Initiating a vegetated wetland throughout the littoral zone of Atoka Lake, Atoka County, Oklahoma : final report.

              FY-07 104(b)(3)
EPA Grant CA# CD-966618-01 Project 2
Initiating a Vegetated Wetland throughout the Littoral Zone
of Atoka Lake, Atoka County, Oklahoma
FINAL REPORT
Approved August 2011
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 2
This page was intentionally left blank
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 3
Agency: Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB)
Project : 2
Location: Atoka Lake, WBID OK410400080020
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 11140103, Muddy Boggy Watershed
Cooperators: Oklahoma City Water & Wastewater Utilities Department (OCWWUD)
Corps of Engineers at Lewisville (LAERF)
Acknowledgements
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency funded 55% of this project, $112,553 making
the planting of Atoka Lake a reality. Additional funding, labor and coordination came
from the City of Oklahoma City who was supportive at every level to help make this a
successful project.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 4
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ 4
Table of Figures: ................................................................................................................. 5
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 8
Integration with the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan .............................................. 9
Background ....................................................................................................................... 10
Site Description ................................................................................................................. 11
Outline of Events .............................................................................................................. 13
Meeting Project Objectives ............................................................................................... 15
Restoration of the shoreline to lacustrine wetlands: ..................................................... 15
Caged Plantings ........................................................................................................ 17
Pen Plantings ............................................................................................................. 17
Planting Scheme and Lake Elevations during the Project ........................................ 22
Habitat Plantings with Trees ......................................................................................... 25
Volunteer (Preexisting) Plant Colonies ........................................................................ 27
Additional Project Endeavors ........................................................................................... 28
Outreach ........................................................................................................................ 28
Presentation to Lake Atoka Reservation Association ............................................... 29
Project Results .................................................................................................................. 30
Cage Planting Results ................................................................................................... 31
Cage Survival ............................................................................................................ 31
Cage Coverage .......................................................................................................... 33
Pen Planting Results ..................................................................................................... 42
Tree Planting Results .................................................................................................... 52
Volunteer (Preexisting) Plant Colonies ........................................................................ 58
Accomplishing Workplan Objectives ........................................................................... 60
Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................................................... 62
Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives ............................................................... 63
Decision Thresholds: ................................................................................................ 63
Decision Rule ............................................................................................................ 64
Threshold Conclusions.............................................................................................. 64
Literature Cited ................................................................................................................. 67
Appendix A – Lake Atoka Recommendation from the Lewisville Aquatic Ecosystem
Research Facility at University of North Texas .................................................................. 1
Appendix B – Planting Data ............................................................................................... 1
Appendix C – Site Maps ..................................................................................................... 1
Appendix D – Photo Monitoring ........................................................................................ 1
2008................................................................................................................................ 2
2009................................................................................................................................ 7
2010.............................................................................................................................. 12
Appendix E - Letter from Oklahoma Forestry Services regarding Tree Assessment ......... 1
Appendix F – Water Quality Data ...................................................................................... 1
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 5
Table of Figures:
Figure 1: Scenic bluff at Atoka Lake July 2007 ............................................................... 11
Figure 2: Existing colony of Eleocharis spp. (Spikerush) ................................................ 11
Figure 3: Atoka Lake Map ................................................................................................ 12
Figure 4: Atoka Lake Site Map as of Final Assessment – fall 2010................................. 16
Figure 5: Site 5 Spatterdock (Nuphar lutea) bursting out of its cage; and a shot of a
typical caged site (Site 2), both taken at final assessment - September 2010 ................... 17
Figure 6: Construction and planting of a new pen in July, 2010 ...................................... 18
Figure 7: A canopy of Potamogeton nodosus (American Pondweed), Nymphea Odorata
(White Water-Lily) and wire mesh provide outstanding cover for young age-class fish,
fall assessment 2008 ......................................................................................................... 19
Figure 8: “Deeper” pen at site 4; September 2008 ........................................................... 20
Figure 9: “Deeper” pen at site 4 two years later; September 2010. Developed community
of schoenoplectus tabernaemontani, nymphaea odorata, potamogeton nodosus,
heteranthera dubia and vallisneria americana. ................................................................ 20
Figure 10: “Deeper” pen has good growth of schoenoplectus tabernaemontani, nymphaea
odorata, potamogeton nodosus, heteranthera dubia and vallisneria americana.
September 2010. ............................................................................................................... 21
Figure 11: “Shallow” pen at Site 4, has new sprouts of several different species including
sagittaria graminea, nuphar lutea, pontederia cordata, and sagittaria latifolia.
September 2010 ................................................................................................................ 21
Figure 12: Typical site layout by 2010 consisted of aquatic plant cages and pens, with
tree cages and plots nearby ............................................................................................... 22
Figure 13: Plant Elevations in relation to Water Level elevations over project timeframe
and growing seasons. ........................................................................................................ 23
Figure 14: “Deeper” pen at Site 1, July 2010. More than half of the pen is under water.
Later a "topper" was added to prevent the water from overtopping the “Deeper” pens. .. 24
Figure 15: Typical 2010 site layout with fewer deep cages and the addition of a Shallow
pen at a higher elevation. .................................................................................................. 25
Figure 16: OWRB and City of Oklahoma City personnel planting tree seedlings March
2009.................................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 17: A Quercus macrocarpa (Bur Oak) sapling approximately 20 months after
planting; and a Platanus occidentalis (American Sycamore) sapling approximately 8
months after planting, October 2010 ................................................................................ 27
Figure 18: Volunteer Potamogeton spp. (pondweed) and Justicia americana (water
willow) Fall 2008 .............................................................................................................. 28
Figure 19: Owen Mills presenting first year results to the Lake Atoka Reservation
Association (October 2008) .............................................................................................. 29
Figure 20: Pontederia cordata outgrowing its cage; 100% (site 3 September 2010) ...... 34
Figure 21: Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani with average growth (September 2010).
(50% Coverage) ................................................................................................................ 35
Figure 22: Nymphaea odorata completely filling its cage at site 2; 100% coverage
(September 2010) .............................................................................................................. 36
Figure 23: A cage of Pontederia cordata with exceptional growth (75% coverage) at final
assessment - fall 2010 ....................................................................................................... 37
Figure 24: Thalia dealbata causing its cage to tip over. (September 2010) ..................... 38
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 6
Figure 25: Sagittaria graminea with exceptional growth (≥75% coverage) both inside
and outside of the cage (September 2010). ....................................................................... 38
Figure 26: Lake-wide Average Coverage in Cages by Species ........................................ 39
Figure 27: A full cage of Thalia delbata at site 3 during final assessment 2010. ............ 40
Figure 28: Average Cage Coverage by Elevation ............................................................. 41
Figure 29: “Shallow” Pen at Site 5 - Pontederia cordata, Schoenoplectus
tabernaemontani, Justicia americana, and Eleocharis quadrangulata. At final assessment
fall 2010. ........................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 30: New propagules of Pontederia cordata, Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani,
Sagittaria graminea, and Nuphar lutea along with Justicia americana are seen in this
close-up shot from “Shallow” pen 5 at the final assessment – September 2010. ............. 45
Figure 31: “Shallow pen” at Site 4. Pontederia cordata, Schoenoplectus
tabernaemontani, and Justicia americana with new propagules of Sagittaria graminea at
the final assessment – September 2010. ........................................................................... 46
Figure 32: Another view of the “Shallow” pen at site 4. Final assessment 2010 ............. 46
Figure 33: “Deeper” Pen at Site 3 - final assessment, September 2010. .......................... 47
Figure 34: Site 5 “Deeper” pen with Sagittaria graminea and blooming Nymphaea
odorata at the final assessment – September 2010. .......................................................... 48
Figure 35: Another view of the “Deeper” pen at site 5, September 2010. ....................... 48
Figure 36: New propagules of Sagittaria graminea at the boat ramp adjacent to site 2.
Large stand of Justicia americana also visible. July 2010 ............................................... 50
Figure 37: Another view of new propagules of Sagittaria graminea at the boat ramp
adjacent to site 2. July 2010 .............................................................................................. 50
Figure 38: Relationship of Aquatic Plant site 2 to boat ramp (blue icon) where
unprotected propagules were found reproducing. ............................................................. 51
Figure 39: Atoka Lake map with Tree sites and surrounding SSURGO soil types .......... 56
Figure 40: “Shallow” pen at site 1 that has a large stand of Justicia americana growing in
it. September 2010 ............................................................................................................ 58
Figure 41: Spread of Justicia americana at site 1, upper photo taken fall 2008, middle
taken fall 2009, and lower taken fall 2010 ........................................................................ 59
Figure 42: Stand of Ludwigia L. spp. (Water Primrose) at Atoka Lake – July 2010 ....... 60
Figure 43: View of some of the cages at site 3 during the final assessment – September
2010.................................................................................................................................. 62
Figure 44: Potamogeton nodosus growing in a penned cage - final assessment, September
2010.................................................................................................................................. 63
Figure 45: Site 1 (Photo Point 1) 2008 ............................................................................... 2
Figure 46: Site 1 (Photo Point 2) 2008 ............................................................................... 2
Figure 47: Site 2 (Photo Point 1) 2008 ............................................................................... 3
Figure 48: Site 2 (Photo Point 2) 2008 ............................................................................... 3
Figure 49: Site 3 (Photo Point 1) 2008 ............................................................................... 4
Figure 50: Site 3 (Photo Point 2) 2008 ............................................................................... 4
Figure 51: Site 4 (Photo Point 1) 2008 ............................................................................... 5
Figure 52: Site 4 (Photo Point 2) 2008 ............................................................................... 5
Figure 53: Site 5 (Photo Point 1) 2008 ............................................................................... 6
Figure 54: Site 5 (Photo Point 2) 2008 ............................................................................... 6
Figure 55: Site 1 (Photo Point 1) 2009 ............................................................................... 7
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 7
Figure 56: Site 1 (Photo Point 2) 2009 ............................................................................... 7
Figure 57: Site 2 (Photo Point 1) 2009 ............................................................................... 8
Figure 58: Site 2 (Photo Point 2) 2009 ............................................................................... 8
Figure 59: Site 3 (Photo Point 1) 2009 ............................................................................... 9
Figure 60: Site 3 (Photo Point 2) 2009 ............................................................................... 9
Figure 61: Site 4 (Photo Point 1) 2009 ............................................................................. 10
Figure 62: Site 4 (Photo Point 2) 2009 ............................................................................. 10
Figure 63: Site 5 (Photo Point 1) 2009 ............................................................................. 11
Figure 64: Site 5 (Photo Point 2) 2009 ............................................................................. 11
Figure 65: Site 1 (Photo Point 1) 2010 ............................................................................. 12
Figure 66: Site 1 (Photo Point 2) 2010 ............................................................................. 12
Figure 67: Site 2 (Photo Point 1) 2010 ............................................................................. 13
Figure 68: Site 2 (Photo Point 2) 2010 ............................................................................. 13
Figure 69: Site 3 (Photo Point 1) 2010 ............................................................................. 14
Figure 70: Site 3 (Photo Point 2) 2010 ............................................................................. 14
Figure 71: Site 4 (Photo Point 1) 2010 ............................................................................. 15
Figure 72: Site 4 (Photo Point 2) 2010 ............................................................................. 15
Figure 73: Site 5 (Photo Point 1) 2010 ............................................................................. 16
Figure 74: Site 5 (Photo Point 2) 2010 ............................................................................ 16
Table of Tables:
Table 1: Pen Dimension and Area by Site ........................................................................ 18
Table 2: Aquatic Plant Species planted throughout the project, by year planted. ............ 30
Table 3: Cage Planting Survival from Final Assessment ................................................ 32
Table 4: Cage Data of Species where n=30 or more ........................................................ 33
Table 5: Percent Coverage Breakdown for Caged Plants ................................................ 34
Table 6: Lake-wide Averages of Plant Coverage, both inside and out of the Protective
Cages ................................................................................................................................ 35
Table 7: Lake-wide totals for Growth and spread - Inside cages ..................................... 36
Table 8: Lake-wide totals for growth observed outside of cages .................................... 37
Table 9: Final Pen Assessment Results - fall 2010 ........................................................... 43
Table 10: Lake-wide Average Total for Survival within Pens ......................................... 43
Table 11: Acres Planted at Atoka Lake ............................................................................ 49
Table 12: 2009-2010 Tree Species Planted at Atoka Lake ............................................... 53
Table 13: Final Assessment Results for Atoka Trees ....................................................... 53
Table 14: Tree Survival by Site ........................................................................................ 54
Table 15: Tree Survival by Species .................................................................................. 54
Table 16: Species Survival by Site ................................................................................... 55
Table 17: Species Survival by Soil Type .......................................................................... 57
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 8
Executive Summary
Atoka Lake is currently not meeting its Fish and Wildlife Propagation (FWP) beneficial
use due to turbidity. A 1981 Phase I Clean Lakes study recommended planting vegetation
in its large shallow mud flats as a way to reduce the resuspension of solids from wave
action. The City of Oklahoma City (OKC) has taken an initiative, along with the
Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) and other agencies, to look for holistic
treatments to their lake properties, including watershed Best Management Practices
(BMP) and forest management options. The intention of this project was to work with
Oklahoma City to initiate an ecological shift back towards a lacustrine fringe ecosystem.
Protected plantings called “Founder Colonies” were established throughout the lake
providing some 5.18 acres of high quality habitat. These areas are now sources of seed
and shoots that have the potential to spread over the coming years. Due to the early
success of emergent plant species the project scope was expanded to include floating
leaved and submersed leaf plants. Because of the overall project success, continued
maintenance of the founder colonies to allow for continued ecological shift is
recommended.
From the summer of 2008 through the fall of 2010 the OWRB and its partners introduced
22 species of native obligate wetland (aquatic macrophyte) species to Atoka Lake in an
attempt to revegetate, diversify and maintain the shorelines while creating habitat and
improving water quality. In all, 17 species have survived in 350 cages and 9 large pens
distributed over 5 sites across the lake. Emergent plant species that excelled were:
Pontederia cordata, Sagittaria latifolia, Sagittaria graminea, Thalia dealbata and
Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani. The submersed and floating leaved plants that were
most successful were Heteranthera dubia, and Nymphea odorata. One plant, Justicia
americana (Water-willow), did exceedingly well without any protection at all. By
project end founder colonies were healthy and spreading well, with plants observed
beyond founder colony sites. The following thresholds are the workplan measures set to
indicate project success or failure. Conclusions based on the thresholds are in bold print.
Output Threshold was met; a survival threshold of 50% or better within the
protective cages indicates that the project has successfully established founder colonies.
Cage survival by project end was 67% over 350 cages. Founder colonies of obligate
wetland plant species have been established. The substantive success rate gives OWRB
confidence that with time and continued effort this lake can have a diverse aquatic
macrophyte community.
Outcome Threshold, when plant coverage outside of the protective cages is equal to or
exceeds the coverage within the protective cages, was not met with an average of 27%
of cages exhibiting growth outside the cage, and a lake-wide average outside coverage of
17%. Since the 64% coverage was not met, the expected outcome is concluded as not
secure. However, as the founder colonies have been established and significant growth
outside of the cages was noted, the #2 Decision Rule is the best fit for the overall project
conclusion as “Output successful but Outcome Indeterminate”. Additional
modifiers to this conclusion include the fact that Oklahoma City has expressed a
commitment to continue maintenance on this project. This commitment increases the
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 9
likelihood of achieving the long-term outcome of an ecological shift in Atoka Lake
toward a diverse lacustrine fringe wetland system.
Integration with the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
The mission of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board is to enhance the quality of life for
Oklahomans by managing, protecting and improving the State’s water resources to ensure
clean, safe, and reliable water supplies, a strong economy, and a healthy environment.
The guidance document for carrying out that mission is the Oklahoma Comprehensive
Water Plan (OCWP), currently being updated to establish reliable water quantity and
water quality for all Oklahomans through the next 50 years.
Aquatic plant revegetation along shorelines is one tool in the OCWP that can be utilized
by lake managers to protect and enhance the water quality of Oklahoma lakes. This
project represents a means for ensuring that improvements can be made to water quality
so that Oklahoma lakes can fulfill their beneficial use designations.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 10
Background
Atoka Lake is the largest reservoir owned by the City of Oklahoma City (OKC). It lies
110 miles southeast of Oklahoma City, in Atoka County. Water from Atoka Lake is
transported via pipeline to one of Oklahoma City’s municipal lakes, Stanley Draper.
Raw water from Lake Stanley Draper is treated for potable consumption. Built in 1964
on the Muddy Boggy Creek, the Atoka impoundment is used primarily as a public water
supply source. During times of extremely high use or low rainfall, the lake receives
additional water pumped from nearby McGee Creek Reservoir.
Atoka Lake is listed as impaired for turbidity on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list. It is not
currently meeting the Fish and Wildlife Propagation (FWP) beneficial use due to
turbidity. It is only partially supporting FWP due to high true color values. The 2009
annual report of the Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP) gave an average lake-wide
turbidity of 53 NTU with 85% of values greater than the Oklahoma Water Quality
Standard (OWQS) of 25 NTU. Evidence (OWRB 1983) suggests that the high turbidity
readings are natural due to local soil conditions. The predominantly colloidal clay soils
do not easily settle out in the water column. The average Secchi disk depth was 33 cm
and average lake-wide color was calculated at 160 units, which far exceeded the OWQS
Aesthetic beneficial use for color of 70 units. Extremely high turbidity and color issues
were a problem soon after impoundment of the reservoir. Interest in this problem
prompted a 1981 Clean Lakes study by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB)
which recommended, among other things, to plant the extensive mudflats primarily
located on the upper (north) end of the lake. The lake is prone to high waves and wave
energy with straight long fetches running primarily north to south. To further intensify
the problem, it is a shallow lake with an average depth of 18 feet and maximum depth of
60 feet. Creating a lacustrine wetland both in the upper flats and along the 70 mile
perimeter can greatly reduce resuspension of solids in the lake and improve the lake’s
fishery.
The Oklahoma City Water & Wastewater Utilities Department (OCWWUD) is aware
that littoral aquatic plants are a vital part of any natural lake and bring with them
improved habitat and water quality while helping to stabilize shorelines and reduce
turbidity.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 11
Site Description
Figure 1: Scenic bluff at Atoka Lake July 2007
Atoka Lake (Figure 1) is a 5,700-acre lake with 70 miles of shoreline (Figure 3). The lake
has many well-protected coves with easy access by boat or by truck. The substrate is
generally colloidal clay. At project start some colonies or individuals of aquatic
macrophytes were found. Namely Common Rush, Lovegrass, Spikerush (Figure 2),
miscellaneous Sedges, Rosemallow, Buttonbush, Primrose and Water Willow as well as
at least one floating leaved plant, a species of Pondweed (Potamogeton spp.) were
intermittently distributed along and above the shoreline.
Figure 2: Existing colony of Eleocharis spp. (Spikerush)
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 12
Figure 3: Atoka Lake Map
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 13
Outline of Events
The following outline is not meant to be an exhaustive list of events for the project but
does help to give a picture of how the project proceeded.
2008
• May
o Consultants from Lewisville Aquatic Ecosystem Research Facility
(LAERF) visited Atoka to give planting recommendations/strategies.
o Site selection.
• June – September
o Constructed cages and pens then planted sites with assistance from City of
Oklahoma City personnel.
o First fall assessment conducted.
• October
o Presentation of first year project results to the Atoka Lake Reservation
Association. Results were well received by the managing board members.
• November – December
o First year data analysis and mapping
2009
• January – March
o First tree planting. Nine species amounting to approximately 1600 trees
were planted at 8 sites.
• April – September
o Spring assessment of plantings.
o Replanted cages as needed.
o Constructed 2 additional pens; making a total of 5 pens, one at each site.
o Added Turtle Traps and Fish Funnels to each pen.
o Added risers to the tops of all the pens.
o Many cages were moved to higher elevations, due to sustained high water
levels expected for the next few years.
o Second fall assessment conducted.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 14
2009 continued…
• October - December
o Discovered that some tree sites had been damaged due to ATV activities
in the area.
o Second year data analysis and mapping
2010
• March
o Second year of tree plantings. Approximately 1600 additional trees were
planted at four new tree sites, making the total number of tree sites 12.
• April
o Spring assessment of plantings.
• May - September
o Installed an additional pen at 4 of the 5 sites for a total of 9 pens.
o Last of plantings completed.
o Some cages moved to higher elevations due to sustained high water levels
o Added risers to pens that were inundated
o Final Assessment of plantings
• November
o Final Tree assessment
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 15
Meeting Project Objectives
Restoration of the shoreline to lacustrine wetlands:
From Project Workplan:
“By planting founder colonies of wetland species in key protected areas
around the lake, natural spread will result in development of wetland
habitat around much of the lake. This habitat will result in a healthier
lake and more diverse ecosystem.”
“Plants will be distributed over at least 5 sites across the lake,
providing immediate (3 year) wetland habitat in what is currently a
poorly vegetated environment.”
“Following founder colony establishment (in the long term, 10+ years)
these protected plants will create a seed bank and give off fragments
that will over time populate the coves where sites are (located) and will
spread to other parts of the lake as well.��
“Turbidity will be reduced as the colloidal clays fall out in the plant
protected waters. Shoreline erosion will be curtailed by reduction of
wave action and compaction of shoreline sediments by root systems.
Emergent species such as bulrush, spike rush and duck potato will
buffer the lake from upland erosion. Submersed species such as
American pondweed and coontail will populate the deeper portions of
the littoral zone.”
“Fish nursery habitat will be enhanced as the plants provide cover,
macroinvertebrate habitat, and improved water quality.”
Outcome: 5 aquatic plant sites (Figure 4) were planted with 1,311 plants from 22 species
over three seasons (Maps of each planted site can be found in Appendix C – Site Maps).
The lake currently has 350 cages and 9 pens with aquatic plants. The lake is well
positioned to propagate many parts of the lake with several successful species. In time,
with continued maintenance, the lake should establish diverse unprotected colonies of
native wetland plants over a number of coves.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 16
Figure 4: Atoka Lake Site Map as of Final Assessment – fall 2010
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 17
Caged Plantings
As of the 2010 fall assessment the lake had 350 cages of viable plants. Caged plantings
are those plants put inside a plastic-coated wire mesh to protect them from herbivores.
These cages were usually 3 feet in diameter and ranged from 3 feet in height for higher
plantings to 5 feet in height for deeper plantings (Figure 5). Upper elevation plantings
used a 2”x 4” mesh that is sufficient to control terrestrial grazers. Deeper plantings used
a 2”x 2” mesh to filter out small turtles and fish. Tops were constructed for very deep
plantings of submersed plants where cages were expected to be overtopped most of the
time.
Figure 5: Site 5 Spatterdock (Nuphar lutea) bursting out of its cage; and a shot of a
typical caged site (Site 2), both taken at final assessment - September 2010
Pen Plantings
Three pens were installed at sites 1, 2, and 4 in 2008, with two pens added in 2009 at sites
3 and 5; making a total of five pens, one at each site. In 2010, four additional pens were
installed at four of the five sites (not site 3 due to the rocky substrate) giving Atoka Lake
at total of 9 pens. Due to soil type and location layout, pen dimension varied at each site.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 18
Table 1 shows the dimensions and area of each pen.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 19
Table 1: Pen Dimension and Area by Site
Site and Description Pen Dimensions (ft.) Pen Area (acres)
Site 1 – Deeper Pen 50 x 95 0.11
Site 1 – Shallow Pen 20 x 75 0.03
Site 2 – Deeper Pen 50 x 100 0.12
Site 2 – Shallow Pen 25 x 75 0.04
Site 3 – Deeper Pen 60 x 85 0.11
Site 4 – Deeper Pen 50 x 100 0.11
Site 4 – Shallow Pen 50 x 70 0.05
Site 5 – Deeper Pen 50 x 100 0.12
Site 5 – Shallow Pen 25 x 70 0.04
In the large area a pen provides, plant populations and their seeds can multiply beyond
ring cage plantings by one or two orders of magnitude. The pen methodology was
incorporated into this project due to the success of this method witnessed during previous
founder colony projects including the EPA 104(b)(3) Lake Stanley Draper project and
planting work done at Grand Lake. Figure 6 shows the installation of a pen in the
summer of 2010.
Figure 6: Construction and planting of a new pen in July, 2010
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 20
Diverse plant communities can develop as well as habitat for younger age classes of fish.
While not caught on camera, project staff witnessed on multiple occasions young fish
darting in and out of the 2”x 4” mesh pens as staff approached. Pens have an outstanding
ability to provide multiple levels of habitat and protection for younger age class fish
(Figure 7).
Figure 7: A canopy of Potamogeton nodosus (American Pondweed), Nymphea
Odorata (White Water-Lily) and wire mesh provide outstanding cover for young
age-class fish, fall assessment 2008
Pens were placed in all five coves. Because the coves are well distributed around the
lake, they are able to take into account differences in sediment types and water quality,
and disperse seeds at various locations around the lake. Ring cages were also installed
around many of the plantings within each pen to safeguard against breaches that can
occur. These additional protection measures helped to assure that if a breach occurred,
founder colonies remained to repopulate the pen.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 21
In general, the pens did as expected; creating a mixed community of aquatic
macrophytes. The caged and uncaged plants generally spread well, filling both their ring
cages and the pen (Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11).
Figure 8: “Deeper” pen at site 4; September 2008
Figure 9: “Deeper” pen at site 4 two years later; September 2010. Developed
community of schoenoplectus tabernaemontani, nymphaea odorata, potamogeton
nodosus, heteranthera dubia and vallisneria americana.
Most pens were not densely populated but had a diverse community of species. In fact,
all nine pens had a minimum of five different “prominent” (at a minimum, a grouping of
healthy macrophytes) species at the time of the final assessment. Figure 11 is an example
of a shallow pen with multiple “prominent” species present.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 22
Figure 10: “Deeper” pen has good growth of schoenoplectus tabernaemontani,
nymphaea odorata, potamogeton nodosus, heteranthera dubia and vallisneria
americana. September 2010.
Figure 11: “Shallow” pen at Site 4, has new sprouts of several different species
including sagittaria graminea, nuphar lutea, pontederia cordata, and sagittaria
latifolia. September 2010
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 23
Planting Scheme and Lake Elevations during the Project
A typical site consisted of aquatic plant cages and deep and/or shallow pens. Often times,
tree sites were in close proximity to the aquatic plant sites. The initial plantings were
done May through July of 2008 with both caged and pen plantings. A representative
format is illustrated in Figure 12.
Figure 12: Typical site layout by 2010 consisted of aquatic plant cages and pens,
with tree cages and plots nearby
In the first season, the plants experienced a steady drop in pool elevation. This was due to
anticipated repairs on the Atoka pipeline that pumps water from Atoka Lake into Lake
Stanley Draper. Lake Stanley Draper was filled higher than normal so that there would be
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 24
more water available to Oklahoma City as the pipeline repairs were being made. As a
result, Atoka Lake was pumped down lower than normal in order to fill up Stanley
Draper. When work began on the pipeline in 2009, Atoka Lake levels stayed above
normal because there was not the usual drawdown from water being sent to Lake Stanley
Draper due to the pipeline repairs. The water levels in Atoka Lake remained above the
expected norm through the summer of 2010 as a result of the pipeline work. This was, at
first, a very positive development for the emergent macrophytes, because the slow
drawdown allowed them to follow the water. However, by the second season, as water
levels during the growing season averaged 589.2’ mean sea level (msl) the plants suffered
from herbivory and inundation, with many of the cages and pen constructed in season one
being overtopped and no longer providing protection. Planting elevations can be seen in
Figure 13.
Figure 13: Plant Elevations in relation to Water Level elevations over project
timeframe and growing seasons.
Emergent plants were assayed from 586’ msl to 589.5’ msl. Submersed and floating
leaved species were assayed from 585.5’ msl to 588’ msl. The blue line on the graph in
Figure 13 shows the lake elevation curve over the project period. Red lines at the top of
the graph denote the growing season periods of May-September. The white dashed line
delineates normal conservation pool elevation. The yellow line shows the shallowest
elevation that plants were planted and the green line shows the deepest elevation that
plants were planted. As can be seen, the water levels came up above normal pool
elevation in season 2 and remained high throughout the summer of season 3. This
inundation from high water put stress on the deeper plantings and overwhelmed many of
the deeper emergent macrophytes.
578
580
582
584
586
588
590
592
594
596
Elevation (Feet NVGD)
Atoka Lake Elevation 2008‐2010
Daily Pool Elevation
Normal Pool Elevation
Deepest Plant Elevation
Shallowest Plant Elevation
Growing Season
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 25
By the second season, many of the sites were transformed; placing a few deep cages
inside the pen, placing tops on deeper cages that had surviving plants to prevent
herbivory and add an extra level of protection, and moving the majority of the deep cages
that had experienced mortality to higher elevations. Eventually a “topper” was added to
the “Deeper” pens (raising the top of the pen 1 ½ to 4 feet depending on the pen and
elevation) to avoid overtopping by high water (Figure 14).
Figure 14: “Deeper” pen at Site 1, July 2010. More than half of the pen is under
water. Later a "topper" was added to prevent the water from overtopping the
“Deeper” pens.
By year three, “Shallow” pens had been constructed at four of the five sites to offer
another area for founder colony development. The expectation was that the plants had a
better chance of surviving the upper elevations and eventual drought conditions than
lower elevations where they may be inundated for longer periods of time. Deep waters
can lead to plants expending their energy on elongation rather than expansive growth.
Therefore the majority of plantings were on higher ground with only submersed or
floating leaved species planted at deep elevations. Figure 15 depicts what the typical site
looked like by the end of 2010.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 26
Figure 15: Typical 2010 site layout with fewer deep cages and the addition of a
Shallow pen at a higher elevation.
Habitat Plantings with Trees
Trees were planted with assistance from Oklahoma City. Bare-root seedlings were
purchased from the Albert Engstrom Forest Regeneration Center, operated by the
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, located in Goldsby, OK.
Cages were placed around a select number of trees per site (depending on the size of the
site) with 2x4 welded wire and flagged for visibility. These cages were placed around
trees on the perimeter to delineate the site boundary and to make the areas more visible
for the public. The caged seedlings were the only ones to be assessed, this was in part
because finding the small seedlings once the tall grasses have grown around them was
time consuming; even with flagging.
Tree plantings were designed, where possible, to compliment the aquatic plantings by
providing wildlife habitat species, many of which could be classified as bottomland
hardwoods such as Carya illinoensis (Native Pecan) and Platanus occidentalis (American
Sycamore). These tree plots would provide exceptional browse, nesting and cover for
multiple wildlife species. Figure 16 shows OWRB staff and City of Oklahoma City
personnel planting trees in 2009.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 27
Figure 16: OWRB and City of Oklahoma City personnel planting tree seedlings
March 2009
In 2009, eight tree sites were selected, mainly in areas close to existing aquatic plant
sites. City of Oklahoma City staff that work at Atoka Lake assisted in selecting suitable
tree sites. One area in particular was selected because there had been a fire in the area a
week before, and it was determined to be an ideal spot for new plantings. Each site had
5-10 trees caged around the perimeter, depending on the size of the site. An effort was
made to place a cage around at least one of each species planted at that particular site.
Nine different native species, totaling approximately 1,600 seedlings were planted over
the eight sites in 2009.
In 2010, four more sites were selected that were nearby existing tree sites. These four
sites each had ten trees caged per site, and again an attempt was made to get one of each
species inside a cage. Approximately 1,600 additional trees were planted in 2010, for a
total of roughly 3,200 total trees from nine different species over the two planting years.
Over the first year, it was discovered that all-terrain vehicles (ATV) had been driven
through some of the areas where these trees were planted. The individuals responsible
were identified and action has been taken by the City of Oklahoma City. All the tree
plantings were located in areas where ATV use is prohibited. It was not determined
exactly how many trees were damaged as a result of this incident. As of the fall tree
assessment in 2010, none of the sites appear to have had any other issues.
Figure 17 shows two seedlings approximately 8 and 20 months after initial planting.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 28
Figure 17: A Quercus macrocarpa (Bur Oak) sapling approximately 20 months after
planting; and a Platanus occidentalis (American Sycamore) sapling approximately 8
months after planting, October 2010
Volunteer (Preexisting) Plant Colonies
Atoka Lake had existing plant colonies before the project began. In May of 2008, prior
to the first season of planting, consultants from the Lewisville Aquatic Ecosystem
Research Facility (LAERF) at the University of North Texas came - to Atoka Lake to
assist in the development of an aquatic plant establishment strategy including site and
planting recommendations for this project. In LAERF’s report to the OWRB, they said
the current “aquatic vegetation in the lake is restricted to a small number of native species
that are moderately well established but offer only limited benefits to fish, aquatic
wildlife, water quality, and erosion control.” Existing species identified at Atoka Lake
included emergent species such as Common Rush, Lovegrass, Spikerush, miscellaneous
Sedges, Rosemallow, Buttonbush and Water Willow as well as at least one floating
leaved plant, Pondweed (Figure 18).
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 29
Figure 18: Volunteer Potamogeton spp. (pondweed) and Justicia americana (water
willow) Fall 2008
In the report from LAERF, the OWRB was given recommendations on site locations,
species to supplement the aquatic plant community currently found in the lake, propagule
selections, timing of planting, herbivore protection, planting depths and site maintenance.
The full report from LAERF can be found in Appendix A – Lake Atoka
Recommendation from the Lewisville Aquatic Ecosystem Research Facility at University
of North Texas.
Over the course of the project, many of the preexisting plants were able to thrive when
given protection from herbivory through the creation of pens and cages.
Additional Project Endeavors
Outreach
From Project Workplan:
State and Local participation will be instigated as OWRB and OKC work together
to begin this wetlands program.
OWRB will continue to actively promote the success of our wetland plantings and
seek other agencies, municipalities and organizations willing to learn these
methods to enhance their lakes with wetland plants.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 30
Presentation to Lake Atoka Reservation Association
In an effort to educate the public, especially those in the Atoka Lake area about the
OWRB and OKC efforts to create a vegetated wetland in the littoral zone of Atoka Lake,
then project manager Owen Mills made a presentation over first year project results to the
Lake Atoka Reservation Association. The Association consists of an eight member
board, comprised of the Mayors of Oklahoma City and The City of Atoka, the City
Manager of Oklahoma City, the Chairman of the Oklahoma City Water Utilities Trust
(OCWUT), one person appointed by the City of Oklahoma City for a two year period,
and three citizens of Atoka County appointed by the City of Atoka. The Lake Atoka
Reservation Association administers use of the Reservation, its resources and facilities.
The presentation was given in October 2008, and included information about the current
vegetation in the lake, the new vegetation being added through the project as well as
project goals and objectives, information on project sites and the timeframe and transfer
of knowledge aspect of the project.
The intention of this presentation was to bring awareness, recruit involvement and create
understanding of the project to the community and cooperators early on in the project.
The presentation was well received by the managing board members. A photo taken
during the presentation can be seen in Figure 19.
Figure 19: Owen Mills presenting first year results to the Lake Atoka Reservation
Association (October 2008)
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 31
Project Results
There were three types of data that were tracked for the project: caged plantings, pen
plantings and tree plantings. Caged plantings were by far the most numerous and will be
heavily focused on, but important results were found from the other planting types as
well.
Total aquatic macrophytes planted lake-wide = 1,311
Total aquatic species introduced = 22
Total trees planted lake-wide = approximately 3,200
Total tree species introduced = 9
The original project objective was to focus on emergent plant species to directly address
the turbidity and color issues at Atoka Lake. As emergent plant species thrived in 2008
and 2009, emphasis was shifted toward floating leaved and submersed plant species to
increase the diversity of the aquatic plant community and provide additional habitat for
young of the year fish. This shift is particularly evident by 2010, as the majority of
species that were planted (323 out of 592 total plants) were floating leaved or submersed
species. Species planted throughout the project, by number and year, are listed in Table 2.
Table 2: Aquatic Plant Species planted throughout the project, by year planted.
2008 2009 2010
Species
Number
Planted Species
Number
Planted Species
Number
Planted
Bacopa monnieri 10 Echinodorus berteroi 14 Sagittaria latifolia 49
Echinodorus cordifolius 30 Echinodorus cordifolius 16 Echinodorus cordifolius 2
Eleocharis quadrangulata 5 Heteranthera dubia 35 Heteranthera dubia 121
Heteranthera dubia 14 Hibiscus lasiocarpos 30 Nuphar lutea 16
Hibiscus lasiocarpos 3 Nuphar lutea 7 Nymphaea odorata 72
Justicia americana 33 Nymphaea odorata 20 Pontederia cordata 57
Nuphar lutea 10 Peltandra virginica 10 Potamogeton nodosus 101
Nymphaea odorata 43 Pontederia cordata 15 Sagittaria graminea 87
Peltandra virginica 3 Potamogeton nodosus 20 Saururus cernuus 26
Pontederia cordata 23 Sagittaria graminea 40 Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani 47
Potamogeton nodosus 41 Sagittaria latifolia 14 Thalia dealbata 1
Sagittaria graminea 61 Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani 32 Vallisneria americana 13
Sagittaria latifolia 15 Scirpus americanus 10 Total Species = 12 592
Saururus cernuus 14 Thalia dealbata 27
Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani 64 Total Species = 14 290
Scirpus americanus 30
Scirpus atrovirens 10
Scirpus cyperinus 10
Scirpus pallidus 10
Total Species = 19 429
Aquatic Plant Species Planted in Cages and Pens by Project Year
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 32
Cage Planting Results
The Decision Thresholds set up in the QAPP largely deal with the survival of plants, but
also take into account the growth or coverage within the protected area. Hence, both
survival and growth are reported. It is noted on each table or topic what is being
presented, Survival or Growth.
Survival of a cage is a simple binary rating: plant/no plant without accounting for size or
vigor. Growth or Coverage refers to the percentage covered: a simplified percentage
system to evaluate the loss or spread of plants within a ringed caged in relation to the
initial plant condition. It is the coverage that accounts for the variation in size, vigor, and
health of the plants inside and outside the protective cages and pens.
Cage Survival
The QAPP states “a survival threshold of 50% or better within the protective cages
indicates that the project has successfully established founder colonies at Lake Atoka”.
By the final assessment in September 2010, a total of 350 cages were installed over the 5
sites at Atoka Lake. Survival at the final assessment was measured by visual observation
of whether or not a plant was present in each cage.
Seventeen (17) out of the 22 species planted over the three year project had at least one
surviving plant at the final assessment. A total of 866 plants were planted in cages over
three planting seasons. On some occasions, more than one plant was planted in each cage,
depending on plant availability. Five Hundred eighty four (584) plants were determined
to be alive in cages at the final assessment conducted in September 2010. Cage survival
by species is expressed in Table 3. Those species highlighted are plants that exceeded the
50% survival threshold set in place in the QAPP for the Decision Criteria. Thresholds are
thoroughly explained in the Conclusions section below. The results in Table 3 are the
cages in the water at the time of the final assessment. Keep in mind that the percentages
and species listed in Table 3 take into account all species and total survival that occurred
over the life of the project (all three seasons). There are many species that were
attempted that did not perform as expected and were omitted from subsequent plantings
in later years. Additionally, those cages that were found vacant at the final assessment
were replanted at that time and therefore not considered a mortality. Plants that were in
cages within a pen are included in Table 3, but plants that were free planted within a pen
are not included. It is important to note that there are several species that have a very
high percent survival ranking, but numbered very few cages. A small number of data
points make results unclear, but these plants should be strongly considered for the next
phase of the project.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 33
Table 3: Cage Planting Survival from Final Assessment
(Species highlighted are plants that exceeded the 50% survival threshold from
QAPP)
It is worthwhile to consider the data only looking at species that had a more practical “n”
or sample set. Taking only those species that had 30 or more cages gives the following
results in Table 4. Those species highlighted are plants that did not exceeded the 50%
survival threshold set in place in the QAPP for the Decision Criteria.
Species
Number
of cages
planted
Number
Survived
Total
Survival
Bacopa monnieri 10 0 0%
Echinodorus berteroi 14 2 14%
Echinodorus cordifolius 48 6 13%
Eleocharis quadrangulata 5 3 60%
Heteranthera dubia 55 60 100%
Hibiscus lasiocarpos 16 7 44%
Justicia americana 33 33 100%
Nuphar lutea 14 8 57%
Nymphaea odorata 88 52 59%
Peltandra virginica 3 3 100%
Pontederia cordata 60 60 100%
Potamogeton nodosus 98 33 34%
Sagittaria graminea 122 106 87%
Sagittaria latifolia 48 33 69%
Saururus cernuus 18 6 33%
Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani 111 95 86%
Scirpus americanus 27 1 4%
Scirpus atrovirens 10 0 0%
Scirpus cyperinus 10 10 100%
Scirpus pallidus 10 0 0%
Thalia dealbata 56 56 100%
Vallisneria americana 10 10 100%
Overall 866 584 67%
Caged Survival by Species ‐ Final Assessment Fall 2010
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 34
Table 4: Cage Data of Species where n=30 or more
* Highlighted species indicate survival percentage below the 50% decision
threshold outlined in the QAPP.
When looking at the more tested species (n≥30) the data gives a higher survival
percentage than the overall picture at 74%, which is well over the survival threshold.
The overall survival of 584 plants out of 866 planted (67%) was significantly over the
50% survival threshold.
Cage Coverage
Percentage of cage coverage measurements were taken via visual estimate. Since this
method could be highly subjective in its results, a method was developed to simplify the
task and build consistency and understanding between sessions as well as between those
making the assessments.
A guideline for assessing percent coverage of cages was outlined in the QAPP, and can
be seen in Table 5.
Species
Number
of cages
planted
Number
Survived
Total
Survival
Echinodorus cordifolius 48 6 13%
Heteranthera dubia 55 60 100%
Justicia americana 33 33 100%
Nymphaea odorata 88 52 59%
Pontederia cordata 60 60 100%
Potamogeton nodosus 98 33 34%
Sagittaria graminea 122 106 87%
Sagittaria latifolia 48 33 69%
Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani 111 95 86%
Thalia dealbata 56 56 100%
Overall 719 534 74%
Caged Survival by Species ‐ Species with n? 30 cages
Survival by Species ‐ Final Assessment Fall 2010
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 35
Table 5: Percent Coverage Breakdown for Caged Plants
Initial Planting
25% Given to initial planted cage with 6” pot
15% Given to initial transplant cage*
After Establishment
0% Dead or apparently dead plant(s)
10% Loss of initial plant biomass and vigor, unhealthy
25% No appreciable spread
50% New shoots spread across ½ cage area
75% New shoots spread across ¾ cage area.
100% New shoots spread across entire cage area.
* Note: Transplants are by definition less developed than the typical 6” potted
plants with mature root systems and thus given a lesser coverage %.
Figure 20 shows a cage of Pontederia cordata that has completely filled its cage and has
new shoots beginning to spread outside of the cage (100% cover) and Figure 21 shows a
cage of Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani that has doubled in size since initial planting
and was given a rating of 50% cover.
Figure 20: Pontederia cordata outgrowing its cage; 100% (site 3 September 2010)
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 36
Figure 21: Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani with average growth (September 2010).
(50% Coverage)
Lake-wide overview statistics for caged planting growth and coverage can be seen in
Table 6 below:
Table 6: Lake-wide Averages of Plant Coverage, both inside and out of the
Protective Cages
Coverage
Inside of Cage
Coverage
Outside of Cage
Lake-wide Average of
Caged Plants 64% 17%
With initial plantings receiving a 25% coverage rating, a lake-wide average coverage of
64% shows that substantial growth occurred over three growing seasons. Outside
coverage percentage was calculated by taking the average outside cage coverage of all
350 cages (many of which were 0; only 95 cages had any outside coverage at all). The
result was an average of 17% coverage outside the protective cages. See further
discussion of outside cage coverage later in this section.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 37
Figure 22: Nymphaea odorata completely filling its cage at site 2; 100% coverage
(September 2010)
In order to emphasize those cages that performed well, any cage that was rated at 50%
coverage or better was considered to have good growth. While any cage that had 75%
coverage or greater was considered to have exceptional growth. Table 7 shows the
number of cages exhibiting good or exceptional growth at the final assessment.
Table 7: Lake-wide Totals for Growth and Spread - Inside cages
Total # of cages: 350
Good growth: 233 cages (67%)
(50% or better)
Exceptional growth: 192 cages (55%)
(75% or better)
Of the total 350 cages, 233 cages (67% of the total) had good growth of 50% coverage or
better and 192 cages (55% of the total) had exceptional growth with 75% coverage or
better at the final assessment. Figure 23 is an example of a cage in which the plant has
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 38
survived and was determined to have 75% average coverage (exceptional growth) at the
final assessment
Figure 23: A cage of Pontederia cordata with exceptional growth (75% coverage) at
final assessment - fall 2010
There was also growth observed outside the ringed cages. Coverage outside the cages
was measured by comparing the outside growth to the cage diameter. For example, 50%
outside coverage would mean that the area of growth outside the cage was equivalent to
50% of the area inside the cage.
A total of 95 cages had plants growing outside of the original planted cage, 55 cages with
good growth outside the cage and 34 cages that had exceptional growth outside of the
cage as displayed in Error! Reference source not found..
Table 8: Lake-wide Totals for Growth Observed Outside of cages
Total number of cages 95 cages (out of 350 total cages, 27%)
with any outside growth:
Total number of cages with
Outside growth ranked “Good”: 55 cages (out of 350 total cages, 16%)
(50% ranking or better)
Total number of cages with
Outside growth ranked “Exceptional”: 34 cages (out of 350 total cages, 10%)
(75% ranking or better)
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 39
Figure 24 shows a Thalia dealbata plant with the cage tipped over, but the plant
continuing to grow well with new shoots, growing completely unprotected.
Figure 24: Thalia dealbata causing its cage to tip over. (September 2010)
Sagittaria graminea consistently showed growth inside and outside of its cage (Figure
25).
Figure 25: Sagittaria graminea with exceptional growth (≥75% coverage) both
inside and outside of the cage (September 2010).
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 40
Coverage was also considered by species. Because the various species selected for the
project grow at different rates and by different means (runners, rhizomes, tubers, etc.)
variation in percent coverage by the final assessment was expected.
Lake-wide average coverage by species can be seen in Figure 26.
Figure 26: Lake-wide Average Coverage in Cages by Species
The maximum average coverage inside the cage for a species across the lake was 100%
and was exhibited by two species: Eleocharis quadrangulata (Squarestem Spikerush),
and Justicia americana (American Water-willow).
Several species, while not attaining 100% average coverage, did exhibit exceptional
growth. These include: Thalia dealbata (Alligator Flag) at 92% (Figure 27), Pontederia
cordata (Pickerelweed) at 80%, and Scirpus americanus (Three Square Bulrush) at 75%.
0%
0%
58%
100%
40%
40%
100%
73%
65%
33%
80%
48%
71%
60%
52%
56%
75%
0%
0%
0%
92%
25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Bacopa monnieri
Echinodorus berteroi
Echinodorus cordifolius
Eleocharis quadrangulata
Heteranthera dubia
Hibiscus lasiocarpos
Justicia americana
Nuphar lutea
Nymphaea odorata
Peltandra virginica
Pontederia cordata
Potamogeton nodosus
Sagittaria graminea
Sagittaria latifolia
Saururus cernuus
Schoenoplectus …
Scirpus americanus
Scirpus atrovirens
Scirpus cyperinus
Scirpus pallidus
Thalia dealbata
Vallisneria americana
Percemt Coverage
Species
Lake-wide Average Coverage by Species
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 41
Figure 27: A full cage of Thalia delbata at site 3 during final assessment 2010.
One species, Justicia americana, was observed at the lake during the initial site selection,
and was planted in cages during the 2008 season. By the final assessment, Justicia
americana was so dominant throughout the sites that it was no longer necessary (or
practical) to continue to assess all of it. Because it was native, it was popping up inside
cages that were planted with other species, inside the pens, and along the shorelines. In
fact, it can be seen in almost all the pictures included in this report, including in the
background of Figure 20, Figure 21, and Figure 22. For the purpose of this report, we
assigned a 100% coverage value to all 33 cages planted with Justicia americana in 2008.
Those 33 cages were also planted with other species in subsequent years to try to increase
diversity, when it was evident that the Justicia americana no longer needed protection.
As mentioned before, the coverage values also need to be considered by the number of
plants in the subset. For example, Eleocharis quadrangulata had an average of 100%
coverage, but there were only two cages that contained Eleocharis quadrangulata at the
final assessment. Another species, Scirpus americanus had only one surviving cage at the
final assessment, with coverage of 75%. So for both of these species, the few cages that
did survive did well. With Eleocharis quadrangulata in particular, our plant nursery
supplier was unable to provide this species in 2009 and 2010, so the plants that did
survive were planted in 2008, and we expect that with replanting, this species would have
performed well. However, both species may still need further evaluation to see if they
can be successful at Atoka Lake.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 42
Some species did not survive at all, namely Bacopa monnieri (Bacopa), Echinodorus
berteroi (Tall Burhead), Scirpus atrovirens (Green Bulrush), Scirpus cyperinus
(Woolgrass), and Scirpus pallidus (Cloaked Bulrush). At the end of each growing season,
an assessment was conducted, and species that did not perform well that year were taken
off of the purchase list for the next season. So the four species mentioned above were
planted in 2008, and after poor performance over the 2008 growing season, were not
replanted over the next two years. Similar scenarios occurred over the 2009 season as
well.
Coverage also varied by the elevation of the cage. Because water level varied greatly
between the 2008 season when cages were first installed, and the 2009 and 2010 seasons
when the pipeline was being repaired, cages placed at higher elevations tended to do
better than those at lower elevations. Cages at elevations below 586.0’ (mean sea level)
msl, primarily at site 5 (and one cage at site 2), where deep water submersed plantings are
held. A vast majority of the project cages are between 586.0’ and 589.0’msl. Since the
plantings are designated at 25% initially, elevations that showed average coverage greater
than 25% had positive growth. All of the elevations planted had over 25% average
coverage, which indicates that elevations selected for this project are appropriate
elevations for aquatic plants in Atoka Lake. Figure 28 shows average cage coverage
taking into account the cage elevation.
Figure 28: Average Cage Coverage by Elevation
n=7
n=12
n=33
n=46 n=58
n=112
n=75
n=99
n=67
n=6
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
585.0 585.5 586.0 586.5 587.0 587.5 588.0 588.5 589.0 589.5
Percent Average Cage Coverage
Cage Elevation (MSL)
Average Cage Coverage by Elevation
n= number of surviving
plants at this elevation
Above 25% =
positive growth
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 43
Overall, shallow water cages seemed to do very well with 98% and 90% coverage for the
shallowest cages at the final assessment. Deeper water cages had satisfactory growth, but
the data suggests that the high water levels that started in May 2009 and continued
through the 2010 growing season had a negative effect on plants at lower elevations. This
is based on the fall 2008 assessment that showed the highest percent coverage in cages
planted at lower elevations. When lake elevations return to normal over the next several
years and the water level fluctuates more regularly (more than it did over the last two
growing seasons), we may see a shift in which elevations have the best growth.
Pen Planting Results
As with caged plantings and plots, measurements were taken via visual estimate of a
percentage of pen coverage (pC) maintaining the 0%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%
increments. Since this method would be highly subjective in its results, it was simplified
to build consistency and understanding between sessions as well as between those
making the assessments. Pens, being much larger than cages, will not likely fill to
capacity and may still be healthy and spreading. Hence, giving purely a percent coverage
would not accurately reflect the quality of a pen’s plant community. For that reason,
another metric was developed for pens called a Community Rating (CR) that better
captured the quality of the pen’s health and diversity. Between these two rating systems,
a good measure of founder colony establishment is possible.
%Cover (pC) = visual estimation of total area coverage of all plants in the pen.
• Initial condition at time of planting = 25%
Community Rating (CR) = 0 - 4
0 = no aquatic macrophytes
1 = 1 species prominent – monoculture or aquatic macrophytes
2 = 2 species prominent
3 = 3 species prominent
4 = 4 or more species prominent
Prominent = at a minimum, a grouping of healthy macrophytes, i.e. an individual
plant in the pen should not be considered prominent.
• Initial condition at time of planting = 4
The results were highly varied, due in large part to breaches or overtopping of pens. Pen
placement was intended to cover roughly two or three feet of elevation change from the
normal pool elevation. While this made it possible for the pen to house both emergent
and submerged plants, it also created the possibility that high waters could overtop the 4
½ foot tall fence on the deep end and expose the community to herbivory. With high
water that began at the start of the 2009 growing season and continued though the end of
the 2010 growing season, all of the “Deeper” pens were overtopped at some point, and
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 44
some were overtopped for extended periods of time. “Toppers” were added to the pens in
2009 and 2010 to increase the height, with the hopes of preventing further overtopping.
When the “Deeper” pens were originally installed, both emergent and submersed species
could be planted in the same pen, due to the slight elevation change within the pen
boundaries. But when water levels rose, and stayed up, the water was too high for many
of the emergent species to survive in the “Deeper” pens. In 2010, four (4) new pens were
constructed at higher elevations (“Shallow” pens) and were planted entirely with
emergent species. In 2010, only floating leaved and submersed species were planted in
the old, now called “Deeper”, pens, but a few emergent species did survive in the
“Deeper” pens and helped to enhance the community rating of those pens. Table 9 lists
the percent cover and community rating of each pen at the final assessment in the fall of
2010.
Table 9: Final Pen Assessment Results - fall 2010
Pens had an overall community rating average of 4, while the average percent cover came
to 62%. Percent cover varied by site, but the “Shallow”, emergent pens tended to have
better coverage than the “Deeper” pens. This was most likely due to the breaches and
overtopping that the “Deeper” pens sustained in 2009 and 2010.
Like the cages, the survival of plants within each pen was taken into account as well.
Again, survival of a cage is a simple binary rating: plant/no plant without accounting for
size or vigor.
The percent survival of plants within the pens was 84%. (Table 10)
Table 10: Lake-wide Average Total for Survival within Pens
Total number of
plants planted in
pens
Total number
surviving at final
assessment
% Survival
Lake-wide Average of
Pen Plants 392 328 84%
Pen/Site # Percent Cover Community Rating Elevation
1 Deeper 67% 4 585.5' -587.5'
1 Shallow 64% 4 587.5' - 589.0'
2 Deeper 25% 4 586.0' -587.5'
2 Shallow 75% 4 588.5' - 589.0'
3 Deeper 69% 4 586.5' - 587.5'
4 Deeper 25% 4 585.0' - 586.5'
4 Shallow 85% 4 588.0' - 588.5'
5 Deeper 63% 4 585.0 - 587.5'
5 Shallow 88% 4 588.5' - 591.0'
Total Average Coverage in Pens = 62%
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 45
Figure 29: “Shallow” Pen at site 5 - Pontederia cordata, Schoenoplectus
tabernaemontani, Justicia americana, and Eleocharis quadrangulata. At final
assessment – fall 2010.
The most successful pen was the “Shallow” pen at site 5 (Figure 29) with a percent cover
of 88%. At least seven (7) different species were prominent in this pen, giving it a
community rating of 4. Species include: Pontederia cordata, Schoenoplectus
tabernaemontani, Eleocharis quadrangulata, Sagittaria graminea, Nuphar lutea,
Saururus cernuus and Justicia americana. The emergent species planted in this pen not
only filled their cages, but also spread, with many new propagules (Figure 30) seen
popping up throughout the pen.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 46
Figure 30: New propagules of Pontederia cordata, Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani,
Sagittaria graminea, and Nuphar lutea along with Justicia americana are seen in this
close-up shot from “Shallow” pen 5 at the final assessment – September 2010.
Another pen that fared well was the “Shallow” pen at site 4 with percent cover of 85%.
This pen had a community rating of 4, and included Pontederia cordata, Schoenoplectus
tabernaemontani, Sagittaria graminea, Sagittaria latifolia, Justicia Americana, and
Thalia dealbata. This pen was on a substrate of Deep Mud Organic and the higher
elevation of this pen enabled so many emergent species to have successful growth within
its protective boundary. Figure 31 and Figure 32 are photos taken at the final assessment
of the “Shallow” pen at site 4.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 47
Figure 31: “Shallow pen” at Site 4. Pontederia cordata, Schoenoplectus
tabernaemontani, and Justicia americana with new propagules of Sagittaria graminea
at the final assessment – September 2010.
Figure 32: Another view of the “Shallow” pen at site 4 – final assessment 2010
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 48
While the “Shallow” pens tended to have better percent cover than the submersed
(Deeper) pens, the submersed pens still fared well despite a period of 15 straight months
of high water. During the high water levels, the pens were often overtopped, allowing
herbivory pressure as well as decreased light penetration in such deep water. The three
“Deeper” pens that had the best results were pen 3 (69% cover), “Deeper” pen 1 (67%
cover) and “Deeper” pen 5 (63% cover) each with a community rating of 4. Figure 33,
Figure 34 and Figure 35 show “Deeper” pens at the final assessment.
Figure 33: “Deeper” Pen at site 3 at final assessment – September 2010.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 49
Figure 34: Site 5 “Deeper” pen with Sagittaria graminea and blooming Nymphaea
odorata at the final assessment – September 2010.
Figure 35: Another view of the “Deeper” pen at site 5 – September 2010.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 50
Overall, between the inside and outside cage growth, as well as the pen plantings, a total
of 5.18 acres were planted along the shorelines of the 5 sites at Atoka Lake. Table 11
shows the breakdown by site for cage and pen acres planted.
Table 11: Acres Planted at Atoka Lake
Acres Planted at Atoka Lake over all sites
Site Number Portion Acres Planted
1 Cages (plot) 0.90
1 “Deeper” Pen 0.11
1 “Shallow” Pen 0.03
1 Total 1.04
2 Cages (plot) 0.77
2 “Deeper” Pen 0.12
2 “Shallow” Pen 0.04
2 Total 0.93
3 Cages (plot) 0.90
3 “Deeper” Pen 0.11
3 Total 1.01
4 Cages (plot) 1.02
4 “Deeper” Pen 0.11
4 “Shallow” Pen 0.05
4 Total 1.18
5 Cages (plot) 0.86
5 “Deeper” Pen 0.12
5 “Shallow” Pen 0.04
5 Total 1.02
Total 5.18
While 5.18 acres planted is relatively small when compared to the 70 miles of shoreline
that surrounds Atoka Lake, spread of plants to areas outside of the site boundaries has
already started to occur. New propagules of Sagittaria graminea were found at the boat
ramp near aquatic plant site 2. Figure 36 shows the new plants on the north side (pictured
on the right) of the boat ramp at site 2. Figure 37 shows another angle of the Sagittaria
graminea, in this photo flowers are evident on the plant indicating that this plant is
mature enough to spread seeds to this area of the lake. The way in which these plants
spread to this area of the lake is unknown. It could be by seeds from site 2, or perhaps
from fragments that broke off when loading and unloading the boat at this site.
Regardless of how it happened, the plants look strong and at least one was already
flowering, making the potential for a new founder colony in this location a likely
possibility. Figure 38 is a map showing the distance between site 2 and the boat ramp.
The closest cage at site 2 is 547 feet away from where the new plants were found.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 51
Figure 36: New propagules of Sagittaria graminea at the boat ramp adjacent to site
2. Large stand of Justicia americana also visible – July 2010
Figure 37: Another view of new propagules of Sagittaria graminea at the boat ramp
adjacent to site 2 – July 2010
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 52
Figure 38: Relationship of Aquatic Plant site 2 to boat ramp (blue icon) where
unprotected propagules were found reproducing.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 53
Tree Planting Results
Because of the surrounding topography, particularly slope, there are very few places that
would be suitable for new tree sites to be installed around Atoka Lake. Many locations
around the lake were evaluated for suitability including the apparent soil conditions
(texture, drainage, rocky areas, etc.), competition from other species, size of open areas,
and slope. Very few suitable sites could be identified, and in the end, the 12 selected sites
were the best available, even if they did not all have 100% of the desired characteristics.
Trees were initially planted in March 2009 with 57 caged trees logged by GPS for project
assessment. In 2010, more trees were planted, 40 of which were caged, bringing the
total number of caged trees to 97. The species planted can be found in Table 12.
In 2009, the area known as Fred’s Fish Camp had some ATV activity that caused
damaged to tree sites 1 and 2. The City of Oklahoma City identified the individuals
responsible for the damage, and does not expect any further damage to the tree sites. One
cage was removed due to the proximity of the cage to a fork in the road. The cage had
been knocked over and, due to the damage inflicted when this occurred, it was not
replaced. The tree planted in this removed cage could not be located and it was assumed
that this tree did not survive.
Bare-root seedlings were planted
• 2009: Planted approximately1,600 trees on 8 sites located near aquatic
plant sites
• 2010: Planted an additional 4 sites (also located near aquatic plant
sites) with approximately 1,600 trees
• Species chosen were classified as “Wildlife” species
• Each site had a perimeter of trees that were flagged, caged, identified
by species and marked with GPS points. The number of cages per site
varied (minimum 4 to maximum 10) based on the size of the site and
the number of trees planted at each site.
• Additionally, every fifth tree that each person planted was flagged and
the species was written on the flagging material.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 54
Table 12: 2009-2010 Tree Species Planted at Atoka Lake
The final tree assessment was conducted in October 2010. Chris Joslin, a District 3 Area
Forester from the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, accompanied
OWRB staff on the trip.
Table 13 shows the results of the final tree assessment conducted in November 2010.
Table 13: Final Assessment Results for Atoka Trees
Atoka Tree Assessment Planted 2009 Planted 2010 All Trees
# Cages % # Cages % # Cages %
Total Number Cages 57 39 96
Survived 31 54 % 26 67% 57 59%
Overall survival was 59% over the two years. The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture,
Food and Forestry stated that typical seedling survival rates range from 30%-99%
depending on care in transporting and planting, species selected, soil conditions,
competition from other species, herbivory, weather conditions, and other factors. Our tree
seedlings were planted in areas with no site preparation prior to planting (other than the
fire that had occurred naturally at sites 1 and 2 the week before planting), and no follow-up
care. Several of the above mentioned factors could have had an effect on seedling
survival. In particular, soil conditions, competition, herbivory, and weather most likely
had the greatest impact on the trees planted at Atoka Lake.
Certain tree sites seemed to fare better than others. This could have been due to site soil
type, other herbaceous cover at particular sites or additional factors. Site 9 had the highest
survival rate with 75% and Site 3 had the next best with 71% of the caged trees surviving
into 2010. Not only did this these sites have the highest percentage survival, but they
were both planted in 2009; so all of the trees that survived at these sites had been in the
ground for 20 months at the time of assessment. Sites 7, 10 and 11 (all planted in 2010)
also had good survival rates (70%). Table 14 shows the survival rates by site.
Common Name 2009 2010
Carya illinoinensis Native Pecan 200 200
Morus rubra Red Mulberry 200 200
Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 150 150
Celtis occidentalis L. Common Hackberry 200 200
Plantanus occidentalis American Sycamore 200 200
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 200 200
Cercis canadensis -upland only Eastern Redbud 200 200
Cornus drummondii - upland only Roughleaf Dogwood 150 150
Diospyros virginiana- upland only American Persimmon 100 100
1,600 1,600
Number of Trees planted by Species
Year Planted
Scientific Name
Grand Total 3,200
Total by year
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 55
Table 14: Tree Survival by Site
Survival of Caged Trees by Site Number
Site
1
Site
2
Site
3
Site
4
Site
5
Site
6
Site
7
Site
8
Site
9
Site
10
Site
11
Site
12
Percent
Survived 43% 60% 71% 60% 44% 50% 70% 40% 75% 70% 70% 56%
Number
Survived 3 3 5 6 4 5 7 2 3 7 7 5
Total
Number
Caged 7 5 7 10 9 10 10 5 4 10 10 9
Table 15 shows survival number by species. Green Ash was the best performer, with
100% survival as of the 2010 fall assessment. Bur Oak also did well with 83% survival,
as well as Dogwood with 78% survival. The species that struggled were Sycamores with
only 31% survival and Redbud with 33% survival.
Table 15: Tree Survival by Species
Tree
Species
Total
Number
Cages
Survived
Pecan
7
# of Cages 4
% 57%
Hackberry
14
# of Cages 8
% 57%
Redbud
9
# of Cages 3
% 33%
Dogwood
9
# of Cages 7
% 78%
Persimmon
8
# of Cages 4
% 50%
Green Ash
12
# of Cages 12
% 100%
Red
Mulberry
9
# of Cages 4
% 44%
Sycamore
16
# of Cages 5
% 31%
Bur Oak
12
# of Cages 10
% 83%
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 56
When evaluating how particular species did by site (Table 16), several things stand out.
Site 3 seemed to have great results; 100% survival of all species with exception of the
Sycamores, which did poorly at 5 out of 8 sites where they were planted. Green Ash, as
mentioned above, had 100% survival at all sites; and Dogwoods also did well with the
exception of site 10. Bur Oak did great at all sites, except site 4. Pecan also seemed to be
affected by site location; sites 4, 7, 10 and 11 had 100% survival, while sites 5 and 6 had
0% survival.
Table 16: Species Survival by Site
Percent Caged Species Survived by Site
Species
Site
1
Site
2
Site
3
Site
4
Site
5
Site
6
Site
7
Site
8
Site
9
Site
10
Site
11
Site
12
Bur Oak 100% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 67%
Dogwood 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100%
Green Ash 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Hackberry 0% 100% 100% 0% 50% 67% 100% 50%
Pecan 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%
Persimmon 0% 50% 50% 67%
Red
Mulberry 50% 0% 50% 67%
Redbud 0% 100% 0% 50% 50% 0%
Sycamore 0% 0% 33% 50% 67% 100% 0% 0%
*Greens indicate survival, with darker green representing 100% survival
no caged Species
Mr. Joslin, the area forester who accompanied us on the assessment, thought that several
species seemed to be doing well and that site conditions played a role in the success of
the seedlings. Mr. Joslin pointed out two factors that may have hindered the survival of
trees at some sites. The first was soil type for each particular species and the second was
existing herbaceous cover (grasses and weeds) at each site. Mr. Joslin said that area soils
were not suitable for some of the species selected. He also said that a large amount of
herbaceous cover can hinder tree establishment and survival, by robbing soil nutrients,
water and sunlight from the seedlings. Mr. Joslin suggested that any replanting or future
plantings focus on the species with good survival rates over the course of this project and
be located at sites where herbaceous plants can be controlled while the new seedlings get
established. The letter from Mr. Joslin is included in Appendix E - Letter from Oklahoma
Forestry Services regarding Tree Assessment. Figure 39 shows the soil types
surrounding Atoka Lake as classified in the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s
Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 57
Figure 39: Atoka Lake map with Tree sites and surrounding SSURGO soil types
Bates and Dennis soils, 3 to 5 percent slopes, severely eroded
Bates fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Bates fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes
Bates fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes, eroded
Bates-Coweta complex, 1 to 5 percent slopes
Bates-Coweta complex, 3 to 5 percent slopes
Bernow fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Bernow fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Bernow fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes, eroded
Bernow fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes
Bernow fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, gullied
Bigfork-Yanush association, 15 to 45 percent slopes
Bosville loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes
Carnasaw-Clebit association, 25 to 45 percent slopes
Carnasaw-Clebit association, 8 to 25 percent slopes
Carnasaw-Clebit complex, 3 to 5 percent slopes
Carnasaw-Clebit complex, 5 to 8 percent slopes
Choteau loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Clearview fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Clearview fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes
Clearview fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes, eroded
Clearview fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes, severely eroded
Clearview-Hector complex, 3 to 5 percent slopes, gullied
Counts loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Dela and Wynona soils, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded
Dela fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
Dennis and Eram soils, 3 to 8 percent slopes, severely eroded
Dennis loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Dennis loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes
Dennis loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes, eroded
Endsaw-Hector complex, 3 to 5 percent slopes
Endsaw-Hector complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes
Endsaw-Hector complex, 5 to 8 percent slopes
Endsaw-Hector complex, 8 to 30 percent slopes
Eram clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes
Eram clay loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes
Eram-Talihina complex, 5 to 20 percent slopes
Gowton clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
Guyton silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
Hamden fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Homa-Clearview complex, 3 to 5 percent slopes
Homa-Hector complex, 12 to 20 percent slopes
Kanima very gravelly silty clay loam, 1 to 45 percent slopes
Karma fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes
Kiti-Rock outcrop complex, 20 to 45 percent slopes
Larton loamy fine sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes
Lightning silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
Lightning-Healdton complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
Miscellaneous water
Parsons silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Parsons silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Parsons silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes, eroded
Pharoah silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Pits
Rexor loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
Rexor-Dela complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded
Saffell gravelly fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes
Steedman clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes
Steedman-Coweta complex, 2 to 20 percent slopes
Steedman-Dela complex, 5 to 30 percent slopes
Stidham loamy fine sand, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Tarrant cobbly clay, 1 to 8 percent slopes
Water
Wrightsville silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Wynona silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
Yanush gravelly silt loam, 12 to 25 percent slopes
Atoka Tree Sites
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 58
Table 17 shows how many of each species survived compared to the number planted
when soil type is taken into consideration.
Table 17: Species Survival by Soil Type
Trees planted in Clearview fine sandy loam seemed to do best, while those planted in
Counts loam did not have good survival. Other soil types had mixed results depending on
the species. The sample size of each species at any particular soil type was relatively
small, so results could be skewed based on this factor.
Because of the limited number of suitable tree site locations around Atoka Lake, the soil
types associated with those locations, and the level of care that we were able to provide to
the seedlings after planting (none), 59% overall survival was “real good” according to
Albert Engstrom Forest Regeneration Center Nursery Manager Scott Huff.
While no designed objective assessment was done on the uncaged trees, areas where
vegetation was less dense made it possible to distinguish surviving tree seedlings growing
throughout the plots. These unmeasured observations gave the impression that most plots
will survive at percentages relative to those observed in the cages. Given the 59% overall
cage survival, if we expect similar numbers of the uncaged trees survived, then
approximately 1,900 uncaged trees have survived initial planting at Atoka Lake from the
3,200 total trees planted.
Pecan 1/2 0/1 1/1 0/1 1/1 1/1 n/a
Hackberry 1/1 1/2 3/5 1/3 1/1 1/1 0/1
Redbud 1/1 0/1 0/1 1/3 1/1 n/a 0/2
Dogwood n/a n/a 1/2 1/1 1/1 2/2 2/3
Persimmon n/a n/a 2/3 1/2 n/a 1/2 0/1
Green Ash 3/3 n/a 8/8 n/a 1/1 n/a n/a
Red Mulberry 1/2 n/a 3/6 n/a 0/1 n/a n/a
Sycamore 2/2 0/1 1/4 1/2 0/4 1/3 n/a
Bur Oak n/a n/a 1/2 1/1 4/4 0/1 4/4
Species
fraction = number survived / total number planted (n/a ‐ none planted in this soil type)
Green = 100% survival, Brown = 0% survival
Atoka Tree Species Survival by Soil Type
SSURGO Soil Type
Clearview
fine sandy
loam
Counts
loam
Dennis
loam
Dennis and
Eram soils
Eram clay
loam
Eram‐
Talihina
complex
Parsons silt
loam
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 59
Volunteer (Preexisting) Plant Colonies
Two preexisting species in particular are worth noting at Atoka Lake. The first, Justicia
americana (American Water-willow) is a native species found in Atoka Lake, and it was
identified at several locations throughout the lake by LAERF and Owen Mills during the
site selection trip. Justicia americana was planted in year one of the project, but it was
not planted in subsequent plantings, simply because there was no need to plant it. Over
the course of the project, Justicia americana experienced tremendous growth at all
project sites, and it was coming in on its own from the pre-existing seed bank, see Figure
40. At the final assessment not only was Justicia americana growing in the cages where
it was planted, it was also a predominant species at all of the sites and was growing inside
other cages, inside the pens and outside the protected areas. It’s possible the three years
of protection from predators allowed it to produce the numbers of propagules necessary
to overcome the herbivory pressure. Another speculation is that the water levels over the
project timeframe provided the perfect conditions for the proliferation of Justicia
americana. Whatever the circumstances, we feel confident that Justicia americana has
been successfully established at Atoka Lake. Figure 41 illustrates the spread of Justicia
americana at site 1 over the course of the project.
Figure 40: “Shallow” pen at site 1 containing a large stand of Justicia americana
– September 2010
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 60
Figure 41: Spread of Justicia americana at site 1; upper photo taken fall 2008,
middle taken fall 2009, and lower taken fall 2010
Location: Site 1
Description: Photo Point 2
Date: 9-23-2010
Time: 9:44
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 61
The second preexisting species worth noting is Ludwigia L. spp. While this species was
not a species that was planted as part of this project, it is also a species that was observed
in the lake during the site selection trip. We kept an eye on this species over the three
year project and much like Justicia americana, Ludwigia L. spp. has spread throughout
several project coves and will most likely continue to spread to other coves in the lake
(Figure 42). While we did not plant this species, perhaps the protection that project cages
and pens provided was one of the reasons that Ludwigia L. spp is doing so well at Atoka
Lake.
Figure 42: Stand of Ludwigia L. spp. (Water Primrose) at Atoka Lake – July 2010
Accomplishing Workplan Objectives
“By planting founder colonies of wetland species in key protected areas
around the lake, natural spread will result in development of wetland
habitat around much of the lake. This habitat will result in a healthier
lake and more diverse ecosystem.”
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 62
Objective accomplished. 5 sites with 1,311 aquatic plants planted over
three growing seasons. Average survival 67%, average cover 64%, and
average outside growth 17%.
“Plants will be distributed over at least 5 sites across the lake,
providing immediate (3 year) wetland habitat in what is currently a
poorly vegetated environment.”
Objective accomplished. A total of 5.18 acres of aquatic plant habitat
created along the shorelines of Atoka Lake providing habitat for fish,
nutrient uptake, shoreline stabilization, and filtration of runoff storm
water.
“Following founder colony establishment (in the long term, 10+ years)
these protected plants will create a seed bank and give off fragments
that will over time populate the coves where sites are (located) and will
spread to other parts of the lake as well.”
Objective initiated. While spread to other parts of the lake was not
assessed, it was observed that at one location (boat ramp at site 2) plant
propagules were seen growing and producing flowers well outside the
site boundaries. There is optimism from this observation the aquatic
plants introduced in this project will spread to other parts of Atoka
Lake.
“Turbidity will be reduced as the colloidal clays fall out in the plant
protected waters. Shoreline erosion will be curtailed by reduction of
wave action and compaction of shoreline sediments by root systems.
Emergent species such as bulrush, spike rush and duck potato will
buffer the lake from upland erosion. Submersed species such as
American pondweed and coontail will populate the deeper portions of
the littoral zone.”
Objective initiated. While no improved water quality has been
documented, the baseline data (BUMP 2007 and 2010) will allow future
water quality data to be assessed for any observed improvements as a
result of this project. A reduction in shoreline erosion should occur as
aquatic plants continue to extend their boundaries along the littoral zone
of Atoka Lake.
“Fish nursery habitat will be enhanced as the plants provide cover,
macroinvertebrate habitat, and improved water quality.”
Objective initiated. The creation of 5.18 acres of aquatic plant habitat
along the shorelines of Atoka Lake provides immediate habitat for
young fish and macroinvertebrates. While no improved water quality
has been documented, the baseline data will allow future water quality
data to be assessed for any observed improvements as a result of this
project.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 63
Conclusion and Recommendations
The primary focus of this project was to establish “founder colonies” that would, over
time, produce quantities of seeds and fragments to disseminate across Atoka Lake
creating wetland habitat along much of the shoreline. Because of the relatively high
turbidity, the initial objective was to focus on emergent plant species as a means of
controlling erosion. When the conditions are right, “bumper crops” are able to be
produced and colonies can be established despite herbivore pressure. The quick success
of emergent plants allowed efforts to assess the feasibility of floating leaved and
submerged plant species in Atoka Lake to add to the diversity of the aquatic plant
community, increase habitat and improve water quality within the lake. Figure 43 shows
the successful emergent plants growing at site 3 in September 2010 and Figure 44 shows
a cage of Potamogeton nodosus, at the final assessment.
Figure 43: View of the cages at site 3 during the final assessment – September 2010
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 64
Figure 44: Potamogeton nodosus growing in a penned cage - final assessment,
September 2010
Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives
Decision Thresholds:
(from QAPP)
1. Output Threshold: a survival threshold of 50% or better within the protective
cages indicates that the project has successfully established founder colonies at
Lake Atoka.
2. Outcome Threshold: When plant coverage outside of the protective cages is
equal to or exceeds the coverage within the cages the OWRB is confident this
project will result in the predicted outcome; successful vegetation of the habitable
littoral zone of Lake Atoka.
Success of any of these parameters indicates that the project should be allowed an
additional four years to verify actual establishment and quantify the resultant littoral
community. OWRB may at that time request monies for 2 years of additional monitoring.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 65
Decision Rule
(from QAPP)
“Decisions to be made will be based on first through third year data from the project.
Plant establishment may take several additional seasons before significant expansion
begins. Environmental conditions for the seeds and the colonies must be on target for
exponential growth to occur. The “founder colony” concept works on the idea that
the plants are always in place spreading seeds, fragments and propagules waiting for
the optimal conditions for explosive growth to occur. Mindful of this concept, if wide
expansion has not yet occurred by project end it may be premature to judge the
project as failed.
1. Output and Outcome Failure: No thresholds are met. At the end of year
three, exceptional plant loss due to herbivory or other disturbance would
indicate output failure and therefore outcome failure.
2. Output Successful but Outcome Indeterminate: Only Output Threshold is met.
At the end of year three, if plants are surviving well within their cages but
have not been able to grow beyond their cages OWRB will recommend that
further monitoring up to year seven after project launch and may request
monies for 2 years of additional monitoring to circumvent a False Negative
Error.
3. Output Successful and Outcome Secure: Output Threshold is met. Barring
severe drought or unforeseen calamity after project end, OWRB predicts that
the habitable littoral zone will have substantial and permanent aquatic
vegetation and viable seedbed in place by year seven after project launch.
OWRB may request monies for 2 years of additional monitoring.
4. Output and Outcome Successful: All thresholds are met. The OWRB expects
to initiate the ecosystem shift but not complete this shift within the project
period. This scenario is not likely to occur within the three-year project
window.
Threshold Conclusions
The lake-wide average survival of protected plantings is 67% within the cages (Table 3)
and 27% growth outside the cages (Table 8) or “unprotected”.
The lake-wide average coverage of protected plantings is 64% (Table 6) within the cages
and 17% coverage outside the cages (Table 6) or “unprotected”.
The lake-wide average survival of protected pen plantings is 84% (Table 10)
The lake-wide average percent cover of protected pen plantings is 62% (Table 9)
The lake-wide average community rating for all pens is 4. (Table 9)
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 66
The lake-wide average survival of protected tree plantings is 59% (Table 13)
The Output Threshold states “a survival threshold of 50% or better within the protective
cages”. This Output Threshold has been met with a 64% average survival inside
plant cages, an average of 84% inside the pens, and a 59% average inside tree cages.
This success was definitive at 14% to 34% beyond the threshold for aquatic species,
especially in the face of sustained flooding conditions for 15 months. This substantive
success rate gives OWRB confidence that with time and continued effort, this lake can
have a diverse aquatic macrophyte community. Success was also attained within tree
cages which exceed the threshold by 9%.
The Outcome Threshold is “When plant coverage outside of the protective cages is equal
to or exceeds the coverage within the cages”. This Outcome Threshold has not been
met with 17% average coverage outside of the cages being less than the 64% average
coverage within the cages. Therefore, the OWRB cannot state with confidence that this
project will succeed in its long-term goal of substantial littoral zone wetland colonization.
While the 17% average coverage outside the cages is below the 64% within the ages,
both numbers are quite significant achievements within the three-year project timeframe.
It is our opinion that the “founder colonies” have in fact been established and the #2
Decision Rule would be the best fit for the overall project conclusion of “Output
successful but Outcome Indeterminate.” While the 17% outside coverage is well below
the inside coverage of 64%, the outside coverage is only taking into account the plants
that were planted by the OWRB over the project duration. If the success of the volunteer
(preexisting) plant colonies was also accounted for, in particular Justicia americana and
Ludwigia L. spp, but also the native button bush, etc., the average outside coverage would
increase exponentially, easily making the outside average coverage greater than the inside
average coverage. It was most likely the added protection from pens and cages, as well
as ideal water levels for several species, which allowed these volunteer colonies to
develop and thrive. In addition one target species, Sagittaria graminea, was found
outside of the founder colony, unprotected and reproducing through shoot and seed
production.
Caged sites have been successful thus far and should continue to be used as a means of
increasing the founder colony. Plants that have good or exceptional growth inside cages
should have their cages removed, allowing them to continue their expansion. These
removed cages should be relocated to areas where new propagules have sprouted, adding
protection to the new plants.
Pen sites are perhaps the best solution for long term establishment of aquatic
macrophytes in the lake. They provide more propagules, an immediate diversified
wetland community (high CR) and excellent micro-habitat. As pens begin to reach 100%
coverage, they too should be relocated within the site to protect new areas as the founder
colony continues to expand.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 67
Plantings should concentrate between 586’ msl and 589’ msl, where plants have been
most successful. But as water levels return to a more normal fluctuation in the next few
years, cages and pens may need to be relocated for continued success. Cages may be
removed when the unprotected plants have clearly outgrown the plants within the cages
and pens and have survived a full season. By 2017, cages should be removed from the
lake regardless of the state of the plantings. This will ultimately be the decision of
Oklahoma City.
The following species were the most successful by far and should be the primary species
used in any subsequent plantings:
Heteranthera dubia (Water Star Grass)
Justicia americana (American Water-willow)
Nymphea odorata (White Water Lily)
Pontederia cordata (Pickerelweed)
Sagittaria latifolia (Arrowhead)
Sagittaria graminea (Bulltongue Arrowhead)
Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (Softstem Bulrush)
Thalia dealbata (Alligator Flag)
The following species also showed success, but had limited numbers planted and
therefore warrant further evaluation to determine their ability to thrive at Atoka Lake:
Eleocharis quadrangulata (Square-stem Spike Rush)
Scirpus americanus (Three Square Bulrush)
Nuphar lutea (Spatterdock)
With concentrated efforts using what has been learned from this project, and continued
support from Oklahoma City, the chances greatly increase for ultimate success. As stated
in the QAPP,
“Success of any of these parameters (outcome or output thresholds) indicates that
the project should be allowed an additional four years to verify actual
establishment and quantify the resultant littoral community. OWRB may at that
time request monies for 2 years of additional monitoring.”
And with the attainment of Decision Rule #2,
“Output Successful but Outcome Indeterminate: Only Output Threshold is met.
At the end of year three, if plants are surviving well within their cages but have
not been able to grow beyond their cages OWRB will recommend that further
monitoring occur (up to year seven after project launch) and may request monies
for 2 years of additional monitoring to circumvent a False Negative Error.”
OWRB recommends further maintenance for the next 4 years to allow time for further
establishment and spread of the resultant littoral community.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 68
Because there have been multiple successes and lessons learned from this project
combined with the commitment from OKC to continue with maintenance, the future
success is greatly amplified. Given that there is funding from Oklahoma City to continue
maintenance on this project, a positive outcome is very likely. Should Oklahoma City
continue founder colony maintenance the OWRB will propose funding through the
104(b)(3) program for future monitoring to determine the longer term outcome of an
ecological shift.
Literature Cited
1. Beneficial Use Monitoring Report; Oklahoma Water Resources Board; 2007
2. Beneficial Use Monitoring Report; Oklahoma Water Resources Board; 2010
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 1
Appendix A – Lake Atoka Recommendation from the Lewisville Aquatic Ecosystem
Research Facility at University of North Texas
Received June 2008
Recommendations for establishing aquatic plant species in Lake Atoka,
Oklahoma
Gary Owen Dick and Lynde Dodd Williams
Lewisville Aquatic Ecosystem Research Facility/University of North Texas
Lewisville Texas
972-436-2215
Background
Lake Atoka is a 5700-acre reservoir impounded to serve as water supply for
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Water from the lake is pumped to supplement
volume in Lake Stanley Draper, located approximately 100 miles away. The lake
is considered variably mesotrophic to oligotrophic (moderate to low productivity)
and exhibits high turbidity, due primarily to suspended clays. Aquatic vegetation
in the lake is restricted to a small number of native species that are moderately
well established but offer only limited benefits to fish, aquatic wildlife, water
quality, and erosion control.
Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) recently received EPA funding for
aquatic vegetation enhancement in the lake. Subsequently, OWRB requested
assistance from the Lewisville Aquatic Ecosystem Research Facility (LAERF) in
developing an aquatic plant establishment strategy. LAERF visited the lake in
May 2008 to assist in site selection and provide planting recommendations for
this project.
General Recommendations
LAERF recommends that OWRB focus on establishment of founder colonies to
provide immediate habitat at a minimum of five sites within the lake and along
lake shorelines. In addition to providing immediate but local habitat and other
benefits, once well established, these founder colonies will serve to produce
propagules (seeds, fragments, etc.) for natural spread to other areas of the lake,
thereby improving the lake ecosystem overall.
First-year efforts should concentrate on identifying aquatic plant species most
suitable for each site as well as ascertaining which will require protection from
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 2
herbivory in order to become initially established. All species suggested for use
in this project should be planted at each site---this shotgun approach allows for
selection of plants by their establishment success (or lack thereof), eliminating
misjudgments regarding each site’s potential to support particular plants.
Additionally, each species should be planted with varied levels of protection at
each site to evaluate herbivore influence on plant establishment: no protection
and fine-mesh (2-in maximum) protection are recommended for Lake Atoka.
Second- and third-year efforts should focus on expansion of founder colonies
using appropriate species and exclosures for each site. Additionally, continual
maintenance of sites (exclosure repairs, replanting when necessary, etc.) should
be conducted. Following this plan should result in full, diverse founder colony
establishment by the end of the third growing season, as well as spread to areas
remote to sites.
Specific Recommendations
1) Site Selection. OWRB and LAERF have identified seven potential sites for
establishing founder colonies. Most sites currently support a low diversity of
aquatic and riparian species, indicating they are suitable for founder colony
establishment, but have not yet received natural inputs of many aquatic and
riparian species that occur in Oklahoma.
2) Species Selection. Only species native to Oklahoma should be used in this
project. Several species of native aquatic (Potamogeton nodosus), emergent
(Juncus sp., Justicia americana, and Eleocharis macrostachya), and woody
riparian (Cephalanthus occidentalis and Salix nigra) plants were observed at
most of the sites.
We recommend using the following native Oklahoma species to supplement the
aquatic plant community currently found in the lake:
Aquatic Wild celery (Vallisneria americana)
American pondweed (Potamogeton nodosus)
Illinois pondweed (Potamogeton illinoensis)
Water stargrass (Heteranthera dubia)
Floating-leaved White water lily (Nymphaea odorata)
Emergent Squarestem spikerush (Eleocharis quadrangulata)
Slender spikerush (Eleocharis acicularis)
Softstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani)
Tall burhead (Echinodorus berteroi)
Creeping burhead (Echinodorus cordifolius)
American bulrush (Schoenoplectus americana)
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 3
Pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata)
Bulltongue (Sagittaria graminea)
Arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia)
Water hyssop (Bacopa monnieri)
3) Propagule Selection. We recommend using nursery-grown native plants.
Such propagules are well suited for harsh conditions (such as water level
fluctuations, herbivory, etc.) immediately following planting and generally prove
most successful in long-term establishment when compared with plantings of
bareroot plants or tubers. Additionally, using nursery-grown plants helps avoid
accidental introductions of unwanted, noxious species. An exception to this
recommendation is where species may be harvested locally (from within Lake
Atoka and its watershed) without decimating existing colonies. Spread of those
species by including bareroot transplants from other areas of the lake as part of
each founder colony is an acceptable approach. Successful transplanting in this
manner may increase cost-effectiveness of the project. However, if such
attempts fail during the first year of plantings, we recommend discontinuation and
sole use of potted nursery plants.
We generally do not recommend the use of tubers or seeds in aquatic vegetation
establishment projects, primarily because both are difficult to procure and
successful establishment from these propagules is inconsistent, at best.
However, if OWRB can acquire locally produced tubers or seeds for any of the
above species (or other perennial species deemed appropriate outside this
recommendation), first year attempts might be made in order to evaluate their
effectiveness and potential use for subsequent years.
4) Timing of Plantings. Most potted plants may be installed any time during the
growing season, typically between the months of April and October, inclusive.
Bareroot plants should be transplanted between May and September, inclusive.
Tubers (if used) are generally available during late winter and should be planted
prior to the growing season, or no later than May. Seeds (if used) may be
available year-round, but should be planted in fall, winter, or early spring
dependent upon species.
5) Herbivore Protection. The degree of herbivore effects on establishing plants
in the lake are unknown, but the presence of aquatic herbivores including beaver,
muskrats, crayfish, turtles, and common carp, as well as terrestrial grazers such
as deer and rabbits, will likely impact any new plantings made in and around the
lake. As mentioned in our General Recommendations, we suggest that initial
plantings include two levels of protection for each species planted at each site:
no protection and fine-mesh protection (2” mesh or finer).
Exclosures should be constructed from PVC-coated wire mesh to ensure
durability. Ring cages measuring 3-ft to 4-ft in diameter x 2-ft or 4-ft tall should
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 4
be sufficient for herbivore protection in this lake. All cages should be well
anchored to substrates using either T-posts or rebar. Larger mesh (up to 2-in x
4-in) pens or cages may be installed following first year evaluations to facilitate
expansion of existing plant colonies. Pens should be constructed so that their
tops are not underwater at conservation pool. Divided pens with deeper sections
that may be inundated but shallower sections that will not be inundated are
acceptable. Tall (5-ft or 6-ft) or covered ring cages should be installed in pens to
provide additional protection for at least portions of the aquatic plant colonies
should water exceed conservation pool. Turtle traps (floating, fall-in type) and
release funnels should be installed in large pens to help remove herbivores that
gain entry.
Plants that become established during the first year without protection will most
likely require no protection during the remainder of the project, and subsequent
plantings should be continued without exclosures unless significant herbivory is
noted as the project progresses. Those requiring protection should not be
excluded from additional plantings, but should continue to be planted with
protection. These plants will eventually produce enough seeds (or other
propagules) to overwhelm herbivores and begin to spread. Species that fail to
establish with or without protection should be considered inappropriate for a
given site (but not necessarily for the entire lake). Any species that fail to
establish at all sites should be excluded from future plantings.
Cages that fail to support plants should be replanted with species that have
successfully established but require protection at that site.
6) Planting Depths. Atoka Lake is prone to significant fluctuations, and plants
should be installed within depth ranges most suitable to their growth during
periods of high or low water, while at the same time considering high turbidity.
We suggest two planting tiers for each major group of plants (aquatic and
herbaceous riparian) based upon the following schematic:
Aquatic 3-ft below conservation and 4-ft below conservation
(these cages may require covers)
Floating-leaved 2-ft below conservation and 3-ft below conservation
Emergent 0.5-ft below conservation and 2-ft below conservation
These depth tiers should ensure that plants of each group are actively growing at
all times of the growing season and therefore potentially producing propagules by
which they may spread from founder colonies. However, if water levels drop by
more than 4-ft from conservation pool during the project, additional tiers should
be added to ensure that at least some plants are at appropriate depths for active
growth.
Atoka Lake FY-07: 104(b)(3) WPDG Draft Final Report 5
7) Site Maintenance. Sites should be visited regularly to ensure that cages
remain intact (damage may come from wave action, floating debris, vandalism,
etc.). Damaged cages should be repaired and replanted (if necessary) in a
timely manner to ensure that each founder colony supports as many plants as
possible.
Questions should be directed to:
Dr. Gary Owen Dick
garydick@laerf.org
Ms. Lynde Dodd
Williams
Lyndedodd@laerf.org
ERDC/UNT
Lewisville Aquatic Ecosystem Research
Facility
Lewisville, Texas
972-436-2215
1
Appendix B – Planting Data
See Excel Spreadsheet File on Enclosed CD
1
Appendix C – Site Maps
Plant species key for subsequent maps are as follows:
Assessment values for cage/plot coverage are denoted as follows:
“BullT 50%, 10%” = (Species name % in cage or plot , % outside cage or plot)
Species Comon Name Abbreviation
Scirpus americanus Three Square Bulrush 3Sq
Sagittaria latifolia Arrowhead Arrow
Peltandra virginica Green Arrow Arum Aarum
Bacopa monnieri Water hyssop Bacp
Sagittaria graminea Bulltongue Arrowhead BullT
Scirpus pallidus Cloaked Bulrush ClkB
Echinodorus cordifolius Creeping Burhead CBH
Scirpus atrovirens Green Bulrush Gbull
Saururus cernuus Lizard's Tail Liz
Pontederia cordata Pickerel Weed Pick
Potamogeton nodosus American Pondweed Pnod
Hibiscus lasiocarpos Rose Mallow Rose
Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani Softstem Bulrush SftS
Nuphar luteum Spatterdock SpatD
Eleocharis quadrangulata Square‐stem Spike Rush SqS
Echinodorus berteroi Tall Burhead TallB
Thalia dealbata Alligator Flag Thal
Vallisneria americana Wild Celery, Tapegrass Val
Justicia americana American Water‐willow WW
Scirpus cyperinus Woolgrass Wool
Heteranthera dubia Water Star Grass WtrS
Nymphaea odorata White Water Lily WWL
Species Key
Common Name
Pec Carya illinoinensis Native Pecan
Rmul Morus rubra Red Mulberry
Boak Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak
Hack Celtis occidentalis L. Common Hackberry
Gash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash
Syc Plantus occidentalis American Sycamore
Rbud Cercis canadensis -upland only Eastern Redbud
Dog Cornus drummondii - upland only Roughleaf Dogwood
Per Diospyros virginiana- upland only American Persimmon
Abbreviation Scientific Name
Tree Abbreviation Key
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
Appendix D – Photo Monitoring
Photo-monitoring results did not go as expected. There were several unanticipated events that
made this monitoring more difficult than originally anticipated.
In essence, all sites had 2 photos taken at each fall assessment. Photo-points were staked,
flagged, and logged by GPS at each site to ensure that a photo was captured from the same
location, year after year. In each photo, a completed photo sign form was to be in the shot to
properly document location, date, and time.
While this methodology sounded good in the planning stages, it became evident by the end of the
second season that there were problems with the method. The lake came up several feet and
remained up. This had several consequences on photo-monitoring.
• Water was high and completely covered plots that had previously been wholly visible;
• Terrestrials grown amongst the plots confounded any assessment early in the season.
• Flagging was washed out and no longer in place at many of the sites;
• Photo and Camera points were dependent on GPS which could be several feet off from
actual and did not sufficiently help to find the exact flagged point;
• When GPS signal was unavailable, photos points could not be located;
• Photo sign forms were left behind for the final 2010 assessment, so documentation was
carefully logged on paper and labels have been added to all 2010 photo-point images in
the office (see photos below).
The 2008 photos can be seen in Figure 45 -Figure 54, the 2009 photos are in Figure 55 -Figure
64, and the final assesment photos from the fall of 2010 can been seen in Figure 65 -Figure 74.
2
2008
Figure 45: Site 1 (Photo Point 1) 2008
Figure 46: Site 1 (Photo Point 2) 2008
3
Figure 47: Site 2 (Photo Point 1) 2008
Figure 48: Site 2 (Photo Point 2) 2008
4
Figure 49: Site 3 (Photo Point 1) 2008
Figure 50: Site 3 (Photo Point 2) 2008
5
Figure 51: Site 4 (Photo Point 1) 2008
Figure 52: Site 4 (Photo Point 2) 2008
6
Figure 53: Site 5 (Photo Point 1) 2008
Figure 54: Site 5 (Photo Point 2) 2008
7
2009
Figure 55: Site 1 (Photo Point 1) 2009
Figure 56: Site 1 (Photo Point 2) 2009
8
Figure 57: Site 2 (Photo Point 1) 2009
Figure 58: Site 2 (Photo Point 2) 2009
9
Figure 59: Site 3 (Photo Point 1) 2009
Figure 60: Site 3 (Photo Point 2) 2009
10
Figure 61: Site 4 (Photo Point 1) 2009
Figure 62: Site 4 (Photo Point 2) 2009
11
Figure 63: Site 5 (Photo Point 1) 2009
Figure 64: Site 5 (Photo Point 2) 2009
12
2010
Figure 65: Site 1 (Photo Point 1) 2010
Figure 66: Site 1 (Photo Point 2) 2010
Location: Site 1
Description: Photo Point
2
Date: 9-23-2010
Location: Site 1
Description: Photo Point 1
Date: 9-23-2010
Time: 9:46
13
Figure 67: Site 2 (Photo Point 1) 2010
Figure 68: Site 2 (Photo Point 2) 2010
Location: Site 2
Description: Photo Point 2
Date: 9-22-2010
Time: 12:49
Location: Site 2
Description: Photo Point 1
Date: 9-22-2010
Time: 12:49
14
Figure 69: Site 3 (Photo Point 1) 2010
Figure 70: Site 3 (Photo Point 2) 2010
Location: Site 3
Description: Photo Point 2
Date: 9-22-2010
Time: 14:11
Location: Site 3
Description: Photo
Point 1
Date: 9-22-2010
Time: 14:09
15
Figure 71: Site 4 (Photo Point 1) 2010
Figure 72: Site 4 (Photo Point 2) 2010
Photo Unavailable
Location: Site 4
Description: Photo Point 1
Date: 9-22-2010
Time: 14:47
16
Figure 73: Site 5 (Photo Point 1) 2010
Figure 74: Site 5 (Photo Point 2) 2010
Location: Site 5
Description: Photo Point 2
Date: 9-23-2010
Time: 8:59
Photo Unavailable
1
Appendix E - Letter from Oklahoma Forestry Services regarding Tree Assessment
1
Appendix F – Water Quality Data
See Enclosed CD