VBWD June 2015 Point-Intercept Plant Surveys
Date: October 1, 2015
Project: 23/82-0405
c: John Hanson, Ray Marshall, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
This memorandum summarizes methods and results of the June 2015 point-intercept plant surveys at
Long Lake, Lake DeMontreville, Lake Olson, Lake Jane, Eagle Point Lake, Lake Elmo, Horseshoe Lake, Lake
Edith, McDonald Lake, and Sunfish Lake. All tables and figures follow the discussion.
Requested Manager Actions
1. Authorize the release of this memorandum to the following:
A. Maynard Kelsey of McDonald Lake
B. Brian Buchmayer of Friends of Long Lake and the VBWD Lake Citizen Advisory Committee
C. Justin Bloyer of the Lake Jane Association and council member, City of Lake Elmo
D. Roger Johnson of the Lake DeMontreville/Olson Association and the VBWD Citizen Advisory
Committee
E. Wendy Griffin of the Lake Elmo Association
F. Jeff Berg of the Lake Elmo Association and the VBWD Citizen Advisory Committee
G. Dale Dorschner of the Lake Elmo Association
H. Keegan Lund, Chip Welling, and any other interested staff of the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR).
2. Authorize the release of the eight reports submitted to Washington County to fulfill the VBWD
Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Grant contractual obligation to Keegan Lund, Chip Welling, and any
other interested MDNR staff.
3. Direct Barr to request a meeting with MDNR to discuss the results of the 2015 herbicide treatments
for Long Lake, Lake DeMontreville, Lake Olson, and Lake Jane and ask for suggestions moving
forward. The meeting could also include discussion of 2015 diver harvesting of Eurasian watermilfoil
(EWM) in Lake Elmo and MDNR suggestions for moving forward.
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2015 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 2
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Endangered Resource Services used a rake
(pictured above) to collect plants for the
plant surveys. Rake fullness is a measure
of plant density.
5. Initiate a VBWD grant program to fund 50% of the cost (up to a maximum total amount set by the
Managers) for herbicide treatments sponsored by lake associations to reduce aquatic invasive plants
such as EWM in VBWD lakes. A VBWD grant program would provide the financial assistance lake
associations need to manage aquatic invasive species (AIS), while reducing administrative costs. This
would make the program less expensive than procuring funds from other programs such as the
Washington County AIS grant program. In 2015, VBWD procured Washington County AIS grant funds
and used the funds to reimburse lake associations for about half of the cost of herbicide treatment to
manage EWM in VBWD lakes. The administrative costs required by the grant program exceeded the
amount of the grant award. These efforts included preparing a proposal, an interview, preparing a
contract, completing eight different reports, and providing presentations at two meetings. Initiating a
VBWD grant program would provide the same level of funding to lake associations, but at a lower
cost to the District.
6. Authorize technical support to lake associations that want to complete herbicide treatment to
manage EWM in 2016. Barr anticipates that support will be needed for Friends of Long Lake, Lake
DeMontreville/Olson Association, and the Lake Jane Association. Technical support would include:
Two point-intercept plant surveys, one in spring before treatment and one in June after
treatment. Both are permit requirements.
Permitting.
Treatment.
Reporting required by the MDNR treatment permit.
7. Authorize technical support to Friends of Long Lake to update the Long Lake Lake Vegetation
Management Plan (LVMP) prior to the 2016 herbicide treatment season. The Long Lake LVMP will
expire on April 15, 2016.
2014 Sample Methods
Matt Berg of Endangered Resource Services, LLC conducted point-
intercept plant surveys in 10 VBWD lakes from June 21 through
June 24, 2015. He located equally spaced preset points in the field
with GPS and took measurements at each point. His measurements
included the following:
1. Individual species present
2. Overall density of plants, as measured by rake method
3. Density of individual species, as measured by rake method
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2015 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 3
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
EWM was only observed at two locations in
Long Lake during 2015. Pictured above is
the single barely surviving EWM plant
collected in 19 feet of water.
4. Water depth
5. Dominant sediment type
Results
A discussion of survey results for the 10 individual lakes follows.
VBWD provided technical assistance for herbicide management of
EWM in Long Lake, Lake DeMontreville, Lake Olson, and Lake
Jane in 2015. A discussion of the results of these management
efforts is also included the following paragraphs.
Long Lake—Long Lake has been treated with herbicide almost
annually since 2011 to reduce the extent of EWM in the lake. In
2015, 5.5 acres of EWM were observed in the lake during the May
pre-treatment plant survey; all EWM observed in the lake was
treated with 2,4-D in May (Figures 1 and 2). The average 2,4-D
concentration measured in the lake 3 days after treatment was
lethal to EWM (Figure 3).
The Long Lake treatment goal of reducing EWM by at least half
was met. EWM area was reduced by 93 percent (Figures 4 and 5) and frequency was reduced by 91
percent between May and June of 2015 (Figure 6). In addition, EWM density was reduced (Figure 7). In
June 2010, prior to the start of herbicide treatment, EWM extent was 52 acres, which was 97 percent of
the plant growth area of the lake (Table 3). After treatment in 2015, EWM extent was 0.4 acres—0.73
percent of the plant growth area of the lake (Table 3). Since herbicide treatment began in 2011, the
frequency of EWM occurrence has been reduced from 92 percent to 1 percent (Figure 6).
No significant changes in the frequency of individual native plant species were observed in Long Lake
between May and June of 2015, verifying that the herbicide treatment had no impact on the frequency of
individual native plant species1. Common waterweed significantly increased in frequency between June of
2014 and June of 2015, a positive change for the Long Lake plant community (Figure 8).
Reduction of EWM in Long Lake during 2015 improved the overall frequency of native plants in the lake,
but had no impact on the number of native species. The frequency of occurrence of natives increased
1 Margaret Rattei, letter to June Mathiowetz regarding VBWD AIS Grant Project: Deliverable 7 – Report on
Native Plant and Eurasian Watermilfoil (EWM) Presence in Post-Treatment Plant Surveys, 8 Sept. 2015. TS.
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2015 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 4
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Reduction of EWM in 2015 improved the
frequency of native plants, including Chara,
pictured above. Chara increased in frequency
from 20 to 26 percent of sample locations.
from 33 percent in June of 2014 to 47 percent in June of 2015, while the number of native species (10)
remained the same (Table 8).
Since treatment began in 2011, the quality of the Long Lake plant
community, measured by the Floristic Quality Index (FQI), has
improved. FQI considers both the quality of the individual native
species in the lake and the number of species collected on the
rake. The 2010 pre-treatment FQI value was 14.1, compared with
the 2011 post-treatment value of 15.7 (Figure 9). All FQI values
since 2011 have been greater than 14.1, including the 2015 value
of 16.8 (Figure 9). This indicates that EWM reduction has improved
the quality of the lake’s plant community.
The diversity of the Long Lake plant community approximately
doubled after the first herbicide treatment in 2011. This is
reflected by Simpson Diversity Index values, which indicate the
probability that two individual plants randomly selected from a
lake will belong to different species. The 2010 pre-treatment
Simpson Diversity Index value was 0.4, compared with values of
0.77 to 0.85 from 2011 through 2015 (Figure 10). This indicates that reduction of EWM has improved plant
diversity; i.e., the probability that two individual plants randomly selected from Long Lake will belong to
different species has increased from 40 percent to 77–85 percent.
Curly-leaf pondweed (CLP), an invasive species, is present in Long Lake but not problematic. In 2015, CLP
was found in 6 percent of the sample locations in the plant growth area of the lake, the same frequency
observed in 2010 (Figure 11).
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2015 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 5
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
EWM was severely knocked back, but a
few plants, especially along deep-water
margins, continue to survive. Pictured
above is a deep water EWM fragment
found mid-lake in the central basin of
Lake DeMontreville.
Lake DeMontreville—In 2015, the MDNR did not permit herbicide treatment of all EWM-infested areas
within Lake DeMontreville. The total permitted treatment area of 14 acres was only 24 percent of the 58
acres infested (Figures 2 and 12). Because the treatment area was small and shallow, the quantity of
herbicide allowed for the treatment was insufficient to attain a
lethal, lake-wide 2,4-D concentration and exposure time. Results of
research conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources indicate the average 2,4-D concentration of 0.185 parts
per million (ppm) measured 3 days after treatment (Figure 3) would
result in seasonal control of EWM if sustained for 7 days, but would
not attain long-term EWM control.2
Although the EWM area treated in 2015 was only 24 percent of the
infested area, the Lake DeMontreville goal of reducing EWM by at
least half was met. Between May and June of 2015, the EWM area
was reduced by 64 percent (Figures 4 and 13) and frequency was
reduced by 51 percent (Figure 14). In addition, EWM density was
reduced (Figure 15). The 2015 treatment mitigated the EWM
increase that occurred between June of 2014 and spring of 2015
and provided some reduction in EWM area, frequency, and density
(Figures 13 through 15).
Significant changes in six native species were observed in Lake
DeMontreville between May and June of 2015 (a significant
decrease in northern watermilfoil and significant increases in five other species). The herbicide treatment
could have caused the decline in northern watermilfoil frequency. However, rapid increases and decreases
are common for northern watermilfoil. An untreated VBWD lake, Lake Edith, observed a rapid increase in
northern watermilfoil in 2014 and a rapid decrease in 2015 (Figure 40). Hence, the significant decline in
northern watermilfoil in Lake DeMontreville during 2015 could have been due to natural fluctuations.
Nonetheless, the significant increase in five native species resulted in a net increase in native plant
frequency following the 2015 herbicide treatment.1
2 Heath, Eddie, Tim Hoyman, Michelle Nault, and John Skogerboe. 2014. Field Research of Early-Season
Whole-Lake Herbicide Strategies for Control of Hybrid EWM. Presentation at UMISC – October 22, 2014 in
Duluth, Minnesota.
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2015 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 6
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Pictured above, yellow iris plants shortly before they
were removed from Lake DeMontreville in June of
2014. In 2015, yellow iris plants were common on the
southern shoreline of the lake, with residents
mowing around the plants and maintaining them
along their shoreline.
During a one-year period (June of 2014 to June of 2015)
significant changes were observed in three native plant
species in Lake DeMontreville—again, a significant
decrease in northern watermilfoil and significant increases
in filamentous algae and southern naiad (Figure 16). 1
Reduction of EWM in Lake DeMontreville during 2015
improved the frequency of native plants in the lake, but
had no impact on the number of native species. The
frequency of occurrence of native plants increased from 89
percent in June of 2014 to 94 percent in June of 2015,
while the number of native species (19) remained the
same (Table 9).
Since treatment began in 2014, the quality of the Lake
DeMontreville plant community, measured by the FQI,
has improved. FQI considers both the quality of the individual native species in the lake and the number
of species collected on the rake. The 2012 and 2013 pre-treatment FQI values ranged from 25.0 to 26.2,
compared with post-treatment values of 26.9 during 2014 and 2015 (Figure 17). This indicates that EWM
reduction improved the quality of the lake’s plant community.
The diversity of the Lake DeMontreville plant community remained stable after treatment. This is reflected
by Simpson Diversity Index values, which indicate the probability that two individual plants randomly
selected from a lake will belong to different species. The 2014 and 2015 post-treatment Simpson Diversity
Index values of 0.90 were within the range of 2012 and 2013 pre-treatment values (0.89 to 0.90) (Figure
18). This suggests that EWM treatment had no impact on native plant diversity; i.e., the probability that
two individual plants randomly selected from Lake DeMontreville will belong to different species has
remained at about 90 percent.
Yellow iris, an invasive species, was common on the southern shorelines in 2015. It appears that residents
are unaware it is a non-native, invasive plant—mowing around and maintaining the plants along their
shorelines. In June of 2014, VBWD directed Barr staff to remove yellow iris plants growing near the boat
(30 plants). We recommend that residents remove the yellow iris plants from their shoreline to prevent the
spread and proliferation of this invasive species.
CLP frequency in Lake DeMontreville has fluctuated widely during the past few years (49-percent
frequency in 2012, 42 percent in 2013, 10 percent in 2014, and 31 percent in 2015) (Figure 19). The 2015
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2015 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 7
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
EWM was burned and knocked back by the
herbicide treatment, but it appeared the
majority of the plants (not necessarily the
stems) survived. Pictured above is a
surviving EWM plant and pictured below is
the typical density of surviving EWM in
Lake Olson.
frequency of 31 percent was within the 10 to 49 percent range
observed from 2012 through 2014 (Figure 19). CLP density was
low in 2015 and not problematic.
Lake Olson—In 2015, the MDNR did not permit herbicide
treatment of all EWM-infested areas within Lake Olson. The total
permitted treatment area of 7 acres was only 22 percent of the 32
EWM-infested acres (Figures 2 and 20). Because the treatment
area was small and shallow, the quantity of herbicide allowed for
treatment was insufficient to attain a lethal, lake-wide 2,4-D
concentration and exposure time. Results of research conducted
by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources indicate the
average 2,4-D concentration of 0.156 ppm measured 3 days after
treatment (Figure 3) would result in seasonal control of EWM if
sustained for 7 days, but would not attain long-term control.2
The project goal of a 50% reduction in EWM was not attained.
EWM area was reduced by 11 percent (Figures 4 and 21) and
density was also reduced (Figure 23); however, frequency
increased by 4 percent (Figure 22) between May and June of
2015. The 2015 treatment partially mitigated the EWM increase
that occurred from June of 2014 to spring of 2015 and provided
some reduction in EWM area and density (Figures 21 and 23).
Although the EWM management goal was not attained, lake
residents have expressed satisfaction in the EWM reduction after
the 2015 herbicide treatment.
The 2015 EWM reduction goal was not met because only
22 percent of the EWM area was treated (as restricted by the MDNR). The treatment area was a single
location at the south end of the lake near the outlet (Figure 20). Lake flow is toward the outlet, reducing
the likelihood of herbicide mixing to the north and central areas of the lake. The average 2,4-D
concentration measured in the lake 3 days after treatment was less than one-third of the lethal dose
(Figure 3). The area with the densest EWM was treated, but the concentration of herbicide was too low.
Hence, the June 2015 EWM area was 17 percent greater than the June 2014 EWM area (Figure 21).
Significant changes in five native plant species were observed between May and June of 2015, but none
were due to the herbicide treatment. There was a significant decrease in filamentous algae (algae are not
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2015 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 8
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
impacted by 2,4-D) and significant increases in four native plant species. The result was a net increase in
native plant frequency after the herbicide treatment.2
Between June of 2014 and June of 2015, significant changes in seven native plant species were observed,
but none were due to the herbicide treatment. The changes included significant decreases in coontail,
filamentous algae, water stargrass, northern watermilfoil, and small pondweed (Figure 24). Significant
increases in fern pondweed and muskgrasses also occurred (Figure 24). Of the declining native species,
coontail and northern watermilfoil are the only species potentially impacted by 2,4-D; however, neither
species declined significantly between May and June of 2015. This indicates that declines between June of
2014 and June of 2015 were not caused by the herbicide treatment. Expanding EWM and subsequent
displacement of natives during 2014 could have been a factor in the declines. EWM expanded from 28
acres in June of 2014 to 32 acres by May of 2015 (Figure 21).
Although both native plant frequency and number of species declined in 2015, the declines are not likely
due to the herbicide treatment. The frequency of native species in Lake Olson decreased from 91 percent
in June of 2014 to 82 percent in June of 2015. The number of native species decreased from 20 in June of
2014 to 19 in June of 2015 (Table 10). Based on historic natural variation of plants affected and locations
of the changes, the native plant changes do not appear to be caused by the herbicide treatment.1
Since treatment began in 2014, the quality of the Lake Olson plant community, measured by the FQI, has
improved. FQI considers both the quality of the individual native species in the lake and the number of
species collected on the rake. The 2012 and 2013 pre-treatment FQI values ranged from 25.2 to 25.9,
compared with post-treatment values in 2014 and 2015 of 26.6 to 28.0 (Figure 25).
The diversity of the Lake Olson plant community remained stable after treatment. This is reflected by
Simpson Diversity Index values, which indicate the probability that two individual plants randomly
selected from a lake will belong to different species. The 2012 and 2013 pre-treatment Simpson Diversity
Index values ranged from 0.91 to 0.92. The post-treatment value from 2014 through 2015 is 0.90 (Figure
26); i.e., the probability that two plants selected at random from Lake Olson will belong to different
species has stayed in the range of 90–92 percent.
CLP was present at a few locations, but was not problematic in 2015. CLP was found at 5 percent of
sample locations in 2015, compared with 3 percent in 2014 (Figure 27).
Lake Jane—In 2015, the MDNR did not permit herbicide treatment of all EWM-infested areas within Lake
Jane. The total permitted treatment area of 7.9 acres was only 18 percent of the 44 EWM-infested acres
(Figures 2 and 28). Because the treatment area was small and shallow, the quantity of herbicide allowed
for the treatment was insufficient to attain a lethal, lake-wide 2,4-D concentration and exposure time.
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2015 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 9
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
EWM in Lake Jane was seriously burned by the
herbicide treatment, but many plants survived. Many
small fragments of EWM were re-growing from axils.
Pictured above, surviving EWM on Lake Jane.
Pictured above, typical Lake Jane EWM that was
damaged but not killed.
Results of research conducted by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources indicate the average
2,4-D concentration of 0.081 ppm measured 3 days
after treatment (Figure 3) may have no effect on EWM.2
The project goal of reducing EWM by at least half was
not attained in Lake Jane. Between May and June of
2015 EWM area was reduced by 30 percent (Figures 4
and 29) and frequency was reduced by 28 percent
(Figure 30); EWM density was also reduced (Figure 31).
The 2015 treatment partially mitigated the EWM
increase that occurred from June of 2014 to spring of
2015 and provided some reduction in EWM area,
frequency, and density (Figures 29 through 31).
Although the EWM reduction goal was not attained,
lake residents have expressed satisfaction in the EWM
reduction occurring after the 2015 herbicide treatment.
The 2015 herbicide treatment did not attain the EWM
reduction goal because only 18 percent of the EWM
area was treated (as restricted by the MDNR). The
average 2,4-D concentration measured in the lake
3 days after treatment was less than 20 percent of the
EWM lethal dose (Figure 3). While the area with the
densest EWM was treated, the concentration of
herbicide was too low (Figure 29). Hence, the June
2015 EWM area was 29 percent greater than the June
2014 EWM area (Figure 29).
Significant changes in seven native plant species were observed between May and June of 2015, but none
of the changes were due to the herbicide treatment. The changes included a significant decrease in water
stargrass, which is not impacted by 2,4-D. Significant increases in six native plant species resulted in a net
increase after the herbicide treatment.1
Between June of 2014 and June of 2015 significant changes were observed in three native plant species,
but none of the changes were due to the herbicide treatment. The changes included an increase in
filamentous algae and decreases in water stargrass (not impacted by 2,4-D) and northern watermilfoil
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2015 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 10
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
(Figure 32). Northern watermilfoil did not decline significantly between May and June of 2015, indicating
its decline between June of 2014 and June of 2015 was not caused by the herbicide treatment. Expanding
EWM and subsequent displacement of natives during 2014 could have been a factor in the decline. EWM
expanded from 24 acres in June of 2014 to 44 acres in May of 2015 (Figure 29).
Although both native plant frequency and number of species declined in 2015, the declines are not likely
due to the herbicide treatment. The frequency of native species in Lake Jane decreased from 99 percent in
June of 2014 to 96 percent in June of 2015. The number of native species decreased from 28 in June of
2014 to 24 in June of 2015 (Table 11). Based on historic natural variation and plants affected, the native
plant changes do not appear to be caused by the herbicide treatment.1
The quality of the Lake Jane plant community, measured by the FQI, remained stable after the 2015
herbicide treatment. FQI considers both the quality of the individual native species in the lake and the
number of species collected on the rake. The 2012 through 2014 pre-treatment FQI values ranged from
31.0 to 32.7, compared with the 2015 post-treatment value of 31.4 (Figure 33).
After the 2015 treatment, the diversity of the Lake Jane plant community did not change. This is reflected
by Simpson Diversity Index values, which indicate the probability that two individual plants randomly
selected from a lake will belong to different species. The 2012 through 2014 pre-treatment Simpson
Diversity Index values ranged from 0.91 to 0.92, compared with a 2015 post-treatment value of 0.92
(Figure 34); i.e., the probability that two plants selected at random from Lake Jane will belong to different
species has stayed in the range of 91–92 percent.
CLP was present in 2015, but not problematic; the plant was observed in 11 percent of sample locations
within the plant growth area of the lake, which was within the 8- to 16-percent frequency documented
from 2012 through 2014 (Figure 35).
Eagle Point Lake—Problematic growths of the invasive CLP were observed in Eagle Point Lake from 2012
through 2015 (Figure 36). However, CLP was stable in 2015 with the density and distribution similar to
2014 levels.
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2015 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 11
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Problematic growths of CLP (pictured
above) were observed in Eagle Point
Lake from 2012 through 2015.
The frequency of occurrence of
filamentous algae in Eagle Point Lake
(pictured above) increased from
4 percent of sample locations in 2014 to
55 percent in 2015.
Two additional invasive species were observed in Eagle Point Lake
in 2015; however, both were stable and not problematic. Reed
canary grass was abundant along the lakeshore and in surrounding
wetland areas—a distribution similar to 2014. The distribution of
narrow-leaved cattail was also similar to distributions from 2012
through 2014. Narrow-leaved cattail was observed in 29 percent of
sample points in 2015 (Table 2) compared to 24 to 30 percent from
2012 through 20143.
The greatest change in the Eagle Point Lake plant community in
2015 was a significant increase in the extent of filamentous algae.
The frequency of occurrence of filamentous algae increased from
4 percent of sample locations in 2014 to 55 percent in 2015
(Figure 37). The increased extent of filamentous algae and
associated shading reduced the growth of other plants, likely
causing the significant 2015 declines in frequency observed for
common waterweed, small pondweed, small duckweed, and river
bulrush (Figure 37). In addition, the increased algae reduced the
maximum depth at which plants were growing by over half—from
8.5 feet in 2014 to 4 feet in 2015.
Despite the increased extent of algae and significant declines in
frequency of four native plant species in 2015, the quality of the
plant community, measured by FQI, was stable. FQI considers
both the quality of the individual native species in the lake and
the number of species collected on the rake. The 2015 FQI value
of 19.2 was within the 2012 through 2014 range of 18.7 to 22.6
(Figure 38).
Plant diversity was also stable in 2015. This is reflected by Simpson Diversity Index values, which indicate
the probability that two individual plants randomly selected from a lake will belong to different species.
The 2015 value of 0.84 was within the 2012 through 2014 range of 0.84 through 0.88 (Figure 39); i.e., the
3 Margaret R. Rattei to Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) Board of Managers, October 3, 2014.
VBWD June 2015 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys.
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2015 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 12
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
The native plant community in Lake
Edith remained stable in 2015 including
the continued presence of Illinois
pondweed at the south end of the lake
(pictured above) and hardstem bulrush
at the lake’s outlet (pictured below).
probability that two individual plants selected randomly from Eagle Point Lake will belong to different
species has stayed in the range of 84 to 88 percent.
Lake Edith—Carp were observed throughout the lake in 2015,
explaining some of the limitations in the Lake Edith plant community.
Carp can severely reduce submersed aquatic vegetation through
direct uprooting of vegetation or herbivory (eating the vegetation).4
Aquatic plant growth in the lake is also limited by the lake’s poor
growing substrate for plants (marly clay and thin muck over sand).
This poor substrate protects the lake from problematic growth by
invasive species.
Three invasive species were present in Lake Edith in 2015, but none
were problematic. All three species were observed at a low
frequency, similar to previous years. Curly-leaf pondweed was
observed at a frequency of 4 percent annually from 2013 through
2015 (Figures 40 and 43). Reed canary grass was visually observed in
the lake in 2013 and observed at a frequency of 1 percent during
2014 and 2015 (Figure 40). Hybrid cattail was observed at a
frequency of 3 percent in 2013, 1 percent in 2014, and 4 percent in
2015 (Figure 40). Although the frequency of hybrid cattail has
fluctuated since 2013, the differences are not significant.
The native plant community has remained relatively stable from 2013
through 2015. Northern watermilfoil significantly increased in
frequency in 2014 and significantly decreased in frequency in 2015;
its 2015 frequency was relatively similar to its 2013 frequency (Figure
40). Rapid increases and decreases are common for northern
watermilfoil.
There were two positive changes to the plant community in 2015:
A significant increase in small pondweed—observed at a frequency of 1 percent in 2013, not
observed in 2014, and observed at a frequency of 11 percent in 2015 (Figure 40).
4 Bajer, P.G., G. Sullivan, P.W. Sorenson. 2009. Effects of Rapidly Increasing Population of Common Carp on
Vegetative Cover and Waterfowl in a Recently Restored Midwestern Shallow Lake. Hydrobiologia. Doi:
10.1007/s 10750-009-9844-3.
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2015 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 13
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
EWM was problematic in Lake Elmo
during 2015. Canopied EWM was
observed in 7 to 10 feet of water along
the north western shoreline (pictured
above) and canopied EWM was mixed
with floating-leaf pondweed in 3 to 4
feet of water on the western shoreline
(pictured immediately below).
EWM density in canopied beds was
typically the maximum rake fullness of 4.
Presence of water stargrass—observed for the first time
in 2015 (Figure 40).
The quality of the lake’s plant community, measured by FQI, and
its diversity, measured by Simpson’s Diversity Index, both
improved in 2015. FQI considers both the quality of the individual
native species in the lake and the number of species collected on
the rake. The 2015 FQI value of 22.1 was higher than values of
19.1 through 21.8 observed in 2013 and 2014 (Figure 41). The
2015 Simpson’s Diversity Index value of 0.92 was higher than
values of 0.88 and 0.89 observed in 2013 and 2014 (Figure 42);
i.e., the probability that two individual plants randomly selected
from the lake will belong to different species increased from 88
and 89 percent in 2013 and 2014 to 92 percent in 2015.
Lake Elmo— Problematic levels of EWM were observed in Lake
Elmo from 2012 through 2015. In 2015, as in previous years, EWM
was the dominant plant in the north and south bays; overall, the
plant increased in total area, frequency of occurrence, and the
percent of the plant growth area occupied. From 2014 to 2015,
EWM area increased from 51 acres to 68 acres (Table 7),
frequency increased from 34 percent to 45 percent (Figure 44),
and percent of the lake’s plant growth area occupied increased
from 45 percent to 59 percent (Table 7). As shown in Figure 45,
dense canopied beds of EWM (beds that have reached the lake
surface) were prevalent in 2015; however, despite the increased
extent and frequency, EWM levels were within the 2012 through
2013 range (Table 7).
Because Lake Elmo is classified as a “natural environment” lake,
the use of herbicides is not allowed without obtaining a variance
to the Minnesota rule. The MDNR did not provide this variance. In
September, the Lake Elmo Lake Association hired divers to hand
remove EWM from an area that was less than an acre. The EWM
hand removal area was about 1 percent of the 68 acres infested
with EWM (Table 7).
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2015 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 14
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Although four invasive species are present in Lake Elmo; EWM is the only problematic invasive species. A
single floating CLP plant was observed in Lake Elmo during the 2015 plant survey. CLP frequency in Lake
Elmo was 0 percent from 2013 through 2015 because it was not collected on the rake during plant surveys
(Figure 46). The frequency of reed canary grass declined steadily from 2012 through 2014 and was not
observed in Lake Elmo during 2015 (Figure 47). Narrow-leaved cattails were present but not problematic.
Their 2015 frequency of 17 percent was within the 2012 through 2014 range of 15 to 17 percent (Figure
47).
The Lake Elmo native plant community was stable in 2015 and no significant changes in native plant
frequency were observed (Figure 47).
In addition, 2015 plant community quality (measured by FQI) and diversity (measured by Simpson’s
Diversity Index) were stable. FQI considers both the quality of the individual native species in the lake and
the number of species collected on the rake. The 2015 FQI value of 23.5 was within the 20.4 to 26.1 range
observed from 2012 through 2014 (Figure 48). The 2015 Simpson’s Diversity Index value of 0.88 was
within the 0.88 to 0.91 range of values observed from 2012 through 2014 (Figure 49); i.e., the probability
that two individual plants randomly selected from the lake will belong to different species has remained in
the range of 88 to 91 percent.
Horseshoe Lake—EWM was the dominant plant in Horseshoe Lake in 2015 and was canopied (reached
the lake’s surface) in the majority of the littoral zone (plant growth area). EWM frequency in Horseshoe
Lake is higher than any other VBWD lake (Table 2) and has significantly increased: from 10 percent in
2013, to 40 percent in 2015, to 62 percent in 2015 (Figure 50). There has also been an annual increase in
density: from a rake fullness of 1.4 in 2013, to 2.4 in 2014, to 2.6 in 2015.
EWM was the only problematic invasive species in Horseshoe Lake during 2015. CLP, reed canary grass,
and narrow-leaved cattail frequency have fluctuated at low levels from 2013 through 2015. The 2015 CLP
frequency of 6 percent was within the 4- to 7-percent frequency observed from 2013 through 2014
(Figure 51), and the 2015 reed canary grass frequency of 6 percent was within the 6- to 7-percent
frequency observed during 2013 and 2014 (Figure 51). The 2015 narrow-leaf cattail frequency of 12
percent was only slightly higher than the 8- to 11-percent frequency observed from 2013 through 2014
(Figure 52).
The Horseshoe Lake native plant community was stable in 2015 and no significant changes in native plant
frequency were observed (Figure 52).
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2015 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 15
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Water quality during the 2015 plant survey
was poor, due to an algal bloom (pictured
above).
The 2015 plant community quality, measured by FQI, was stable. FQI considers both the quality of the
individual native species in the lake and the number of species collected on the rake. The 2015 FQI value
of 11 was within the range of values (9 to 12) observed from 2013 through 2014 (Figure 53). Plant
community quality in Horseshoe Lake is poorer than any other VBWD lake.
The annual increase in EWM extent has reduced diversity in Horseshoe Lake, as measured by the
Simpsons Diversity Index. Index values decreased from 0.80 in 2013, to 0.76 in 2014, to 0.71 in 2015
(Figure 54); i.e., the probability that two individual plants randomly selected from the Horseshoe Lake will
belong to different species has decreased from 80 percent in 2013 to 71 percent in 2015. Plant diversity in
Horseshoe Lake is poorer than any other VBWD lake.
McDonald Lake—In 2015, the McDonald Lake plant
community showed signs of recovery from the presumed
2014 illegal herbicide treatment. Plant density, frequency,
quality, and diversity improved in 2015—after the 2014
decline (Table 12 and Figures 55 through 57). The frequency
of occurrence of plants in the lake declined from 95 percent
in 2013 to 79 percent in 2014 and then increased to 88
percent in 2015 (Table 12). Plant density, measured by
average rake fullness, declined from 3.12 in 2013 to 1.92 in
2014 and then increased to 2.39 in 2015 (Table 12). The
quality of the plant community, measured by FQI, declined
from 22.3 in 2013 to 19.0 in 2014 and then increased to 19.8
in 2015 (Table 12 and Figure 56). FQI considers both the
quality of the individual native species in the lake and the
number of species collected on the rake. The diversity of the
Pictured above, panorama of canopied EWM in the northwest bay of Horseshoe Lake, just west of the golf course.
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2015 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 16
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Of the 10 VBWD lakes surveyed in
2015, Sunfish Lake (pictured above)
had the highest number of native
species.
plant community, measured by Simpson’s Diversity Index, declined from 0.85 in 2013 to 0.80 in 2014 and
then increased to 0.83 in 2015 (Table 12 and Figure 57); i.e., the probability that two individual plants
randomly selected from McDonald Lake will belong to different species increased from 80 percent in 2014
to 83 percent in 2015.
In 2015, the frequency of plant species in McDonald Lake was relatively stable. However, four plant
species (common waterweed, nitella, bald spikerush, and large-leaf pondweed) significantly increased in
frequency, while one species (small duckweed) significantly decreased in frequency (Figure 55).
Although three invasive species were present in McDonald Lake during 2015, they were not problematic.
At a frequency of 1 percent, CLP was rare—a few scattered plants were observed growing among the
waterlilies in the south basin (Figures 55 and 58). Narrow-leaved cattails were also rare (frequency of
1 percent), occurring at only a couple of sample locations along the northeastern shoreline (Figure 55).
Reed canary grass frequency in 2015 was 10 percent, which is at the low end of the 2013 to 2014 range of
10 to 15 percent (Figure 55).
Sunfish Lake—Neither invasive nor native plant species were
problematic in Sunfish Lake during 2015. Two invasive species
were present in 2015, but at a low frequency. CLP occurred at a
slightly lower frequency in 2015 (3 percent) than previous years
(4 to 6 percent) (Figure 59). Reed canary grass occurred at a
slightly higher frequency in 2015 (10 percent) than previous
years (4 to 9 percent) (Figure 59).
Of the 10 VBWD lakes surveyed in 2015, Sunfish Lake had the
highest number of native species (31 native species, Table 1).
The native plants were relatively stable in 2015, although
significant frequency changes were observed for three species:
muskgrasses, slender naiad, and leafy pondweed. The unusually
late ice-out in 2014 caused delayed growth for some species
and was the cause of the significant decline in muskgrasses.
With a return to normal ice-out and a normal growing season in 2015, muskgrasses significantly increased
in frequency (Figure 60)—returning to 2013 levels. Both slender naiad and leafy pondweed increased in
frequency in 2014, then significantly decreased in 2015, returning to 2013 levels (Figure 60).
In 2015, plant community quality, measured by FQI, improved slightly. FQI considers both the quality of
the individual native species in the lake and the number of species collected on the rake. FQI has
increased annually since 2013: from 19.5 in 2013, to 24.5 in 2014, to 24.8 in 2015 (Figure 61). The 2015
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2015 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 17
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
increase in FQI was accompanied by first-time sightings of four native plant species: hardstem bulrush,
common rush, common bladderwort, and large duckweed. Diversity, measured by Simpson’s Diversity
Index, was stable in 2015. The 2015 Simpson’s Diversity Index value of 0.89 compares with 0.90 during
2013 and 2014; i.e., the probability that two individual plants randomly selected from Sunfish Lake will
belong to different species has ranged from 89 to 90 percent.
Summary
The majority of VBWD lakes had a diverse and high-quality plant community during 2015. Of the 10 lakes
surveyed, Sunfish Lake had the highest number of native species. Lake Jane had the highest quality plant
community, as measured by FQI. Lake Edith and Lake Jane had the most diverse plant communities, as
measured by Simpson’s Diversity Index. The Horseshoe Lake plant community had the fewest native
species, was less diverse, and was of poorer quality than all other VBWD lakes. Rapidly expanding EWM is
the apparent cause of the low number and quality of native species in the lake and the lack of diversity in
the plant community.
Six of the 10 surveyed VBWD lakes are infested with EWM and four were treated with herbicide: Long
Lake, Lake DeMontreville, Lake Olson, and Lake Jane. EWM frequency is highest in Horseshoe Lake (where
it has not been managed), followed by Lake Elmo. Divers removed some EWM from Lake Elmo by hand in
September of 2015.
Long Lake has been treated with herbicide nearly annually since 2011 to reduce EWM extent. All EWM-
infested areas in Long Lake were treated with herbicide in 2015. The average 2,4-D concentration
measured in the lake 3 days after treatment was lethal to EWM. The 2015 treatment reduced EWM area by
93 percent. In June 2010, prior to the start of herbicide treatment, EWM extent was 52 acres, which was 97
percent of the lake’s plant growth area. After treatment in 2015, EWM extent was 0.4 acres, 0.73 percent
of the lake’s plant growth area.
In 2015, the MDNR did not permit herbicide treatment of all EWM-infested areas within Lake
DeMontreville. The total permitted area of 14 acres was only 24 percent of the 58 infested acres. The
average 2,4-D concentration measured in the lake 3 days after treatment was not lethal to EWM, but
attained seasonal control. The herbicide killed EWM plants, but not their root crowns, resulting in
regrowth of EWM later in the season. After treatment, the EWM-infested area of the lake was reduced by
64 percent. The 2015 treatment mitigated the EWM increase that occurred from June of 2014 to spring of
2015.
In 2015, the MDNR also did not permit herbicide treatment of all EWM-infested areas within Lake Olson.
The total permitted treatment area of 7 acres was only 22 percent of the 32 infested acres. Because the
treatment area was small and shallow, the quantity of herbicide allowed for the treatment was insufficient
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2015 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 18
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
to attain a lethal, lake-wide 2,4-D concentration and exposure time. The average 2,4-D concentration
measured in the lake 3 days after treatment was less than one-third of the EWM lethal dose. The
treatment reduced EWM area by 11 percent, but EWM frequency increased by 4 percent. The 2015
treatment partially mitigated the EWM increase that occurred from June of 2014 to spring of 2015 and
provided some reduction in EWM area and density; however, the concentration of herbicide in the lake
was too low to reduce the EWM-infested area below 2014 levels.
The MDNR also declined to permit herbicide treatment of all EWM-infested areas within Lake Jane during
2015. The total permitted treatment area of 7.9 acres was only 18 percent of the 44 infested acres. The
average 2,4-D concentration measured 3 days after treatment was less than 20 percent of the lethal EWM
dose. The treatment reduced EWM area by 30 percent, only partially mitigating the EWM increase that
occurred from June of 2014 to spring of 2015. Hence, after treatment, the June 2015 EWM area was 29
percent greater than the June 2014 EWM area.
Herbicide treatment of EWM-infested areas within Lake Elmo was not permitted by the MDNR. In
September, the Lake Elmo Lake Association hired divers to remove EWM by hand from an area that was
less than an acre. This was about 1 percent of the 68 EWM-infested acres.
All 10 surveyed VBWD lakes are infested with CLP. However, Eagle Point Lake is the only lake with
problematic infestation. CLP was stable in Eagle Point Lake in 2015 with a density and distribution similar
to 2014 levels.
Yellow iris, an invasive species, was common on the southern shorelines of Lake DeMontreville. It appears
that residents are unaware that this is an invasive, non-native plant and are maintaining it along their
shorelines. Residents are advised to remove the yellow iris plants from their shoreline to prevent the
spread and proliferation of this invasive species.
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2015 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 19
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Description of Tables
Table 1 summarizes the results of the 2015 aquatic plant surveys of 10 VBWD lakes. The following data are
presented:
Number of species—the number of different plant species that were either collected on the rake
or observed in the lake (e.g., water lilies or cattail beds not collected on the rake but observed).
This number includes both invasive and native species.
Number of native species—the number of native plant species that were either collected on the
rake or observed in the lake.
Number of native species collected on rake—only native plants collected on the rake were
used for this statistic.
Number of invasive species—the number of invasive plant species that were either collected on
the rake or observed in the lake.
Maximum depth of plant growth—the maximum depth that plants were found in the lake.
Frequency of occurrence—the frequency with which plants were found in water shallower than
the maximum depth of plant growth.
Average rake fullness—the density of plant growth, as measured by rake fullness on a scale of
1 to 4, where:
1 = less than 1/3 of the rake head full of plants.
2 = from 1/3 to 2/3 of the rake head full of plants.
3 = more than 2/3 of the rake head full of plants.
4 = rake head is full, with plants overtopping the rake head.
Simpson Diversity Index Value—index used to measure plant diversity, which assesses the
overall health of the lake’s plant communities. The index, with scores ranging from 0 to 1,
considers both the number of species present and the evenness of species distribution. The
scores represent the probability that two individual plants randomly selected from the lake will
belong to different species. A high score indicates a more diverse plant community—a higher
probability that two randomly selected plants will represent different species.
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2015 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 20
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
C value—scale of values used to measure the average tolerance of the plant community to
degraded conditions. Plant species are assigned C values on a scale of 0 to 10, with increasing
values indicating plants are less tolerant of degraded conditions and of better quality. An average
of the C values for individual species within a lake’s plant community indicates the average
tolerance of the community to degraded conditions.
Floristic Quality Index (FQI) value—FQI was used to assess the quality of the plant communities
in VBWD lakes. FQI considers both the quality of the individual native species found in the lake (C
value) and the number of native species collected on the rake. Although Minnesota has not kept a
record of FQI values, recorded Wisconsin FQI values range from 3 (degraded plant communities)
to 49 (diverse native plant communities). The median FQI for Wisconsin is 22.
Table 2 summarizes invasive species data from the 10 VBWD lakes surveyed in 2015. The table shows the
frequency of occurrence of species collected on the rake and mentions species that were observed but
not collected on the rake.
Tables 3 through 7 summarize Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM) extent during the period of record for Long
Lake, Lake DeMontreville, Lake Olson, Lake Jane, and Lake Elmo. EWM extent is shown as acres of EWM in
the lake and also as a percent of the plant growth area.
Tables 8 through 11 compare frequency of native species for 2014 and 2015, number of native species
collected on the rake, and both the frequency and area of EWM in Long Lake, Lake DeMontreville, Lake
Olson, and Lake Jane.
Table 12 summarizes the McDonald Lake plant community, including data on frequency of occurrence,
density, diversity, and plant community quality.
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 21
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Table 1 2015 Valley Branch Watershed District Lake Plant Survey Summary Statistics
Lake
Number
of
Species
Number
of
Native
Species
Number
of Native
Species
Collected
on Rake*
Number
of
Invasive
Species
Maximum
Depth of
Plant
Growth
(feet)
Frequency of
Occurrence
(%)
Average
Rake
Fullness
Simpson
Diversity
Index
Value C Value
FQI
Value
Jane 30 25 24 5 23.0 96 2.37 0.92 6.4 31.4
Elmo 30 26 18 4 20.5 99 2.85 0.88 5.3 23.5
Sunfish 34 31 22 3 11.0 76 1.89 0.89 5.7 24.8
Olson 28 24 19 4 18.5 85 1.76 0.90 6.1 26.6
DeMontreville 28 23 19 5 26.5 94 1.76 0.90 6.0 26.8
McDonald 22 19 16 3 11.0 88 2.39 0.83 4.9 19.8
Eagle Point 17 14 12 3 4.0 100 3.24 0.84 5.1 19.2
Edith 22 19 16 3 12.0 91 1.51 0.92 5.4 22.1
Horseshoe 14 10 7 4 11.0 79 2.71 0.71 3.9 11.0
Long 18 14 12 4 27.0 49 1.73 0.77 5.3 16.8
Average 24 21 17 4 16.5 86 2.22 0.86 5.4 22.2
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 22
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Table 2 2015 Valley Branch Watershed District Invasive Species Summary:
Frequency of Occurrence at Sites Shallower than Maximum Depth of Plant Growth
(Percent or Observed)
Lake
Myriophyllum
spicatum
(Eurasian
watermilfoil)
Potamogeton
crispus
(curly-leaf
pondweed)
Phalaris
arundinacea
(reed canary
grass)
Lythrum
salicaria
(purple
loosestrife)
Typha
angustifolia
(narrowleaf
cattail)
Typha
glauca
(hybrid
cattail)
Iris
pseudacorus
(yellow iris)
Horseshoe 62 6 6 -- 12 -- --
Elmo 45 Observed* Observed* -- 17 -- --
Olson 28 5 Observed* -- Observed* -- --
DeMontreville 17 31 Observed* -- -- 1 Observed*
Jane 23 11 Observed* Observed* Observed* -- --
Long 1 6 Observed* -- -- Observed* --
Eagle Point -- 59 Observed* -- 29 -- --
Sunfish -- 3 10 -- Observed* -- --
Edith -- 4 1 -- -- 4 --
McDonald -- 1 10 -- 1 -- --
*Observed in the lake but not collected on the rake.
Table 3 Long Lake Acres of EWM, Acres of Plant Growth, and EWM Extent as a Percent of Plant
Growth Area with EWM
Lake Sample Date EWM Extent:
Acres of EWM
Acres of Plant
Growth Area
EWM Extent: % of Plant
Growth Area with EWM
Long Lake 6/15/2010 52.31 53.71 97.39%
Long Lake 8/1/2011 4.89 22.67 21.56%
Long Lake 4/29/2012 2.44 31.47 7.74%
Long Lake 6/18/2012 7.24 21.06 34.39%
Long Lake (Partial Survey) 5/16/2013 14.28 -- --
Long Lake 6/24/2013 7.88 50.43 15.62%
Long Lake 5/24/2014 9.75 39.94 24.41%
Long Lake 6/25/2014 4.77 47.68 10.00%
Long Lake 5/9/2015 5.5 52.81 10.41%
Long Lake 6/22/2015 0.4 54.72 0.73%
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 23
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Table 4 Lake DeMontreville Acres of EWM, Acres of Plant Growth, and EWM Extent as a
Percent of Plant Growth Area with EWM
Lake Sample Date EWM Extent:
Acres of EWM
Acres of Plant
Growth Area
EWM Extent: % of Plant
Growth Area with EWM
Lake DeMontreville 6/18/2012 5.39 137.07 3.93%
Lake DeMontreville 6/24/2013 50.88 144.45 35.22%
Lake DeMontreville 5/24/2014 53.08 143.93 36.88%
Lake DeMontreville 6/28/2014 26.75 146.94 18.20%
Lake DeMontreville 5/10/2015 58.01 149.40 38.83%
Lake DeMontreville 6/21/2015 20.60 157.29 13.10%
Table 5 Lake Olson Acres of EWM, Acres of Plant Growth, and EWM Extent as a Percent of
Plant Growth Area with EWM
Lake Sample Date EWM Extent:
Acres of EWM
Acres of Plant
Growth Area
EWM Extent: % of Plant
Growth Area with EWM
Lake Olson 6/18/2012 2.17 88.03 2.46%
Lake Olson 6/24/2013 3.55 89.01 3.99%
Lake Olson 5/24/2014 22.96 87.11 26.36%
Lake Olson 6/28/2014 23.96 89.02 26.92%
Lake Olson 5/9/2015 31.77 89.26 35.59%
Lake Olson 6/21/2015 28.13 87.02 32.33%
Table 6 Lake Jane Acres of EWM, Acres of Plant Growth, and EWM Extent as a Percent of Plant
Growth Area with EWM
Lake Sample Date EWM Extent:
Acres of EWM
Acres of Plant
Growth Area
EWM Extent: % of Plant
Growth Area with EWM
Lake Jane 6/18/2012 0.10 118.54 0.08%
Lake Jane 6/28/2013 1.68 121.82 1.38%
Lake Jane 6/27/2014 24.08 112.61 21.38%
Lake Jane 5/9/2015 44.16 125.08 35.31%
Lake Jane 6/21/2015 31.01 126.77 24.46%
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 24
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Table 7 2015 Lake Elmo Acres of EWM, Acres of Plant Growth, and EWM Extent as a Percent of
Plant Growth Area with EWM
Lake Sample Date EWM Extent:
Acres of EWM
Acres of Plant
Growth Area
EWM Extent: % of Plant
Growth Area with EWM
Elmo 6/18-19/2012 71.09 112.68 63.09
Elmo 6/28/2013 52.69 109.61 48.07
Elmo 6/27/2014 50.58 112.42 44.99
Elmo 6/21/2015 67.52 113.53 59.47
Table 8 Long Lake Results: Pre-Treatment and Post-Treatment EWM and Native Species—
June 2014 and June 2015
Parameter June 2014 June 2015
Frequency of EWM (%) 10 1
Area of EWM (acres) 4.77 0.4
Frequency of Native Species (%) 33 47
# of Native Species Collected on the Rake 10 10
Table 9 Lake DeMontreville Results: Pre-Treatment and Post-Treatment EWM and Native
Species—June 2014 and June 2015
Parameter June 2014 June 2015
Frequency of EWM (%) 19 17
Area of EWM (acres) 27 21
Frequency of Native Species (%) 89 94
# of Native Species Collected on the Rake 19 19
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 25
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Table 10 Lake Olson Results: Pre-Treatment and Post-Treatment EWM and Native Species—
June 2014 and June 2015
Parameter June 2014 June 2015
Frequency of EWM (%) 28 28
Area of EWM (acres) 24 28
Frequency of Native Species (%) 91 82
# of Native Species Collected on the Rake 20 19
Table 11 Lake Jane Results: Pre-Treatment and Post-Treatment EWM and Native Species—
June 2014 and June 2015
Parameter June 2014 June 2015
Frequency of EWM (%) 19 23
Area of EWM (acres) 24 31
Frequency of Native Species (%) 99 96
# of Native Species Collected on the Rake 28 24
Table 12 2013–2015 McDonald Lake Frequency, Density, Diversity, and Quality of Plant
Community
Sample Date Frequency of
Occurrence* (%)*
Density (Average
Rake Fullness)
Simpson Diversity
Index
Plant Community
Quality (FQI)
6/27/2013 95 3.12 0.85 22.3
6/26/2014 79 1.92 0.80 19.0
6/23/2015 88 2.39 0.83 19.8
*Frequency of occurrence at sites shallower than maximum depth of plant growth
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 26
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Description of Figures
Figures 1, 12, 20, and 28 show the 2015 herbicide treatment areas for Long Lake, Lake
DeMontreville, Lake Olson, and Lake Jane.
Figure 2 shows the percent of EWM-infested area treated with herbicide in Long Lake, Lake
DeMontreville, Lake Olson, and Lake Jane.
Figure 3 compares the 2,4-D concentrations measured in the treated lakes with the 2,4-D dose
that is lethal to EWM.
Figure 4 compares the May 2015 (pre-treatment) EWM area with the June 2015 (post-treatment)
EWM area in the treated lakes and notes the percent reduction in EWM area for each lake.
Figures 5, 13, 21, and 29 summarize EWM area in treated lakes for the period of record.
Figures 6, 14, 22, and 30 summarize EWM frequency in treated lakes for the period of record.
Figures 7, 15, 23, and 31 compare pre- and post-treatment EWM rake fullness in lakes treated in
2015.
Figure 45 shows EWM extent in Lake Elmo during 2015.
Figure 50 summarizes the EWM frequency in Horseshoe Lake for 2013 through 2015.
Figures 11, 19, 27, 35, 36, 43, 46, 51, 58 and 59 summarize the curly-leaf pondweed frequency for
the period of record in the 10 VBWD lakes surveyed in 2015.
Figures 8, 16, 24, 32, 37, 40, 47, 52, 55, and 60 summarize the frequency of occurrence of
individual plant species observed in the 10 VBWD lakes that were surveyed in 2015. The figures
show species frequency for the entire period of record. The figures denote significant changes in
frequency between years with asterisks. The number of asterisks denotes the degree of
confidence that the change is not due to chance. One asterisk indicates a 95 percent confidence,
two asterisks indicate a 99 percent confidence, and three asterisks indicate a 99.9-percent
confidence.
Figures 9, 17, 25, 33, 38, 41, 48, 53, 56, and 61 summarize the FQI values during the period of
record for the 10 VBWD lakes surveyed in 2015.
Figures 10, 18, 26, 34, 39, 42, 49, 54, 57, and 62 summarize Simpson’s Diversity Index values
during the period of record for the 10 VBWD lakes surveyed in 2015.
!.
!(
!(
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
!(
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
!(
D
D
D
D
!.
D
D
D
D
!.
D
D
D
D
!.
D
!(
!.
D
D
D
!.
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
!(
!.
D
D
D
D
!(
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
!(
D
!.
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
!(
D
D
!(
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
!(
!(
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
!(
D
D
D
!.
!(
D
D
D
D
D
D
!.
!(
$1
$1
$1
Treatment Area 16.01 acres
Avg. Depth: 7.0 ft
Treatment Area 45.62 acres
Avg. Depth: 5.2 ft
Treatment Area 62.34 acres
Avg. Depth: 12.1 ft
Treatment Area 72.84 acres
Avg. Depth: 8.2 ft
Treatment Area 31.19 acres
Avg. Depth: 11.2 ft
Treatment Area 21.12 acres
Avg. Depth: 11.5 ft
Treatment Area 50.89 acres
Avg. Depth: 8.7 ft
3
2
1
§̈¦694
§̈¦694
36
36
Warne
r Ave
S
Viking
Dr
Long Lake Rd
Pinehurst Rd
Pineh
urst C
t
Long Lake Rd
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,
Figure 1EURASIAN WATERMILFOIL
TREATMENT AREAS, MAY 2015PLANT SURVEY RESULTS AND
HERBICIDE RESIDUE MONITORINGLOCATIONS
Long Lake (82011800)Washington County
Valley Branch Watershed District
EWM Survey ResultsD Not Observed!. Visual Only!( Density = 1!( Density = 2
Treatment Area
$1Herbicide ResidueMonitoring Location
Barr
Foote
r: ArcG
IS 10
.3.1,
2015
-10-02
10:28
File:
I:\Cl
ient\V
BWD\
Distric
t\Work
_Orde
rs\La
ke_M
onito
ring\M
aps\R
eport
s\201
5\Data
Sum
mary
Repo
rt\Figu
re 1 -
Euras
in Wa
termi
lfoil (
EWM)
Trea
tmen
t Area
s, Ma
y 201
5 Surv
ey R
esult
s and
Herb
icide
Res
idue M
onito
ring L
ocati
ons -
Long
Lake
.mxd
Use
r: KAC
2
Prepared by Margaret Rattei and Kelly Wild, Barr Engineering, for Valley BranchWatershed District based on results of a survey done by Matt Berg on May 9, 2015.The Valley Branch Watershed District prepared this map to assist the Friends of Long Lake.
0 250 500125Feet!;N
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 28
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 2 Percentage of EWM Area Treated with 2,4-D in 2015 per MDNR Permit
100
24 22
18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Long Lake Lake DeMontreville Lake Olson Lake Jane
% o
f E
WM
Ex
ten
t T
rea
ted
wit
h 2
,4-D
Pe
r D
NR
Pe
rmit
MDNR restricted the herbicide treatment area to 15% of the plant growth area (littoral zone) for Lake DeMontreville, Lake Olson, and Lake Jane
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 29
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 3 Comparison of Lethal 2,4-D Dose with Herbicide Residue Data (3 Days after Treatment)
0.676
0.185 0.156 0.081
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
2,4
-D C
on
ce
ntr
ati
on
(p
pm
, a
e*)
2,4-D Concentration at 3 Days after Treatment
2,4-D Dose Lethal to EWM for 3 Day Exposure Time = 0.5 ppm ae*
*acid equivalent (ae) is a measure of the amount of 2,4-D acid applied - the ingredient within 2,4-D that binds to EWM and kills the plant.
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 30
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 4 May 2015 Pre-Treatment and June 2015 Post-Treatment EWM Extent
5.5
58.0
31.8
44.2
0.4
20.6
28.1
31.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Long Lake Lake DeMontreville Lake Olson Lake Jane
EW
M E
xte
nt
(Ac
res
)
Pre-Treatment EWM Extent
Post-Treatment EWM Extent
93% EWM
Reduction
64% EWM
Reduction
11% EWM
Reduction
30% EWM
Reduction
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 31
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 5 2010–2015 Long Lake Eurasian Watermilfoil Extent
52.3
4.9 2.4 7.2
14.3
7.9 9.8 4.8 5.5 0.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
EW
M E
xte
nt
(acre
s)
Herbicide treatments occurred in early spring of 2011, 2013, 2014, and 2015
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 32
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 6 20102015 Long Lake Eurasian Watermilfoil Frequency of Occurrence at Sites Shallower
than Maximum Depth of Plant Growth
92
29
10
29
71
19 28
10 11 1 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
ccu
rren
ce a
t S
ites S
hallo
wer
than
M
axim
um
Dep
th o
f P
lan
t G
row
th (
%)
Herbicide treatments occurred in early spring of 2011, 2013, 2014, and 2015
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 33
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 7 Long Lake: 2015 Pre- and Post-Treatment EWM Rake Fullness
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
All EWM EWM RakeFullness 1
EWM RakeFullness 2
EWM RakeFullness 3
EWM RakeFullness 4
Nu
mb
er
of
Sit
es
Pre-treatment (5/9/2015)
Post-treatment (June 22, 2015)
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 34
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Note: * indicates a significant change in frequency of occurrence between years
Figure 8 2010–2015 Long Lake Frequency of Occurrence in Plant Growth Area of the Lake
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Eu
rasia
n w
ate
rmilfo
il
Wate
r sta
r-g
rass
Cu
rly-l
eaf
po
nd
weed
Sle
nd
er
naia
d
Mu
skg
rasses
Sm
all p
on
dw
eed
Filam
en
tou
s a
lgae
Co
on
tail
Fo
rked
du
ckw
eed
Sm
all d
uckw
eed
Need
le s
pik
eru
sh
Hard
ste
m b
ulr
ush
Reed
can
ary
gra
ss
Catt
ail
No
rth
ern
wate
rmilfo
il
Willo
w
Larg
e d
uckw
eed
Riv
er
bu
lru
sh
Co
mm
on
wate
rweed
Nit
ella
Hyb
rid
catt
ail
Aq
uati
c m
oss
Co
mm
on
wate
rmeal
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
ccu
rren
ce (
%)
2010-2015 Long Lake: Frequency of Occurrence
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
*
* means p < 0.05 (95 % Confidence Difference is Significant) ** means p < 0.01 (99% Confidence Difference is Significant)*** means p < 0.001 (99.9% Confidence Difference is Significant)
***
***
***
***
**
**
*
***
***
***
*
*****
* *
**
*
**
***
**
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 35
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 9 2010–2015 Long Lake Floristic Quality Index (FQI) Values
14.1 15.7
18.5 17.7 17.4 16.8
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
6/15/2010 8/1/2011 6/18/2012 6/24/2013 6/25/2014 6/22/2015
FQ
I V
alu
es
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 36
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 10 2010–2015 Long Lake Simpson Diversity Index Values
0.40
0.80 0.85
0.81 0.83 0.77
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
6/15/2010 8/1/2011 6/18/2012 6/24/2013 6/25/2014 6/22/2015
Sim
pso
n D
ivers
ity I
nd
ex V
alu
es
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 37
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 11 2010–2015 Long Lake Curly-leaf Pondweed Frequency of Occurrence at Sites Shallower
than Maximum Depth of Plant Growth
6 2
41
25
11
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6/15/2010 8/1/2011 6/8/2012 6/24/2013 6/27/2014 6/22/2015
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
cc
urr
en
ce
at
Sit
es
Sh
all
ow
er
tha
n M
ax
imu
m D
ep
th o
f P
lan
t G
row
th (
%)
!( !( D !(
!( !( D D !.
!( !( D D D !(
!( D D D D D
!( D D D D D D D !( D !(
!( D !( !( !. !( D !( D D D
!( D !( !( D D D D
!. D D D D D D
D D D D D !(
D D D !( D !(
!( D D D !(
D D !( D
D D !(
!( D D D
D D D !(
D D D !( !.
D D D !( !(
!( D D !( D D
D D !( D !(
$1
$1
$1
Treatment Area C3.0 acres
Avg. Depth: 4.2 ft
Treatment Area D6.4 acres
Avg. Depth: 6.8 ft
Treatment Area A3.2 acres
Avg. Depth: 6.5 ft
Treatment Area B1.4 acres
Avg. Depth: 4.5 ft
D-1
D-2
D-3
456713
456735
©̈13B
Hill Tr N
Demo
ntrev
ille Tr
N
50th St N
Olson Lake Tr N
Hidde
n Bay
Tr NHillvale Ave N
Windbreak Tr N
Upper 45th St N
Highlands Tr N
Deer
Pond
Tr N
53rd St N
Hytrail Ave N
Hillvale Way N
Highlands Ct N
Hill Trail Ct N
Hidden Bay Ct N
Highlands Tr N
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,
Figure 12EURASIAN WATERMILFOIL
TREATMENT AREAS, MAY 2015PLANT SURVEY RESULTS AND
HERBICIDE RESIDUE MONITORINGLOCATIONS
Lake DeMontreville (82010100)Washington County
Valley Branch Watershed District
EWM Survey ResultsD Not Observed!. Visual Only!( Density = 1!( Density = 2!( Density = 3
!( Density = 4Treatment Area
$1Herbicide ResidueMonitoring Location
Barr
Foote
r: ArcG
IS 10
.3.1,
2015
-10-02
10:29
File:
I:\Cl
ient\V
BWD\
Distric
t\Work
_Orde
rs\La
ke_M
onito
ring\M
aps\R
eport
s\201
5\Data
Sum
mary
Repo
rt\Figu
re 12
- Eura
sian W
aterm
ilfoil (
EWM)
Trea
tmen
t Area
s, Ma
y 201
5 Surv
ey R
esult
s, an
d Herb
icide
Res
idue M
onito
ring L
ocati
ons -
Lake
DeM
ontre
ville.m
xd U
ser: K
AC2
0 450 900225Feet!;N
Prepared by Margaret Rattei and Kelly Wild, Barr Engineering, for Valley BranchWatershed District based on results of a survey done by Matt Berg on May 9, 2015.The Valley Branch Watershed District prepared this map to assist the Lake DeMontreville/Olson Association.
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 39
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 13 2012–2015 Lake DeMontreville Eurasian Watermilfoil Extent
5.4
50.9 53.1
26.8
58.0
20.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
6/18/2012 6/24/2013 5/24/2014 6/28/2014 5/10/2015 6/21/2015
EW
M E
xte
nt
(ac
res
)
Small-scale herbicide treatments occurred in early spring of 2014 and 2015
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 40
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
4
33 34
19
35
17
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
6/18/2012 6/24/2013 5/24/2014 6/28/2014 5/10/2015 6/21/2015
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
ccu
rren
ce a
t S
ites S
hallo
wer
than
M
axim
um
Dep
th o
f P
lan
t G
row
th (
%)
Small-scale herbicide treatments occurred in early spring of 2014 and 2015
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 41
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 14 2012–2015 Lake DeMontreville Eurasian Watermilfoil Frequency of Occurrence at Sites
Shallower than Maximum Depth of Plant Growth
Figure 15 Lake DeMontreville: 2015 Pre- and Post-Treatment Rake Fullness
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
All EWM EWM RakeFullness 1
EWM RakeFullness 2
EWM RakeFullness 3
EWM RakeFullness 4
Nu
mb
er
of
Sit
es
Pre-treatment (May 10, 2015)
Post-treatment (June 21, 2015)
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 42
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Note: * indicates a significant change in frequency of occurrence between years
Figure 16 2012–2015 Lake DeMontreville Frequency of Occurrence in Plant Growth Area of the Lake
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Fla
t-s
tem
po
nd
we
ed
Cu
rly
-le
af
po
nd
we
ed
Sm
all p
on
dw
eed
Co
on
tail
Fo
rke
d d
uc
kw
eed
Fern
po
nd
we
ed
Nit
ella
Illin
ois
po
nd
we
ed
Co
mm
on
wa
terw
eed
Mu
sk
gra
ss
es
Fila
me
nto
us
alg
ae
Wa
ter
sta
r-g
rass
No
rth
ern
wa
term
ilfo
il
Eu
rasia
n w
ate
rmil
foil
Larg
e-l
eaf
po
nd
we
ed
Wh
ite
wa
ter
cro
wfo
ot
Wild
cele
ry
Wh
ite
wa
ter
lily
Sle
nd
er
naia
d
Ne
ed
le s
pik
eru
sh
Re
ed
ca
na
ry g
rass
Hyb
rid
catt
ail
Co
mm
on
wa
term
ea
l
Aq
ua
tic
mo
ss
Sm
all d
uc
kw
eed
So
uth
ern
na
iad
Fri
es' p
on
dw
eed
So
fts
tem
bu
lru
sh
Larg
e d
uc
kw
eed
Sa
go
po
nd
we
ed
Sp
iny
sp
ore
d-q
uillw
ort
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
ccu
rre
nce
(%
)
2012-2015 Lake DeMontreville: Frequency of Occurrence
2012
2013
2014
2015
**
***
*
*
***
*
***
**
* means p < 0.05 (95 % Confidence Difference is Significant) ** means p < 0.01 (99% Confidence Difference is Significant)*** means p < 0.001 (99.9% Confidence Difference is Significant)
*
*
***
***
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 43
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 17 2012–2015 Lake DeMontreville Floristic Quality Index (FQI) Values
25.0 26.2 26.8 26.8
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
6/18/2012 6/24/2013 6/28/2014 6/21/2015
Flo
risti
c Q
uality
In
dex (
FQ
I) V
alu
es
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 44
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 18 2012–2015 Lake DeMontreville Simpson Diversity Index Values
0.89 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
6/18/2012 6/24/2013 6/28/2014 6/21/2015
Sim
pso
n D
ivers
ity I
nd
ex V
alu
es
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 45
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 19 2012–2015 Lake DeMontreville Curly-leaf Pondweed Frequency of Occurrence at Sites
Shallower than Maximum Depth of Plant Growth
49
42
10
31
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
6/18/2012 6/24/2013 6/28/2014 6/21/2015
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
cc
urr
en
ce
at
Sit
es
Sh
all
ow
er
tha
n M
ax
imu
m D
ep
th o
f P
lan
t G
row
th (
%)
D !.
!( !. !( !( !( D
!( D D D D D D D
!( D D D !( D !( D
D D D D D D
!. D D !( D D D !.
D D D D D !( D !( !.
D D D D D D D D !.
D D !( D D D D D !(
D !( D D D D D D !.
D D D D D D !. !.
D !( D D D !( !( !( !(
!. !( D D !( D D !( D
!( !( D D D !( !(
D !( !( !( !.
D D
D D !(
D !(
!(
$1
$1
$1
Treatment Area A7.0 acres
Avg. Depth: 7.6 ft
O-1
O-2
O-3
456713
456735
©̈13B
Hill Tr N
Olson Lake Tr N
50th St N
Hidde
n Bay
Tr N
Hillva
le Av
e N
44th St N
Deer Pond Tr N
Upper 45th St N
Windbreak Tr N
44th Street Ct NHillvale Way N
Hill Trail Ct N
Hidden Bay Ct N
Hillvale Cir N
Hill T
r N
44th St N
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,
Figure 20EURASIAN WATERMILFOIL
TREATMENT AREAS, MAY 2015PLANT SURVEY RESULTS AND
HERBICIDE RESIDUE MONITORINGLOCATIONS
Lake Olson (82010300)Washington County
Valley Branch Watershed District
EWM Survey ResultsD Not Observed!. Visual Only!( Density = 1!( Density = 2
Treatment Area
$1Herbicide ResidueMonitoring Location
Barr
Foote
r: ArcG
IS 10
.3.1,
2015
-08-28
14:38
File:
I:\Cl
ient\V
BWD\
Distric
t\Work
_Orde
rs\La
ke_M
onito
ring\M
aps\R
eport
s\201
5\Data
Sum
mary
Repo
rt\Figu
re 3 -
Euras
ian W
aterm
ilfoil (
EWM)
Trea
tmen
t Area
s and
May
2015
Surv
ey R
esult
s and
Herb
icide
Res
idue M
onito
ring L
ocati
ons -
Lake
Olso
n.mxd
Use
r: KAC
2
0 350 700175Feet!;N
Prepared by Margaret Rattei and Kelly Wild, Barr Engineering, for Valley BranchWatershed District based on results of a survey done by Matt Berg on May 9, 2015.The Valley Branch Watershed District prepared this map to assist the Lake DeMontreville/Olson Association.
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 47
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 21 2012–2015 Lake Olson Eurasian Watermilfoil Extent
2.2 3.6
23.0 24.0
31.8
28.1
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
6/18/2012 6/24/2013 5/24/2014 6/28/2014 5/9/2015 6/21/2015
EW
M E
xte
nt
(acre
s)
Small-scale herbicide treatments occurred in early spring of 2014 and 2015
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 48
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 22 2012–2015 Lake Olson Eurasian Watermilfoil Frequency of Occurrence at Sites
Shallower than Maximum Depth of Plant Growth
3 5
26
28 27
28
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
6/18/2012 6/24/2013 5/24/2014 6/28/2014 5/9/2015 6/21/2015
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
ccu
rren
ce a
t S
ite
s S
ha
llo
wer
tha
n
Maxim
um
Dep
th o
f P
lan
t G
row
th (
%)
Small-scale herbicide treatments occurred in early spring of 2014 and 2015
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 49
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 23 Lake Olson: 2015 Pre- and Post-Treatment Rake Fullness
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
All EWM EWM RakeFullness 1
EWM RakeFullness 2
EWM RakeFullness 3
EWM RakeFullness 4
Nu
mb
er
of
Sit
es
Pre-treatment (5/9/2015)
Post-treatment (6/21/2015)
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 50
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Note: * indicates a significant change in frequency of occurrence between years
Figure 24 2012–2015 Lake Olson Frequency of Occurrence in Plant Growth Area of the Lake
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Co
on
tail
Mu
sk
gra
ss
es
Nee
dle
sp
ikeru
sh
Cre
ep
ing
sp
ikeru
sh
Co
mm
on
wa
terw
eed
Wa
ter
sta
r-g
rass
Sp
iny
-sp
ore
d q
uillw
ort
Fo
rke
d d
uc
kw
eed
No
rth
ern
wa
ter-
milfo
il
Eu
rasia
n w
ate
r m
ilfo
il
Sle
nd
er
naia
d
So
uth
ern
na
iad
Nit
ella
Wh
ite
wa
ter
lily
Re
ed
ca
na
ry g
rass
Larg
e-l
eaf
po
nd
we
ed
Cu
rly
-le
af
po
nd
we
ed
Illin
ois
po
nd
we
ed
Sm
all p
on
dw
eed
Fern
po
nd
we
ed
Fla
t-s
tem
po
nd
we
ed
Wh
ite
wa
ter
cro
wfo
ot
So
fts
tem
bu
lru
sh
Wild
ce
lery
Aq
ua
tic
mo
ss
Fila
me
nto
us
alg
ae
Lo
ng
-le
af
po
nd
we
ed
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
ccu
rre
nce
(%
)
2012-2015 Lake Olson: Frequency of Occurrence
2012
2013
2014
2015
**
***
*
*
***
*
**
**
* means p < 0.05 (95 % Confidence Difference is Significant) ** means p < 0.01 (99% Confidence Difference is Significant)*** means p < 0.001 (99.9% Confidence Difference is Significant)
*
**
** *
***
* *
***
*
*
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 51
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 25 2012–2015 Lake Olson Floristic Quality Index (FQI) Values
25.9 25.2
28.0 26.6
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
6/18/2012 6/24/2013 6/28/2014 6/21/2015
Flo
risti
c Q
uality
In
dex (
FQ
I) V
alu
es
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 52
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 26 2012–2015 Lake Olson Simpson Diversity Index Values
0.92 0.91 0.90 0.90
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
6/18/2012 6/24/2013 6/28/2014 6/21/2015
Sim
pso
n D
ivers
ity I
nd
ex V
alu
es
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 53
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 27 2012–2015 Lake Olson Curly-leaf Pondweed Frequency of Occurrence at Sites Shallower
than Maximum Depth of Plant Growth
28
43
3 5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6/18/2012 6/24/2013 6/28/2014 6/21/2015
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
cc
urr
en
ce
at
Sit
es
Sh
all
ow
er
tha
n M
ax
imu
m D
ep
th o
f P
lan
t G
row
th (
%)
!( !( !(
!( !( D D D !( !. !. !(
!( D D D D D D !. D !( !(
D D D D D D D D D D D !( !(
!( D D D D D D D D D D D D !( !(
!( D D D D D D D D D D D D D !(
!. D D D D D D D D D D D D !( !(
!. D D D D D D D D D D !( D !( !(
!( !( D D !( D !( D !( D D !. !(
$1
$1
$1
Treatment Area B3.5 acres
Avg. Depth: 3.7 ft
Treatment Area A2.7 acres
Avg. Depth: 3.3 ft
Treatment Area D0.6 acres
Avg. Depth: 5.5 ft
Treatment Area C1.1 acres
Avg. Depth: 5.0 ft
J-1
J-2
J-3
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,
EWM Survey ResultsD Not Observed!. Visual Only!( Density = 1!( Density = 2!( Density = 3
Treatment Area
$1Herbicide ResidueMonitoring Location
Barr
Foote
r: ArcG
IS 10
.3.1,
2015
-10-02
10:29
File:
I:\Cl
ient\V
BWD\
Distric
t\Work
_Orde
rs\La
ke_M
onito
ring\M
aps\R
eport
s\201
5\Data
Sum
mary
Repo
rt\Figu
re 28
- Eura
sin W
aterm
ilfoil (
EWM)
Trea
tmen
t Area
s, Ma
y 201
5 Surv
ey R
esult
s, an
d Herb
icide R
esidu
e Mon
itorin
g Loc
ation
s - La
ke Ja
ne.m
xd U
ser: K
AC2
0 500 1,000250Feet!;N
Prepared by Margaret Rattei and Kelly Wild, Barr Engineering, for Valley BranchWatershed District based on results of a survey done by Matt Berg on May 9, 2015.The Valley Branch Watershed District prepared this map to assist the Lake Jane Association.
Figure 28EURASIAN WATERMILFOIL
TREATMENT AREAS, MAY 2015PLANT SURVEY RESULTS AND
HERBICIDE RESIDUE MONITORINGLOCATIONS
Lake Jane (82010400)Washington County
Valley Branch Watershed District
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 55
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 29 2012–2015 Lake Jane Eurasian Watermilfoil Extent
0.1 1.7
24.1
44.2
31.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
6/18/2012 6/28/2013 6/27/2014 5/9/2015 6/21/2015
EW
M E
xte
nt
(acre
s)
Small-scale herbicide treatment occurred in early spring of 2015
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 56
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 30 2012–2015 Lake Jane Eurasian Watermilfoil Frequency of Occurrence at Sites Shallower
than Maximum Depth of Plant Growth
0 2
19
32
23
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
6/18/2012 6/28/2013 6/27/2014 5/9/2015 6/21/2015
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
ccu
rren
ce a
t S
ites S
hallo
wer
than
M
axim
um
Dep
th o
f P
lan
t G
row
th (
%) Small-scale herbicide treatment occurred in early
spring of 2015
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 57
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 31 Lake Jane: 2015 Pre- and Post-Treatment Rake Fullness
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
All EWM EWM RakeFullness 1
EWM RakeFullness 2
EWM RakeFullness 3
EWM RakeFullness 4
Nu
mb
er
of
Sit
es
Pre-treatment (5/9/2015)
Post-treatment (6/21/2015)
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 58
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Note: * indicates a significant change in frequency of occurrence between years
Figure 32 2012–2015 Lake Jane Frequency of Occurrence in Plant Growth Area of the Lake
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Fern
po
nd
we
ed
Co
on
tail
Co
mm
on
wa
terw
eed
Illin
ois
po
nd
we
ed
No
rth
ern
wa
term
ilfo
il
Larg
e-l
eaf
po
nd
we
ed
Mu
sk
gra
ss
es
Cu
rly
-le
af
po
nd
we
ed
Fla
t-s
tem
po
nd
we
ed
Wh
ite
wa
ter
cro
wfo
ot
Wh
ite-s
tem
po
nd
weed
Sle
nd
er
naia
d
Sm
all p
on
dw
eed
Wa
ter
sta
r-g
rass
So
uth
ern
na
iad
Wh
ite
wa
ter
lily
Wild
ce
lery
Ne
ed
le s
pik
eru
sh
Bro
wn
-fru
ite
d r
us
h
Sm
all d
uc
kw
eed
Cre
ste
d a
rro
wh
ead
Fila
me
nto
us
alg
ae
Wate
rsh
ield
Fo
rke
d d
uc
kw
eed
Fri
es' p
on
dw
eed
Sa
go
po
nd
we
ed
Co
mm
on
wa
term
ea
l
Bro
ad
-le
av
ed
wo
olly
sed
ge
Ba
ld s
pik
eru
sh
Sp
iny
sp
ore
d-q
uillw
ort
Ba
ltic
ru
sh
Ca
na
da
ru
sh
Eu
rasia
n w
ate
rmil
foil
Nit
ella
Lo
ng
-leaf
po
nd
weed
So
fts
tem
bu
lru
sh
Ho
rned
po
nd
we
ed
Aq
ua
tic
mo
ss
Wa
ter
ma
rig
old
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
ccu
rre
nce
(%
)
2012-2015 Lake Jane: Frequency of Occurrence
2012
2013
2014
2015
*
* means p < 0.05 (95 % Confidence Difference is Significant) ** means p < 0.01 (99% Confidence Difference is Significant)*** means p < 0.001 (99.9% Confidence Difference is Significant)
***
*
**
***
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 59
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 33 2012–2015 Lake Jane Floristic Quality Index (FQI) Values
31.0 32.7 32.0 31.4
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
6/18/2012 6/28/2013 6/27/2014 6/21/2015
Flo
risti
c Q
ua
lity
In
de
x (
FQ
I) V
alu
es
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 60
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 34 2012–2015 Lake Jane Simpson Diversity Index Values
0.92 0.91 0.92 0.92
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
6/18/2012 6/28/2013 6/27/2014 6/21/2015
Sim
pso
n D
ivers
ity I
nd
ex V
alu
es
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 61
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 35 2012–2015 Lake Jane Curly-leaf Pondweed Frequency of Occurrence at Sites Shallower
than Maximum Depth of Plant Growth
16
12
8
11
0
5
10
15
20
6/18/2012 6/28/2013 6/27/2014 6/21/2015
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
cc
urr
en
ce
at
Sit
es
Sh
all
ow
er
tha
n M
ax
imu
m D
ep
th o
f P
lan
t G
row
th (
%)
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 62
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 36 2012–2015 Eagle Point Lake Curly-leaf Pondweed Frequency of Occurrence at Sites
Shallower than Maximum Depth of Plant Growth
79
58 54
59
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
6/19/2012 6/27/2013 6/26/2014 6/23/2015
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
cc
urr
en
ce
at
Sit
es
Sh
all
ow
er
tha
n M
ax
imu
m D
ep
th o
f P
lan
t G
row
th (
%)
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 63
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Note: * indicates a significant change in frequency of occurrence between years
Figure 37 2012–2015 Eagle Point Lake Frequency of Occurrence in Plant Growth Area of the Lake
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Cu
rly
-le
af
po
nd
we
ed
Co
mm
on
wa
terw
eed
Co
on
tail
Sm
all p
on
dw
eed
Na
rro
w-l
eav
ed
catt
ail
Riv
er
bu
lru
sh
Ho
rned
po
nd
we
ed
Larg
e d
uc
kw
eed
Sm
all d
uc
kw
eed
Sa
go
po
nd
we
ed
Fila
me
nto
us
alg
ae
Lea
fy p
on
dw
eed
Nit
ella
So
fts
tem
bu
lru
sh
Sle
nd
er
ric
cia
Co
mm
on
bla
dd
erw
ort
Mu
sk
gra
ss
es
Fo
rke
d d
uc
kw
eed
Sle
nd
er
naia
d
Fri
es' p
on
dw
eed
Fla
t-s
tem
po
nd
we
ed
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
ccu
rre
nce
(%
)
2012-2015 Eagle Point Lake: Frequency of Occurrence
2012
2013
2014
2015
**
***
***
*
***
*
***
**
* means p < 0.05 (95 % Confidence Difference is Significant) ** means p < 0.01 (99% Confidence Difference is Significant)*** means p < 0.001 (99.9% Confidence Difference is Significant)
*
*
**
***
*
** *
*
**
****
***
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 64
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 38 2012–2015 Eagle Point Lake Floristic Quality Index (FQI) Values
18.7 20.7
22.6
19.2
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
6/19/2012 6/27/2013 6/26/2014 6/23/2015
Flo
ris
tic Q
ua
lity
In
de
x (
FQ
I) V
alu
es
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 65
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 39 2012–2015 Eagle Point Lake Simpson Diversity Index Values
0.84 0.88 0.85 0.84
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
6/19/2012 6/27/2013 6/26/2014 6/23/2015
Sim
pso
n D
ive
rsit
y I
nd
ex
Va
lue
s
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 66
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Note: * indicates a significant change in frequency of occurrence between years
Figure 40 2013–2015 Lake Edith Frequency of Occurrence in Plant Growth Area of the Lake
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Co
on
tail
Sa
go
po
nd
we
ed
Sle
nd
er
naia
d
Illin
ois
po
nd
we
ed
Mu
sk
gra
ss
es
Ho
rned
po
nd
we
ed
Fila
me
nto
us
alg
ae
Sm
all d
uc
kw
eed
Fri
es' p
on
dw
eed
Larg
e d
uc
kw
eed
No
rth
ern
wa
ter-
milfo
il
Sp
att
erd
oc
k
Fla
t-s
tem
po
nd
we
ed
Cu
rly
-le
af
po
nd
we
ed
Wild
cele
ry
Hy
bri
d c
att
ail
Sm
all p
on
dw
eed
Pu
rple
-fri
ng
ed
ric
cia
So
fts
tem
bu
lru
sh
Co
mm
on
wa
term
ea
l
Re
ed
ca
na
ry g
rass
Wa
ter
sta
r-g
rass
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
ccu
rre
nce
(%
)
2013-2015 Lake Edith: Frequency of Occurrence
2013
2014
2015
*
*
**
* means p < 0.05 (95 % Confidence Difference is Significant) ** means p < 0.01 (99% Confidence Difference is Significant)*** means p < 0.001 (99.9% Confidence Difference is Significant)
***
**
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 67
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 41 2013–2015 Lake Edith Floristic Quality Index (FQI) Values
21.8 19.8
22.1
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
6/28/2013 6/30/2014 6/24/2015
Flo
ris
tic Q
ua
lity
In
de
x (
FQ
I) V
alu
es
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 68
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 42 2013–2015 Lake Edith Simpson Diversity Index Values
0.89 0.88 0.92
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
6/28/2013 6/30/2014 6/24/2015
Sim
pso
n D
ive
rsit
y I
nd
ex
Va
lue
s
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 69
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 43 2013–2015 Lake Edith Curly-leaf Pondweed Frequency of Occurrence at Sites Shallower
than Maximum Depth of Plant Growth
4 4 4
0
5
10
15
20
6/28/2013 6/30/2014 6/24/2015
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
cc
urr
en
ce
at
Sit
es
Sh
all
ow
er
tha
n M
ax
imu
m D
ep
th o
f P
lan
t G
row
th (
%)
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 70
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 44 2012–2015 Lake Elmo Eurasian Watermilfoil Frequency of Occurrence at Sites Shallower
than Maximum Depth of Plant Growth
44
37 34
45
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6/18/2012 6/28/2013 6/27/2014 6/21/2015
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
cc
urr
en
ce
at
Sit
es
Sh
all
ow
er
tha
n M
ax
imu
m D
ep
th o
f P
lan
t G
row
th (
%)
D !( !( !(
D !( !( D
D D D
D D D D D !(
D D D D !(
D D D !(
D D D D
D D D D
D D D D
D D D !(
!( D D D D
!( D D D D
D D D D D !(
!( D D D !(
!( D D D D
D D D D D
!( D D D D !(
D !( D D D D
!( D D D D !(
D !( D D D D D
D D D D D D D D
D !( !( D D D D D
D D D D D D !(
!( D D !( !( !( !(
!( D D !( !(
!( D
D
D
!(
!(
!(
D
D
!(
!(
D
!(
20.5
ft
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,
Figure 45LAKE ELMO EURASIAN
WATERMILFOIL EXTENT,JUNE 2015
Lake Elmo (82010600)Washington County
Valley Branch Watershed District
EWM Sample Locations (June 2015)D Not Observed!( Visual but not on rake!( Density = 1!( Density = 2!( Density = 3
!( Density = 4Additional Canopied EWM BedsMaximum Depth of Plant GrowthApproximate Extent of EWM
Barr
Foote
r: ArcG
IS 10
.3.1,
2015
-10-02
10:29
File:
I:\Cl
ient\V
BWD\
Distric
t\Work
_Orde
rs\La
ke_M
onito
ring\M
aps\R
eport
s\201
5\Data
Sum
mary
Repo
rt\Figu
re 45
- Lak
e Elm
o Eura
sian W
aterm
ilfoil E
xtent
- Jun
e 201
5.mxd
Use
r: KAC
2
0 600 1,200300Feet!;N
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 72
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 46 2013–2015 Lake Elmo Curly-leaf Pondweed Frequency of Occurrence at Sites Shallower
than Maximum Depth of Plant Growth
3 0 0 0
0
5
10
15
20
6/18/2012 6/28/2013 6/27/2014 6/21/2015
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
cc
urr
en
ce
at
Sit
es
Sh
all
ow
er
tha
n M
ax
imu
m D
ep
th o
f P
lan
t G
row
th (
%)
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 73
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Note: * indicates a significant change in frequency of occurrence between years
Figure 47 2012–2015 Lake Elmo Frequency of Occurrence in Plant Growth Area of the Lake
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Eu
rasia
n w
ate
rmilfo
il
Mu
skg
rasses
Co
on
tail
So
uth
ern
naia
d
Narr
ow
-leaved
catt
ail
Illin
ois
po
nd
weed
Wh
ite w
ate
r lily
Flo
ati
ng
-leaf
po
nd
weed
Co
mm
on
wate
rweed
Fla
t-ste
m p
on
dw
eed
Wh
ite w
ate
r cro
wfo
ot
So
ftste
m b
ulr
ush
Sag
o p
on
dw
eed
Filam
en
tou
s a
lgae
Reed
can
ary
gra
ss
Hard
ste
m b
ulr
ush
Need
le s
pik
eru
sh
Cre
ep
ing
sp
ikeru
sh
Cu
rly-l
eaf
po
nd
weed
Bald
sp
ikeru
sh
Sm
all d
uckw
eed
No
rth
ern
wate
rmilfo
il
Sle
nd
er
naia
d
Nit
ella
Sm
all p
on
dw
eed
Sti
ff p
on
dw
eed
Co
mm
on
bla
dd
erw
ort
Bro
ad
-leaved
wo
oly
sed
ge
Bro
om
sed
ge
So
uth
ern
blu
e f
lag
Co
mm
on
reed
Fri
es' p
on
dw
eed
Larg
e d
uckw
eed
Sle
nd
er
riccia
Wate
r sta
r-g
rass
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
ccu
rren
ce (
%)
2012-2015 Lake Elmo: Frequency of Occurrence
2012
2013
2014
2015
*
* means p < 0.05 (95 % Confidence Difference is Significant) ** means p < 0.01 (99% Confidence Difference is Significant)*** means p < 0.001 (99.9% Confidence Difference is Significant)
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 74
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 48 2012–2015 Lake Elmo Floristic Quality Index (FQI) Values
26.1
22.8 20.4
23.5
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
6/18/2012 6/28/2013 6/27/2014 6/21/2015
Flo
ris
tic Q
ua
lity
In
de
x (
FQ
I) V
alu
es
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 75
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 49 2012–2015 Lake Elmo Simpson Diversity Index Values
0.91 0.89 0.88 0.88
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
6/18/2012 6/28/2013 6/27/2014 6/21/2015
Sim
pso
n D
ive
rsit
y I
nd
ex
Va
lue
s
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 76
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 50 2013–2015 Horseshoe Lake Eurasian Watermilfoil Frequency of Occurrence at Sites
Shallower than Maximum Depth of Plant Growth
10
40
62
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
6/27/2013 6/30/2014 6/22/2015
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
cc
urr
en
ce
at
Sit
es
Sh
all
ow
er
tha
n
Ma
xim
um
Dep
th o
f P
lan
t G
row
th (
%)
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 77
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 51 2013–2015 Horseshoe Lake Curly-leaf Pondweed Frequency of Occurrence at Sites
Shallower than Maximum Depth of Plant Growth
4
7 6
0
5
10
15
20
6/27/2013 6/30/2014 6/22/2015
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
cc
urr
en
ce
at
Sit
es
Sh
all
ow
er
tha
n M
ax
imu
m D
ep
th o
f P
lan
t G
row
th (
%)
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 78
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Note: * indicates a significant change in frequency of occurrence between years
Figure 52 2013–2015 Horseshoe Lake Frequency of Occurrence in Plant Growth Area of the Lake
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Co
on
tail
Sag
o p
on
dw
eed
Narr
ow
-leaved
catt
ail
Filam
en
tou
s a
lgae
Eu
rasia
n w
ate
rmilfo
il
Reed
can
ary
gra
ss
Co
mm
on
wate
rweed
Sm
all p
on
dw
eed
Cu
rly-l
eaf
po
nd
weed
Mu
skg
rasses
Wate
r sta
r-g
rass
So
ftste
m b
ulr
ush
Bro
ad
-leaved
catt
ail
Riv
er
bu
lru
sh
Fla
t-ste
m p
on
dw
eed
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
ccu
rren
ce (
%)
2013-2015 Horseshoe Lake: Frequency of Occurrence
2013
2014
2015
***
* means p < 0.05 (95 % Confidence Difference is Significant) ** means p < 0.01 (99% Confidence Difference is Significant)*** means p < 0.001 (99.9% Confidence Difference is Significant)
*
**
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 79
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 53 2013–2015 Horseshoe Lake Floristic Quality Index (FQI) Values
12.0
9.0 11.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
6/27/2013 6/30/2014 6/22/2015
FQ
I V
alu
es
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 80
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 54 2013–2015 Horseshoe Lake Simpson Diversity Index Values
0.80 0.76
0.71
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
6/27/2013 6/30/2014 6/22/2015
Sim
pso
n D
ive
rsit
y I
nd
ex
Va
lue
s
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 81
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Note: * indicates a significant change in frequency of occurrence between years
Figure 55 2013–2015 McDonald Lake Frequency of Occurrence in Plant Growth Area of the Lake
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Wh
ite
wa
ter
lily
Co
on
tail
Co
mm
on
bla
dd
erw
ort
Co
mm
on
wa
terw
eed
Sm
all p
on
dw
eed
Re
ed
ca
na
ry g
rass
Cre
ep
ing
sp
ikeru
sh
Cu
rly
-le
af
po
nd
we
ed
Wa
ters
hie
ld
Wa
ter
sm
art
we
ed
Sm
all b
lad
de
rwo
rt
Sle
nd
er
ric
cia
Sp
att
erd
oc
k
Sp
ira
l-fr
uit
ed
po
nd
we
ed
Na
rro
w-l
eav
ed
catt
ail
Bro
ad
-le
av
ed
wo
olly
sed
ge
Bro
om
sed
ge
Ne
ed
le s
pik
eru
sh
So
uth
ern
blu
e f
lag
Illin
ois
po
nd
we
ed
Co
mm
on
arr
ow
hea
d
Wo
olg
rass
Aq
ua
tic
mo
ss
Se
ss
ile
-fru
ite
d a
rro
wh
ea
d
Larg
e d
uc
kw
eed
Fila
me
nto
us
alg
ae
Co
mm
on
ru
sh
Sm
all d
uc
kw
eed
Nit
ella
Ba
ld s
pik
eru
sh
Larg
e-l
eaf
po
nd
we
ed
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
ccu
rre
nce
(%
)
2013-2015 McDonald Lake: Frequency of Occurrence
2013
2014
2015
***
* means p < 0.05 (95 % Confidence Difference is Significant) ** means p < 0.01 (99% Confidence Difference is Significant)*** means p < 0.001 (99.9% Confidence Difference is Significant)
*
******
*****
** ***
***
**
******
* *
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 82
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 56 2013–2015 McDonald Lake Floristic Quality Index (FQI) Values
22.3 19.0 19.8
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
6/27/2013 6/26/2014 6/23/2015
Flo
ris
tic Q
ua
lity
In
de
x (
FQ
I) V
alu
es
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 83
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 57 2013–2015 McDonald Lake Simpson Diversity Index Values
0.85 0.80 0.83
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
6/27/2013 6/26/2014 6/23/2015
Sim
pso
n D
ive
rsit
y I
nd
ex
Va
lue
s
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 84
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 58 2013–2015 McDonald Lake Curly-leaf Pondweed Frequency of Occurrence at Sites
Shallower than Maximum Depth of Plant Growth
8
2 1 0
5
10
15
20
6/27/2013 6/26/2014 6/23/2015
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
cc
urr
en
ce
at
Sit
es
Sh
all
ow
er
tha
n M
ax
imu
m D
ep
th o
f P
lan
t G
row
th (
%)
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 85
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 59 2013–2015 Sunfish Lake Curly-leaf Pondweed Frequency of Occurrence at Sites
Shallower than Maximum Depth of Plant Growth
4
6
3
0
5
10
15
20
6/28/2013 6/28/2013 6/28/2013
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
cc
urr
en
ce
at
Sit
es
Sh
all
ow
er
tha
n M
ax
imu
m D
ep
th o
f P
lan
t G
row
th (
%)
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 86
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Note: * indicates a significant change in frequency of occurrence between years
Figure 60 2013–2015 Sunfish Lake Frequency of Occurrence in Plant Growth Area of the Lake
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Fla
t-ste
m p
on
dw
eed
Sm
all p
on
dw
eed
Mu
skg
rasses
Co
on
tail
Sag
o p
on
dw
eed
Sm
all d
uckw
eed
No
rth
ern
wate
r-m
ilfo
il
Nit
ella
Co
mm
on
wate
rweed
Reed
can
ary
gra
ss
Wh
ite w
ate
r lily
Cu
rly-l
eaf
po
nd
weed
Co
mm
on
arr
ow
head
So
ftste
m b
ulr
ush
Bro
ad
-leaved
wo
oly
sed
ge
Cre
ep
ing
sp
ikeru
sh
Narr
ow
-leaved
catt
ail
Bro
om
sed
ge (
likely
)
Fo
wl m
an
nag
rass (
likely
)
Wate
r sta
r-g
rass
Balt
ic r
ush
Sle
nd
er
naia
d
Wo
olg
rass
Need
le s
pik
eru
sh
No
rth
ern
man
na g
rass
Leafy
po
nd
weed
Fri
es' p
on
dw
eed
Sm
all b
lad
derw
ort
Hard
ste
m b
ulr
ush
Co
mm
mo
n r
ush
Larg
e d
uckw
eed
Co
mm
on
bla
dd
erw
ort
Filam
en
tou
s a
lgae
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f O
ccu
rren
ce (
%)
2013-2015 Sunfish Lake: Frequency of Occurrence
2013
2014
2015
***
* means p < 0.05 (95 % Confidence Difference is Significant) ** means p < 0.01 (99% Confidence Difference is Significant)*** means p < 0.001 (99.9% Confidence Difference is Significant)
*
**
*
**
* *
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 87
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 61 2013–2015 Sunfish Lake Floristic Quality Index (FQI) Values
19.5
24.5 24.8
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
6/28/2013 6/30/2014 6/23/2015
Flo
ris
tic Q
ua
lity
In
de
x (
FQ
I) V
alu
es
To: VBWD Managers
From: Meg Rattei
Subject: VBWD June 2014 Point-Intercept Macrophyte Surveys Date: October 1, 2015
Page: 88
Project: 23820405
c: John Hanson, Susannah Torseth, Ray Roemmich, Melissa Imse
Figure 62 2013–2015 Sunfish Lake Simpson Diversity Index Values
0.90 0.90 0.89
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
6/28/2013 6/30/2014 6/23/2015
Sim
pso
n D
ive
rsit
y I
nd
ex
Va
lue
s