|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
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
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Okla State Agency |
Water Resources Board, Oklahoma |
Title | Initiating a vegetated wetland throughout the littoral zone of Atoka Lake, Atoka County, Oklahoma : final report. |
Alternative title | Atoka 104b3 wetland report--filename; Revegetation plantings of Lake Atoka--webpage |
Authors |
Oklahoma Water Resources Board. |
Publisher | Oklahoma Water Resources Board |
Publication Date | 2011-08 |
Publication type |
Technical Reports |
Subject |
Lake restoration--Oklahoma--Atoka Lake. Watershed restoration--Oklahoma--Atoka Lake. Atoka Lake (Okla.) |
Purpose | 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. |
Contents | Appendix A - Lake Atoka recommendation from the Lewisville Aquatic Ecosystem Research Facility at University of North Texas, Recommendations for establishing aquatic plant species in Lake Atoka, Oklahoma / Gary Owen Dick and Lynde Dodd Williams 2008-06 |
Notes | FY-07 104(b)(3) EPAGrant CA#CD-966618-01 Project 2; issued with CD, information not available here |
OkDocs Class# | W1700.3 I56v 2011 |
Digital Format | PDF, Adobe Reader required |
ODL electronic copy | Downloaded from agency website: http://www.owrb.ok.gov/studies/quality/Atoka104b3WetlandFinalReport.pdf |
Rights and Permissions | This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders. |
Language | English |
Full text | 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 |
Date created | 2012-01-19 |
Date modified | 2012-05-02 |
OCLC number | 907086132 |
|
|
|
A |
|
C |
|
D |
|
F |
|
I |
|
L |
|
O |
|
R |
|
S |
|
T |
|
|
|