European Frogbit Spread Prevention and Removal Plan

Thorp & Kimball Brook Wetlands, Town Farm Bay, Charlotte, VT

Lake Champlain

Final Report, October 10, 2010; amended December 10, 2010

Lake Champlain Basin Program, 2010 Habitat Improvement Grant,

NEIWPCC JC: 0100-303, PC: LS 2010-303
VT Agency of Natural Resources, DEC Grant in Aid funds to Town of Charlotte, AQ11-56.LC THORP
Town of Shelburne, SEP 2010, European Frogbit Plant Spread Prevention and Removal Methodology

Prepared by:
Mollie Wills
for
Lewis Creek Association
442 Lewis Creek Road
Charlotte, VT 05445
Table of Contents

A. Executive Summary…...……………………………..…………………..…………3
B. Introduction…………..….........................................................................................5
C. Objectives…………………………………………..………………………………6
D. Methods & Shelburne Pond Reconnaissance……..……………….……………….6
E. Results ……………………….……………………………………………………..8
F. Discussion & Conclusion……………....…..…………..………………………….12
G. Appendices…………………………..……………………………………………17
a. Appendix A: Maps……………………….………………………………..14
b. Appendix B: Photos…………………………………………….................15
c. Appendix C: Publicity and Press………...…………………..……………16
d. Appendix D: Transect Study Methods……………………………………17
e. Appendix E: Natural History Log Recordings…………...……………….18
f. Appendix F: Plant Identification Guide…………...…………………..….19
g. Appendix G: Shelburne Pond Reconnaissance Survey……….………..…20
h. Appendix H: Shelburne Pond Brochure…………………………..………21
i. Appendix I: Prevention Poster ……………………………..……………..22

2
A. Executive Summary

In 2010, with the funding assistance from Lake Champlain Basin Program, Vermont
ANR’s Grant in Aid Program, and the Towns of Shelburne and Charlotte; and with
landowner support from Vermont Electric Power Company; the Lewis Creek Association
and partners completed the second year of a pilot program to investigate the feasibility of
removing European frogbit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae) from a 43.3-acre wetland
complex and to restore this state-significant habitat area of Town Farm Bay, Charlotte,
Vermont. European frogbit, a non-native, invasive aquatic plant, is known to decrease
native vegetation populations in wetland habitats and is suspected of decreasing oxygen
levels, which may directly impact habitat for spawning fish and benthic organisms.
Though frogbit is known to occur throughout the greater St. Lawrence watershed in
Quebec, Vermont and New York, little is known about costs and best management
practices for harvesting frogbit.
The second year of this pilot project further defined the extent of the wetland's infestation,
refined removal methods to inform a long term management strategy, increased public
understanding of the bay’s ecological significance, continued active cultivation of a local
volunteer work team for ongoing stewardship, and developed recommendations for other
Frogbit prevention and removal projects in Vermont such as Shelburne Pond.
Education efforts in 2010 focused on increasing the local community’s understanding of
invasive frogbit conditions and the need for town involvement and long-term local
stewardship. An educational booth was put up at the Charlotte Town Party to educate the
local community while frogbit alert posters were posted at public boat launch sites
including Lewis Creek in Ferrisburgh, Converse Bay, Point Bay Marina, and Shelburne
Pond (See Appendix H). A reconnaissance of Shelburne Pond was conducted and written
materials were produced to inform a frogbit monitoring and removal plan for the Town of
Shelburne (See Appendix G). News articles were published in The Nature Conservancy’s
(TNC) volunteer newsletter, VT Department of Environmental Conservations Water
Quality Division’s Out of the Blue newsletter, and on-line on LCA’s, TNC’s and the
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources’ websites. Newspaper articles about the project
were published in the Charlotte News on May 20 and August 26, 2010, in the Burlington
Free Press on June 6, in the Charlotte Citizen on June 10/Sept. 16 and in Rural Route on
July 11 (See Appendix C).
Funds in 2010 allowed for the harvest season to include more hours and last for an
additional week (9 weeks), beginning on June 7 and ending August 6. Removal techniques
were improved with the use of a scow provided by Point Bay Marina. A field crew swept
the wetland for the second time in the 2009 work area (approx. 6 acres) and once in the
balance of the 40-acre wetland area (See Appendix A: 2009 Town Farm Bay Wetland Map
& 2010 Treatment Areas by Week). The field crew also collected site data and monitored
frogbit leaf size daily. US Fish and Wildlife Service provided management of all Transect
studies in 2010, allowing for more paid crew hours to be allocated to actual harvesting.
3
Future monitoring of vegetation transects is expected to be unnecessary and a 2011
management zone strategy has been developed.
During the 2010 season, the paid field crew and volunteers removed 3,723 5-gallon
buckets of European Frogbit, or approximately 28 tons of material (one bucket equals 15
lbs). This was achieved with 2,242 paid field crew hours and matched with 253 volunteer
hours. Total 2010 grant funds used amounted to $34,000. Volunteer hour in-kind match
equaled $4,200 (at federal standard of $16.59/hour). Volunteer recruitment in following
years will likely increase from 2009/10 educational efforts. Approximately 85-90% of the
wetland was cleared of frogbit in 2010. Depending on management zone locations, 15-
30% frogbit cover is the recommended allowable level for each zone for ongoing
stewardship. Approximately one half of the study area will require future work crew time,
while four zones (20 acres) are now suitable for including in the 2011 volunteer program
phase of this study project.

4
B. Introduction

In 2008, the state significant Town Farm Bay wetland complex, located at the mouth of the
Thorp and Kimball Brook confluence, was documented as infested with European frogbit
(Hydrocharis morsus-ranae) a non-native aquatic plant known to have serious ecological and
economical impacts on natural communities. Though the plant is naturalized throughout the St.
Lawrence watershed, including inland lakes in Quebec, New York, and Vermont, little was
known about proper management and removal of this exotic invasive species. Meanwhile, this
premiere duck hunting and fishing habitat location was losing its popular habitat and recreation
values.

European frogbit is an herbaceous, annual plant that resembles aquatic water lilies. Frogbit
leaves are leathery, round, heart-shaped and range in size from 0.5 – 2.25 inches (smaller than
native aquatic lily leaves). Unlike native lily species, frogbit is typically found free-floating in
still, open waters or caught among other wetland vegetation. It has a well-developed root system
that typically tangles the plant among itself and other vegetation. In the Town Farm Bay
wetlands, frogbit has been found loosely rooted to the wetland bottom in shallow areas where
lake level change is most dramatic. Frogbit produces a small, three-petal white flower with
yellow center in mid July that blooms above the water’s surface. Most plants are dioecoious
(male and female flowers are located on separate plants) and populations tend to either be
entirely one-sex or have a skewed sex ratio with a heavily male bias. Because of these factors,
sexual reproduction in studied populations of frogbit is not important in the spread and
propagation of the plant. Primary reproduction of this plant is achieved asexually through the
production of thick cord-like stolons, and turions or small buds that appear in late summer on the
stolons. Due to rapid stolon length growth, a single frogbit plant can grow from .5 inches to over
40 inches in length within an eight-week period. At the end of the season, turions break off the
plant, sink to the wetland bottom where they remain dormant during the winter, and reemerge in
the spring to form a new population of plants. Turion production has been estimated to be as high
as 100 buds per plant, which indicates the plant’s ability to spread and proliferate at great speed.
Turion production was noted in mid to late-July during the 2009 and 2010 field seasons.

The presence of dense, emergent vegetation (i.e. bulrush and cattail stands) in Town Farm Bay
wetlands acts as a natural sieve, catching and retaining the population of frogbit in the wetland.
In the spring of 2007, Charlotte residents Dianne Leary and Susan Smith noticed four
undocumented exotic invasive plant species in Thorp Brook Mouth: yellow-flag iris, European
frogbit, Eurasian milfoil, and curly-leaved pondweed. After receiving confirmation from the
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation that these plants were exotic, Leary and
Smith began to explore the best ways to monitor and control the populations. During the
summers of 2007 and 2008, Smith and Leary recruited volunteers to begin handpicking frogbit
from the wetland. For several years, local community members, Lewis Creek Association, The
Nature Conservancy and the VT Department of Environmental Conservation observed the
problem grow in Town Farm Bay.

Due to the rapidly increased infestation condition in 2008, there was a sense of urgency to
address the threat to this very significant wetland habitat area, sweep the wetland of frogbit,

5
develop a long term removal strategy, and promote ongoing early detection and spread
prevention efforts throughout Vermont. In 2009, Lewis Creek Association stepped in to help
carry out the restoration and long term protection of this wetland habitat area.

C. Objectives

Objective 1: Refine year one removal methodology, management plan and recordkeeping tools.
Objective 2: Reestablish and manage transect test plots of picked/unpicked areas.
Objective 3: Pilot refined work plan and methods.
Objective 4: Compile data and interpret results of the field season.
Objective 5: Continue spread prevention and volunteer outreach in Charlotte and Shelburne.
Objective 6: Conduct a European frogbit reconnaissance of Shelburne Pond and report findings.

D. Methods and Shelburne Pond Reconnaissance

The Thorp and Kimball Brook wetland opens into Town Farm Bay and then Lake Champlain in
Charlotte, Vermont. Water depth varies depending on lake levels and thus, the overall size of the
frogbit prone wetland ranges from 35 to 45 acres, depending on standing water levels in
surrounding floodplain forests. The emergent vegetation within the wetland is primarily cattail
(Typha spp.), bulrush (Scirpus spp.) and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) that form dense
stands. An open channel leading from the bay forks to the north and south and provides access to
the wetlands for boaters, paddlers, and animals utilizing the area (See Appendix A).

Due to the varied water depths and navigable channels, harvesters accessed the frogbit
population with the use of canoes and kayaks in deeper areas and chest waders for the areas
closer to shore. A larger or motorized boat would have trouble maneuvering in the cattails and
rushes. Volunteers and field crew members hand-picked individual plants, often using metal
gardening rakes and hand-rakes to grasp large mats of the plant. Kayaks were fitted with plastic
laundry baskets and bungee cords to the bow of the boats and canoes carried 5-gallon plastic
buckets with holes drilled in the bottom to allow water to escape.

Utilizing experience from the 2009 and 2010 field seasons, it is estimated that when field crew
conducted a “sweep” of an area or zone, approximately 70-85% of all visible frogbit was
realistically possible to clear from the wetland depending on the physical features and plant
community of the zone. (See Appendix A: “2010 Treatment Areas by Week”). This number
depends on the emergent vegetation density present in the particular area or zone and the
substrate (depth of muck/unconsolidated sediment) (See Appendix A: “2009 Map of Town Farm
Bay Wetland). Due to the tendency of frogbit to entangle itself in other vegetation matter and
lodge under boats, the limited accessibility of parts of the wetland complex, and the staggered
emergence of frogbit specimens, it is not typically possible to clear 100% of an infested area.
Therefore, during the 2009 and 2010 seasons, small areas or zones were “swept” to the 30 to
15% frogbit cover specifications above before field crew progressed to a different area of the
wetland. Maps were prepared to delineate discreet future work and volunteer caretaking zones
based upon natural features, percent frogbit cover targets, and sizes that can be conducive to long

6
term volunteer management and caretaking (See Appendix A: “2011 Management Zones”).

Removed material was recorded by the 5-gallon bucket load (1 bucket equaling 15 lbs) and
deposited in two ways. The primary method of removing frogbit from the wetland was by
unloading full buckets and laundry baskets onto a “scow,” or floating dock with 8-inch sides,
that was anchored in the wetland (See Appendix B). This new addition to our removal efforts
was donated by Point Bay Marina in Charlotte for use during the 2010 season and adapted by
LCA manager Craig Bunten. Marina staff donated their time to tow and empty the scow at Point
Bay when it became full. During the first half of the nine-week harvesting season the scow was
emptied once a week, and during the second half of the season, when increased quantities of
frogbit were being removed from the wetland, the scow was emptied twice a week. Care was
taken to ensure that the scow was not filled past capacity and that no frogbit escaped into the
broad lake during transportation.

When the scow was full or when workers were harvesting frogbit close to the launch site (See
Appendix A) frogbit was deposited in a pile along the shore line, well above the lake’s high-
water mark to insure that collected plants were not accidentally released back into the wetland. It
was found that frogbit decomposed more quickly without a tarp underneath the pile, allowing
excess water to drain off. Once fully dried, frogbit was safely disposed. Composted frogbit was
donated to local farmers in the area for use as mulch and compost for their fields and gardens.

During the 2010 season, the 2009 “Best Management Practice” guide for frogbit disposal was
followed carefully to ensure that harvested frogbit was completely desiccated before removal
from the site. The “Best Management Practice” for frogbit disposal includes photographs of
phases of decomposing material for future projects to match, and is available on the Lewis Creek
Association website and will be made available to the Town of Shelburne's website.

Field crew workers recorded lake height, times of pulling, date, air temperature, water
temperature, crew and volunteer hours, number of buckets collected, and frogbit size daily. A
lay-friendly percent cover methodology/work zones was developed for the 2011 field season.

Research data was collected along four 20-meter transects to understand preferred removal
techniques and impacts of year one removal work. Transects were placed strategically within the
wetland to monitor pulling progress in 2009. Transect ends were marked by 8 foot PVC piping
and orange flagging tape. For monitoring, a 20-meter nylon cord with 5-meter interval marks
was strung between the two PVC pipes of each transect. Data collectors placed a 0.5m x 0.5m
PVC pipe square at each 5-meter interval mark, randomly choosing one side of the line or the
other to place the plot (See Appendix D).

Within each plot, the plant species present and its corresponding abundance and percent cover
were recorded. (See Appendix D). To decrease sampling bias, the same field crew assistant
surveyed transects once a week for the duration of the nine-week 2010 field season.

European frogbit removal began on June 7th, when frogbit plants were beginning to leaf-out and
amass on the water surface and water and air temperatures were warm. 2010 funding allowed the
project to hire two full time (35 hours/week) and seven part-time (15-20 hours/week) field crew

7
assistants. Project coordinators scheduled 18 volunteer days and recruited volunteers through
tabling at the Charlotte Town Party, newspaper articles, word of mouth, and posters distributed
throughout the community. Many volunteers from the 2009 season were also present throughout
the 2010 season.

Lewis Creek Association continued educational efforts through an educational booth that was put
up at the Charlotte Town Party; reaching out to Point Bay Marina (with the “Stop Aquatic
Hitchhikers” card), Lake Champlain International, local fishermen and duck hunters; and by
hanging frogbit prevention posters at the following public boat launch sites: Lewis Creek,
Converse Bay, Shelburne Pond, and Point Bay Marina. Newspaper articles about the project
were published in the Burlington Free Press on June 6, the Charlotte News on May 20 and
August 26, The Rural Route on July 11, and the Charlotte Citizen on June 10 (See Appendix C).
News articles were published in The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) volunteer newsletter, VT
Department of Environmental Conservations Water Quality Division’s Out of the Blue
newsletter, and on-line on LCA’s, TNC’s and the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources’
websites.

On July 18th, 2010 a European Frogbit Reconnaissance Survey was conducted for Shelburne
Pond. Survey team members circumnavigated Shelburne Pond in canoes and GIS locations were
recorded in areas containing populations of European frogbit. Findings, recommendations,
educational materials, and a map indicating known populations of frogbit in Shelburne Pond
were delivered to the Town of Shelburne to be used in future removal efforts (See Appendix F,
G, & H).

E. Results

Wetland Sweep:
• 3,723 5-gallon buckets of European frogbit removed from Town Farm Bay wetland (971 in
2009)
• Approximately 28 tons of European frogbit were harvested (7 tons in 2009)
• 2,242 Field Crew Removal Hours * (975 in 2009)
• 253 volunteer hours (170.5 in 2009)
• Volunteer hour in-kind match equivalent to $4,200 (at federal standard of $16.59/hour)
 Note: This number does not equal the total number of paid field crew time but only time
spent pulling frogbit from the wetland. Field crew assistants were reimbursed for time
spent getting equipment ready each morning and evening and any extra preparation or
data collection associated with project.
To reduce frogbit cover to 15% in 2010, $50,000 has been spent 2009-2010.

Long Term Management:

 Solicited 43 volunteers who could become eligible to commit to long-term caretaking
areas
 Determined that the wetland needs 2 sweeps to enable manageable ongoing volunteer
stewardship. Each sweep will clear 70-85% of visible frogbit cover from the wetland

8
 depending on management zone.
 Determined that an estimated cost of this 43.3-acre wetland sweep (2x) is $75,000 with a
donated scow and that long term efforts will need a paid coordinator.
 Established a draft management plan using a caretaker management zone strategy to
guide ongoing volunteer work
 Prepared field maps, plant ID guides and database tools for ongoing monitoring and
management
 Increased the local communities' awareness of the need to actively manage invasive
plants in their lakes, ponds and streams.

Field Data Results 2009-2010

Chart 1a
2009 Data:
Five individual European
frogbit plants, chosen to
represent the greatest
variation in size were
measured in inches
weekly (except for Week
1 and 2) during the 2009
season. This graph shows
the average leaf width for
each week. As frogbit leaf
size (indicative of overall
plant size) increased, the
rate of frogbit removal
increased as well.
Weeks 1-8 represent the
June 1 to July 24 field
season.

Chart 1b
2009 Data:
Volunteer hours increased as the
season progressed, a function of
increased awareness of the project
within the community and arrival
of summer residents on
Thompson’s Point and Long
Point.

Weeks 1-8 represent the June 1 to

July 24 field season.

9
 Chart 2a:

Volunteer hours remained

fairly constant throughout the
2010 season. Field crew hours
decreased significantly during
weeks 8 and 9, the result of
only four days spent picking
during week 9 and the absence
of several crew members.
Weeks 1-9 represent the June 7
to August 5 field season. Total
buckets removed are in 5-
gallon increments.

Chart 2b:

As in 2009, when frogbit

leaf size increased in the
2010 season, removal
efforts increased as well.
The spike in buckets
removed per hour during
the 6th week of the 2009
season is indicative of
harvesting in a particularly
infested area of the wetland
as well as a strong field
crew and volunteer
presence. Weeks 1-9
represent the June 7 to
August 5 field season.

Transect Monitoring Results

Transect areas were monitored in both the 2009 and 2010 field seasons. Transect areas received
different hand-pulling treatments in 2009 but not in 2010. Numbers of frogbit per transect over
the seven weeks of sampling for 2009 and 2010 are shown on Chart 3a and b. The question of
variability in numbers due to location of Transects within the wetland complex was addressed by

10
comparing the percentage of the total amounts of frogbit collected from each transect over the
two year period (Chart 4).

Number of Frogbit Plants for each Transect in

2009

Number of Frogbit Plants for each Transect in

2010

Chart 3a - b: The numbers of frogbit increased over the season at all transects except in Transect
D in 2009. In 2010 the number of frogbit collected in the Transects looked much the same as in
2009. However, there is an impressive drop in number at all Transects.
The Transects were to receive a specific hand-pulling treatment (Appendix D) over the course of
the two seasons. However, those treatments only occurred in 2009 (B- No Treatment, C-
Pull/Rake, D- Pull, and E- Pull/Pull).
Despite the lack of any transect hand-pulling treatments in 2010, the number of frogbit plants per
Transect was down. We attribute this to the level of effort in removing frogbit from the wetland
complex between the two years study (Chart 1a and b).

11
 Chart 4: The amounts of
frogbit collected from the
four transects were
consistently higher in
2009. We compared the
percentage of the totals
from each transect to
determine if the transect
locations influenced the
amounts of plant
material collected.

Transects B and D seem to be consistant between the two years of sampling. Transects C and E
had a wider percentage gap in 2009 than in 2010. We believe this is a reflection of the removal
methods rather than the transect locations.

See Appendix D for Transect Study Methods.

F. Discussion & Conclusion

The second year of European frogbit removal in the once congested Town Farm Bay wetlands
has reinforced the fact that removal of congested populations is costly, yet possible and effective
through hand-harvesting. However, a sustained effort is necessary to adequately suppress the
population over time since all frogbit cannot be removed. A significant increase was noted in the
total hours of volunteer time from the 2009 season to the 2010 season and might indicate
increased public interest and appreciation of this ongoing management need. Continued
development of a long term, volunteer stewardship program should be a priority next step as well
as further development of the pilot volunteer management plan strategy that includes LCA’s
recommended work zones based upon natural community type and discreet removal techniques.

Frogbit is still found distributed in discreet dense patches across the entire wetland complex.
Because it is free-floating, it generally does not appear in the open channels with faster moving
water but instead congregates in sheltered niches within bulrushes, cattails, and other emergent
vegetation areas. Densest patches are found around the perimeter of the wetland, predominantly
in the bulrushes along the Thorp Brook branch, and in the back cove near the Kimball Brook
mouth. Medium and low-density patches also occur near the cattail stands in Thorp and Kimball
Brooks. In the back areas of the bay near the mouth of Thorp Brook the population of frogbit is
denser and covers a greater area. Small channels, presumably used by muskrat, beaver and otter

12
(all seen during the field season), persisted throughout even the densest areas but navigation by
boat was difficult. It is these areas that are most well-suited to using chest waders for frogbit
removal. A boat is still needed to store frogbit in while using chest waders. The best way to get a
small vessel into thick vegetation is to get out of the boat wearing chest waders and manually
pull the boat through the reeds. Removal technique recommendations are offered and vary
depending on the physical features of distinct management zones and their tendency to harbor
frogbit populations. Target frogbit percent cover numbers for each “caretaking” zone vary from
15-30% depending upon zone accessibility and the natural features of the zone (See Appendix A:
2011 Management Zones).

From 2009/10 transect data results; it appears that “re-sweeping” areas that have already been
cleared could have the biggest impact on decreasing frogbit levels over time. Transect
monitoring from the 2010 season indicates that transect areas in 2009 continued to have a
significantly lower amount of frogbit cover in the 2010 season. Transect areas were not hand-
harvested in 2010 to monitor long-term effectiveness of removal efforts. The lower amounts of
frogbit recorded in 2010 transect areas demonstrates that “sweeping” an area one or two times
per season effectively decreases frogbit infestation for at least one year. Though it may be
informative to further monitor these areas into the future to determine the long-term effects of a
single sweep in a specific area, we recommend today that most of the wetland have 2 sweeps
within two seasons before opening it up to volunteer caretakers.

Like nearly all invasive plant removal projects, it is imperative that harvesting efforts continue in
future years. Two full time workers (35 hrs/week) and 11 part time workers (15-20 hrs/week)
swept approximately 85 percent of the accessible wetland area. The wetland area that was hand-
harvested in 2009 (See Appendix A) was re-swept in the 2010 season, allowing field crew
members to effectively conduct two sweeps of the areas hand-pulled in 2009 and one sweep of
the balance of the wetland. Future years will need ongoing sweeping in all previously treated
areas, and potential harvesting in new areas.

Recognizing our desire to manage the wetland for fishing, duck hunting and ecological purposes,
and that native aquatic plants species increase by a factor of 45% in the absence of frogbit
compared with a 95% decline in its presence (Le Naturaliste Canadien, Vol. 115; Spicer,
LeKovitch, 1988), and with two years of pilot work and data; it is recommended that in future
years harvesters attempt to clear the open water areas of the wetland and ~10 feet into the thicker
vegetation stands (bulrush, cattail, sedge). Tyler Smith, Aquatic Project Coordinator of the
Adirondack Park Invasive Plant Program agrees, advises that a spread prevention strategy
include a focus on areas of open water and those that are reasonably accessible. In several years,
after the broader, open areas are cleaned, the shallow areas along the perimeter of the wetland
can be focused on.

Additionally, it is believed that water quality (nutrients/sediments) issues are compounding the
invasive species problem in the wetland. Charlotte citizens, boaters and local hunters have noted
an increase in aquatic plant life, both native and non-native, over the last 2 decades. During the
field seasons of 2009 and 2010, field crew noted that native aquatic plants, such as elodea
(Elodea Canadensis) and bladderwort (Utricularia vulgaris), also appear to have rapidly
increasing populations. Research indicates that wetlands with elevated nutrient levels tend to

13
respond with increased plant populations.

This anecdotal evidence correlates with quantitative water quality data collected in Town Farm
Bay and the Thorp and Kimball Brooks. The preliminary data indicates that both historical and
contemporary land-management activity within the Thorp and Kimball watersheds are causing
increased clay rich sediment and nutrient loading into this shallow bay of Lake Champlain.
Town Farm Bay phosphorus levels are recorded as similar to those in Mississquoi Bay.

Eutrophication of aquatic communities has been correlated with an increase in invasibility

(presence of invasive plants) (Davis et al, 2000) of habitats, and it is likely that the increased
plant biomass, of both native and non-native plants, is due to these elevated levels of nitrogen,
phosphorus and potassium. Concurrent management of excess nutrients flowing into the bay and
wetland may assist with spread prevention management of any invasive plants within the Town
Farm Bay wetlands. Similarly, as nutrient levels decrease, control of exotic, invasive plants
should be at the forefront to ensure that limited nutrient levels do not cause a decrease in native
plant diversity.

Lessons Learned:

 In 2009, it was observed that turions did not appear on the plant until July 20th, indicating
that the season could potentially be extended into August. In 2010, field crew observed
turion formation on July 13th, one week earlier than in 2009, most likely due to an “early
spring.” It is not currently known when frogbit drops its turions, but field crew did
observe well-developed turions that broke off the plants easily in mid-September,
indicating that this is around the time turions would be dropping in the wetland.
 In 2009 it was noted that frogbit could be more easily removed later in the season when it
formed dense mats. This remains true, but much more of the wetland is accessible early
in the season before vegetation grows in. In the beginning of the 2010 season, field crew
had access to pick in areas that were completely inaccessible by the end of the season,
most notably the Thorp confluence area.
 The data from Chart 1b indicates a significant decline in field crew hours worked during
weeks eight and nine. This could indicate that the field season was too lengthy.
 At the end of July, lake level had dropped to 95.9’, making getting in and out of the
launch site exceedingly difficult. The low lake level also made movement around the
wetland cumbersome and hindered the navigability of cattail, rush, and sedge stands. The
natural conditions of the wetland make it more conducive to harvest frogbit earlier in the
season. It is therefore recommended that the field season begin on June 1st and extend no
longer than nine weeks.
 Productivity and efficiency increased dramatically with the introduction of the frogbit
“scow.” Use of the scow was a valuable time and energy saver as workers no longer had
to make the lengthy paddle back to the launch site and haul full buckets up to the
compost pile. Using the scow also allowed field crew members to harvest frogbit from
areas of the wetland that were inaccessible in the 2009 season. This was primarily due to
the fact that the scow was anchored in a central location. Storing harvested frogbit on the
scow made it more manageable to pick frogbit in the far northeastern end of the wetland
(Thorp Brook Confluence) and then dump it on the scow rather than paddling 15+

14
 minutes back to the launch site for each full boatload.
 Volunteer days should be scheduled for between 3-3.5 hours. 3.5 hours is the maximum
most volunteers are willing to spend in the wetland. Scheduling volunteer days at an
earlier time (8am rather than 9am) could encourage volunteers to stay longer as it avoids
the heat of the day.
 Early field season harvesting should focus on the mouth of the wetland complex in order
to prevent further spreading. The mouth area of the Thorp and Kimball wetland includes
the bulrush stand on the northwestern region of the mouth as well as the cattail and sedge
stands in the opposite, southwestern area.
 After the mouth has been cleared, it is recommended that field crew sweep areas that will
not be accessible later in the season (dense vegetation stands near the Thorp confluence)
as well as areas that are only accessible in high water (Kimball Brook area).
 There are many areas that we are unable to access by boat due to dense vegetation stands.
Forcing entry to certain areas of the wetland leads to severely damaged vegetation
(sedges, rushes) and takes undue amounts of time. Even while using chest waders a
vessel is necessary to store harvested frogbit. It is possible that some areas need to be “let
go” for the time being while other, more easily accessible areas are focused on first.
 With the current scale of the project, it is not practical to sweep the entire wetland
complex twice in one season, as recommended by 2009 transect data. In future years, the
wetland should be divided into distinct zones or regions (ideally by habitat) and a map of
these divisions should be displayed in the site barn. This will give field crew and
volunteers a more accurate indication of where they should be working during each part
of the season. See Appendix A for the recommended management zones of the wetland
complex.

Recommendations for 2011 Season:

 Ramp up long term volunteer monitoring and suppression plan.

 Continue paid fieldwork in the emergent vegetative zones of the wetland.
 Determine inaccessible areas to discontinue frogbit removal work, and reevaluate work
area boundaries.
 Monitor pounds removed and percent cover of frogbit by delineated management zones.
 Support Shelburne Pond frogbit removal efforts
 Investigate landowner interest and feasibility to conserve the land and ensure access for
long term stewardship.

Follow-up Research Questions:

There is an ongoing need for more information on the natural history of European frogbit to
make better-informed management decisions for future years of the study. Questions include:

 How long do turions remain viable in the substrate?

 Will “late-blooming” plants (i.e. those that leaf out in July) still produce turions that
season?
 What is the minimum size a plant needs to produce turions?

15
 How to assess turion-loads in wetland substrate? (Note: In 2009 we worked with the DEC
in taking soil cores from the wetland bottom to count turions. However, we were unable
to find a soil core apparatus that collected turions)
 What is the interaction between nutrient loading in wetlands and appearance of aquatic,
invasive species?
 What is the impact of frogbit removal on this wetland’s native plant and animal
populations

16