INVASIVE PHRAGMITES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE, ONTARIO PHASE 1. J.M. Gilbert

Transcription

1 INVASIVE PHRAGMITES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE, ONTARIO PHASE 1 J.M. Gilbert June, 2013

2 Prepared by: Janice M. Gilbert, Ph.D. Wetland Ecologist Gilbert and Dunn Wetland Specialists RR5 Langton, ON, N0E 1G0 Karen Alexander Outreach and Education Coordinator Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation 74 Hamilton St., Goderich, ON, N7A 1P

3 Executive Summary Phragmites australis (European Reed), a non-native, invasive grass has become widespread throughout southern Ontario. Phragmites can out-compete all other plant species and develop into a dense monoculture stand with stems of up to 200 per square metre. Monocultures can degrade natural ecosystems in a variety of ways. Impacts on coastal wetlands include changes to hydrology, nutrient cycling and lost habitat for other plant species and wildlife. Phragmites is not just a problem for ecology; it is also impacting local economies, particularly shoreline communities. Residents in the Bruce Addition have lost access to the water and in some places can no longer see the water through the dense monoculture cells that have established along the shoreline. The Municipality of Kincardine has responded to the concern of local residents living along this stretch of shoreline by committing funds for the development of the attached Management Plan and for active control of Phragmites. Effective controls in Ontario are limited. A number of considerations must be taken into account to determine the most appropriate control strategy. For mass infestations the most effective and efficient control of Phragmites in Ontario is accomplished using a combination of herbicide and prescribed burning. The Management Plan recommends the use of herbicide and prescribed burns for the shoreline of Kincardine with site specific modifications to accommodate for the presence of wildlife, standing water, and ease of access. The plan divides the shoreline infestation between Baie du Dore and MacGregor Point Provincial Park into 16 manageable blocks. Details on control techniques appropriate for each block as well as timing, and costs are contained in the Phragmites Management Plan. The report estimates good control of the infestation can be accomplished by 2016 for an estimated total of $98, The estimated budgets required for each year of the program are as follows: 3

4 Year Cost Location 2013 $ B6 B $ B4 B5 B $ B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B $ B1 B2 B3 While it is no longer feasible to completely eradicate Phragmites, it is possible to bring the infestation under control. In order to ensure the Phragmites does not re-establish in areas where control work has been completed the Municipality of Kincardine should begin to implement the recommendations made in the Long Term Management Plan section of the report. The Management Plan is designed to be implemented over a four year period but can be easily adjusted according to available funding. Implementation of the plan requires a Letter of Opinion from the MNR. The application for the Letter of Opinion was submitted with a draft copy of this plan in June The Coastal Centre was notified of the approved application on August 6. The Municipality of Kincardine is free to implement this 4 year Management Plan over the next 5 years. 4

5 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND INFORMATION CONTROL OPTIONS A) ALL-TERRAIN TRACK VEHICLES B) MANUAL CONTROL i) Backpack Spraying ii) Herbicide Wicking iii) Control of wet sites MAPPING PHRAGMITES ALONG THE MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE SHORELINE i) Block ii) Block iii) Block iv) Block v) Block vi) Block vii) Block viii) Block ix) Block x) Block xi) Block xii) Block xiii) Block xiv) Block xv) Block xvi) Block RECOMMENDED CONTROL STRATEGY A) ESTIMATED COSTS AND PROJECTED CONTROL B) LONG-TERM MONITORING AND RAPID RESPONSE PROGRAM LONG TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY REFERENCES

6 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE SHORELINE TO BE MANAGED FOR INVASIVE PHRAGMITES FIGURE 2. INVASIVE PHRAGMITES > 5 M TALL IN LAKE ERIE COASTAL WETLAND, RONDEAU BAY, ON FIGURE 3. NEW SHOOTS OF INVASIVE PHRAGMITES PLANTS GROWING OUT OF THE RHIZOME FROM ONE PARENT PLANT, ST. JOSEPHS ISLAND, LAKE HURON, FIGURE 4. RHIZOMES GROWING LAKE-WARD FROM PARENT INVASIVE PHRAGMITES PLANTS AS WATER LEVELS DECLINED ALONG THE LAKE HURON SHORELINE, AUGUST FIGURE 5. SHOWN IS FRANK LATOURNEAU, (DOVER AGRI-SERVE) SPRAYING PHRAGMITES FROM THE DECK OF HIS MODIFIED CENTAUR (A, B) FIGURE 6. CONTROLLING A PATCH OF INVASIVE PHRAGMITES WITHIN A SENSITIVE HABITAT IN RONDEAU BAY USING A HAND PUMP BACKPACK SPRAYER FIGURE 7. HANDWICKING INVASIVE PHRAGMITES ALONG THE LAKE HURON SHORELINE ON A WINDY DAY, SEPTEMBER FIGURE 8. SATELLITE IMAGE OF THE KINCARDINE SHORELINE BETWEEN BAIE DU DORE AND MACGREGOR POINT PROVINCIAL PARK SHOWING THE EXTENT OF INVASIVE PHRAGMITES AS ILLUSTRATED BY BLUE FLAGS FIGURE 9. LOCATION OF PHRAGMITES CONTROL BLOCKS ACCESSED FOR DENSITIES AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ALONG THE MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE SHORELINE FIGURE 10. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 1. THE AREAS WITHIN THE WHITE LINES (C1, C3, C4) CAN BE CONTROLLED USING BACKPACK SPRAYERS. THE TWO SECTIONS OUTLINED IN GREEN (C2, C5) SHOULD BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR FIGURE 11. BLOCK 1 PHOTOS, MAY 2013: A) SNAPPING TURTLE, B) SPARES PHRAGMITES PATCHES ALONG EDGE OF BOAT RAMP, C) CELL 2 AREA WHERE DENSE PHRAGMITES HAD BEEN BURNED, D) SPARSE PHRAGMITES IN CELL FIGURE 12. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 2. THE AREAS WITHIN THE WHITE LINES (C1, C2, C3) SHOULD BE CONTROLLED USING BACKPACK SPRAYERS. THE CELL OUTLINED IN GREEN (C4) SHOULD BE CONTROLLED USING A CENTAUR FIGURE 13. BLOCK 2 PHOTOS, MAY 2013: A) VIEW FROM TREED RIDGE ON SOUTH SIDE OF BLOCK LOOKING TOWARD LAKE, B) VEHICLE TRACKS THROUGH COASTAL MEADOW MARSH, C) VIEW LOOKING TOWARD LAKE WITH YARD WASTE PILE AND WET AREAS IN FRONT FIGURE 14. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 3. THE AREAS WITHIN THE GREEN LINES (C1, C6, C9, C12) CAN BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR WHILE THE SECTIONS DEMARCATED WITH THE WHITE LINES (C2-C5, C7, C8, C10, C11) REQUIRES BACKPACK SPRAYING FIGURE 15. BLOCK 3 PHOTOS, MAY 2013: A) SPARSE PHRAGMITES IN CELL 2, B) SPARSE PHRAGMITES IN CELL FIGURE 16. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 4. THE AREA WITHIN THE WHITE LINES (C1, C2) CAN BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR WHILE THOSE WITHIN THE GREEN LINES REQUIRE A BACKPACK SPRAYER (C3) OR WICKING (C4) FIGURE 17. BLOCK 5 PHOTOS, MAY 2013: A) PHRAGMITES NEAR BOAT CHANNEL IN CELL 2, B) PHRAGMITES PATCH IN CELL 2, C) TWO NORTHERN WATER SNAKES (NERODIA SIPEDON) NEAR THE EDGE OF THE LAKE IN CELL FIGURE 18. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 6. THE SECTION WITHIN THE GREEN LINES (C3) CAN BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR. THE THREE CELLS OUTLINED IN WHITE (C1, C2, C4) SHOULD BE CONTROLLED USING BACKPACK SPRAY UNITS FIGURE 19. BLOCK 6 PHOTOS, MAY 2013: A) VEHICLE TRACKS IN COASTAL MEADOW MARSH, B) TRAIL COMING FROM SUNSET DRIVE CUL DE SAC THROUGH COASTAL MEADOW MARSH, C) NATIVE MEADOW MARSH VEGETATION AND D) VEHICLE TRACKS COMING INTO COASTAL MEADOW MARSH FROM PROPERTY WITH STORAGE SHED FIGURE 20. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 7. THE SECTION WITHIN THE GREEN LINE (C1) CAN BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR. THE AREA OUTLINED IN WHITE (C2) SHOULD BE CONTROLLED USING BACKPACK FIGURE 21. BLOCK 7 PHOTOS: A) DENSE PHRAGMITES ALONG THE SHORELINE (MAY 2013), B) PHRAGMITES WITHIN THE INTERIOR OF THE COASTAL MEADOW MARSH (MAY 2013), C) BIRD NEST ALONG EDGE OF PHRAGMITES (JULY 2012) AND, D) LEOPARD FROD OBSERVED IN SPARSE PHRAGMITES SECTION OF THE COASTAL MEADOW MARSH (JULY 2012). 32 FIGURE 22. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 8. THE AREA WITHIN THE GREEN LINE (C1) CAN BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR. THE AREA OUTLINED IN WHITE (C2) HAS SPARSE PHRAGMITES AND CAN BE CONTROLLED USING BACKPACK SPRAY UNITS

7 FIGURE 23. BLOCK 8 PHOTOS, MAY 2013: A) DENSE PHRAGMITES ALONG CREEK NEAR ROAD, B) CLEARED BEACH SECTION ALONG LAKESHORE, C) DENSE PHRAGMITES ALONG SHORELINE, AND D) SPARSE PHRAGMITES THROUGHOUT COASTAL MEADOW MARSH BETWEEN TREE LINE AND DENSE SECTION FIGURE 24. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 9. THE AREAS WITHIN THE GREEN LINES (C1, C2) CAN BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR. THE AREAS OUTLINED IN WHITE (C3, C4, C5) HAS SPARSE PHRAGMITES AND CAN BE CONTROLLED USING BACKPACK SPRAY UNITS FIGURE 25. BLOCK 9 PHOTOS, MAY 2013: A) IN CELL 1 NEAR THE LAKESHORE LOOKING TOWARD POND, B) WET SEDGE MEADOW SECTION NEAR THE ROAD WITH SCATTERED PHRAGMITES THROUGHOUT, C) ROCK WALL ALONG LAKESIDE EDGE OF ROAD IN THE AREA OF BLOCK 9, AND D) DENSE PHRAGMITES PATCH ALONG THE LAKESHORE FIGURE 26. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 10. THE AREA WITHIN THE GREEN LINE (C1) CAN BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR. THE AREAS OUTLINED IN WHITE (C2, C3, C4) HAS SPARSE PHRAGMITES AND CAN BE CONTROLLED USING BACKPACK SPRAY UNITS FIGURE 27. BLOCK 10 PHOTOS, MAY 2013: A) CLEARED BEACH SECTION FOR BRUCEDALE CA (CELL 3), B) SMALL CLEARED SECTION AT SHORELINE WITH PHRAGMITES POCKETS ON EITHER SIDE, C) SPARSE PHRAGMITES SECTION NEAR ROAD (CELL 4), AND D) DENSE PHRAGMITES SECTION IN CELL FIGURE 28. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 11. THE AREA WITHIN THE GREEN LINE (C2) CAN BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR. THE AREAS OUTLINED IN WHITE (C1, C3) HAS SPARSE PHRAGMITES AND CAN BE CONTROLLED USING BACKPACK SPRAY UNITS FIGURE 29. BLOCK 11 PHOTOS, MAY 2013: A) VIEWPOINT FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROAD LOOKING TOWARD THE LAKE IN CELL 1, B) VIEWPOINT LOOKING NORTH ALONG THE EDGE OF SUNSET DRIVE, C) PHRAGMITES ALONG SHORELINE, AND D) GROUNDWATER SEEP IN CELL FIGURE 30. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING LOCATION OF BLOCK FIGURE 31. PHOTO TAKEN IN BLOCK 12 FROM WAYPOINT # 839 LOOKING NORTHEAST, MAY FIGURE 32. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 13. THE AREAS WITHIN THE GREEN LINES (C1, C2) CAN BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR. THE AREAS OUTLINED IN WHITE (C3, C4, C5) HAS SPARSE PHRAGMITES AND CAN BE CONTROLLED USING BACKPACK SPRAY UNITS FIGURE 33. PHOTOS TAKEN IN BLOCK 13, MAY 2013 SHOWING A) SECTION OF SHORELINE USED BY COTTAGERS WITH PHRAGMITES IN BACKGROUND, AND B) FRINGE OF PHRAGMITES ALONG SHORELINE FIGURE 34. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 14. THE AREAS WITHIN THE GREEN LINES (C1, C2, C3, C4) CAN BE CONTROLLED USING THE CENTAUR. THE AREA OUTLINED IN WHITE C5) HAS SPARSE PHRAGMITES AND CAN BE CONTROLLED USING BACKPACK SPRAY UNITS FIGURE 35. PHOTO TAKEN IN BLOCK 14 LOOKING TOWARD TREE LINE, MAY FIGURE 36. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL AREA IN BLOCK 15. THE AREA WITHIN THE WHITE LINE HAS SPARSE PHRAGMITES AND CAN BE CONTROLLED USING BACKPACK SPRAY UNITS FIGURE 37. PHOTO TAKEN ALONG THE EDGE OF THE WET AREA IN BLOCK 15. MAY FIGURE 38. SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING AREA FOR PHRAGMITES CONTROL IN BLOCK 16. THE AREA WITHIN THE WHITE LINE HAS SPARSE PHRAGMITES AND CAN BE CONTROLLED USING BACKPACK SPRAY UNITS FIGURE 39. PHOTOS TAKEN IN BLOCK 16, MAY 2013 SHOWING A) SPARSE PHRAGMITES ALONG THE EDGE OF A POND, B) SMALL PHRAGMITES CELL IN THE COASTAL MEADOW MARSH, C) PHRAGMITES CELL ALONG THE EDGE OF THE LAKE, AND D) ROCKS AND BOULDERS ALONG THE SHORELINE FIGURE 40. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM SHOWING THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF A LONG TERM PHRAGMITES MANAGEMENT PLAN

8 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. CONTROL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO BLOCK 1 CELLS LABELED IN FIGURE TABLE 2. CONTROL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO BLOCK 2 CELLS LABELED IN FIGURE TABLE 3. CONTROL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO BLOCK 3 CELLS LABELED IN FIGURE TABLE 4. CONTROL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO BLOCK 4 CELLS LABELED IN FIGURE TABLE 5. CONTROL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO BLOCK 5 CELLS LABELED IN FIGURE TABLE 6. CONTROL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE BLOCK 6 CELLS LABELED IN FIGURE TABLE 7. CONTROL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE BLOCK 7 CELLS LABELED IN FIGURE TABLE 8. CONTROL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO CELLS IN BLOCK 8, LABELED IN FIGURE TABLE 9. CONTROL INFORMATION FOR BLOCK 9 CELL LABELED IN FIGURE TABLE 10. CONTROL INFORMATION FOR EACH OF THE BLOCK 10 CELLS LABELED IN FIGURE TABLE 11. CONTROL INFORMATION FOR EACH OF THE BLOCK 11 CELLS LABELED IN FIGURE TABLE 12. INFORMATION PERTAINING TO BLOCK TABLE 13. CONTROL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO EACH CELL LABELED IN FIGURE TABLE 14. CONTROL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO EACH CELL LABELED IN FIGURE TABLE 15. CONTROL INFORMATION FOR BLOCK TABLE 16. CONTROL INFORMATION FOR BLOCK TABLE 17. RECOMMENDED CONTROL SCHEDULE AND ASSOCIATED COSTS FOR PHASE I TABLE 18. SUGGESTED TARGET AREAS, DATES AND ESTIMATED COSTS FOR TABLE 19. SUGGESTED TARGET AREAS, DATES AND ESTIMATED COSTS FOR TABLE 20. SUGGESTED TARGET AREAS, DATES AND ESTIMATED COSTS FOR TABLE 21. SUGGESTED TARGET AREAS, DATES AND ESTIMATED COSTS FOR

9 1. Introduction Phase 1 of the Invasive Phragmites Management Plan for the Municipality of Kincardine, focuses on the Lake Huron shoreline between Baie du Dore and the MacGregor Point Provincial Park (Figure 1). With the exception of the narrow strip used by the Brucedale Conservation Authority, this entire shoreline is managed by the Municipality. Due to the unique and globally rare ecosystems located here, a large portion of this shoreline has been designated as an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) and includes the provincially significant Scott Point wetland complex, which supports rare flora and fauna. The invasive Phragmites australis is currently well established throughout this valuable ecosystem posing a significant threat. In some sections, dense monoculture cells have developed and without active management, Phragmites will continue to spread resulting in further reduction in biodiversity and a significantly altered ecosystem. Accompanying these concerns is the negative impact on aesthetic and recreational enjoyment and lakeshore property values. The Municipality of Kincardine has responded to the concern of local residents living along this stretch of shoreline regarding the rapid expansion of Phragmites that they have witnessed over the past few years. The Council has addressed these concerns by committing funds for the development of this plan and for active Phragmites control to commence in the fall of Figure 1. Municipality of Kincardine shoreline to be managed for invasive Phragmites. 9

10 A number of sensitive Great Lakes coastal habitats have been, or are in the process of being, restored using a combination of chemical and mechanical control methods as outlined in the Provincial Phragmites Control Best Management Practices document (OMNR 2011). The success of these projects, as measured by the post control response in native species richness and diversity, provides a strong case for pursuing a similar approach at this site. As a first step, the shoreline has been traversed on foot to record Phragmites locations, densities and site conditions to inform control options and timing. The recommended control options for each site are outlined in this plan along with a management schedule, associated estimated costs, and long term management strategy. Due to the extensive area to be controlled along the Municipality of Kincardine shoreline, Phragmites management will have to be done in stages and will extend over a number of years. Available funding, weather conditions, wildlife presence, and lake water levels are all main factors affecting the amount of acreage that can be controlled during one growing season. Since Phragmites has become so pervasive throughout Southern Ontario, total eradication on a site level is practically impossible over the long term due to constant new invasions from local spread vectors. However, once the main infestation has been brought under control, it will be significantly more cost effective to implement a monitoring and rapid response control program to ensure Phragmites densities do not return to pre-control conditions. The long term success of this program will be highly dependent upon the initiation of a similar Phragmites control strategy for the adjacent property located to the south which is owned by Ontario Power Generation. This includes Baie du Dore and the area within the Bruce Nuclear Power Development restricted area (fenced zone) where extensive, dense, monoculture Phragmites cells currently exist. MacGregor Point Provincial Park, located on the northern boundary of the focus area, also has Phragmites and park staff has been actively trying to manage these cells over the past few years. Control efficacy has been greatly hampered at sites within the park where the presence of water negates effective chemical control options. Partnering with these two adjacent land owners will greatly enhance management efficacy and long term success. As will the development of a long term Phragmites Management Plan for all of Municipality of Kincardine. Phragmites located around residential areas and in roadside ditches should be targeted for control to further reduce local spread vectors. Several recommendations for a long term management plan have been developed for the Municipality and are provided in this document. 10

11 2. Background Information European reed or Phragmites australis (here after referred to as Phragmites) is an aggressively spreading non-native, invasive grass. It is capable of out-competing all other plant species including cattails (Typha spp.), willows (Salix spp.), alders (Alnus spp.) and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) resulting in expansive monocultures. Plants can exceed 5 m in height (Figure 2) and reach densities of over 200 stems per square metre. The high aboveground biomass is supported by an even greater amount belowground and roots may extend downward several metres to attain required water and nutrients. The roots also emit a chemical harmful to other plants further reducing resource competition. J.M. Gilbert Figure 2. Invasive Phragmites > 5 m tall in Lake Erie coastal wetland, Rondeau Bay, ON Phragmites colonizes new sites via seed and rhizome dispersal but, once established spreads colonially via rhizomes. These can emanate from each parent stalk in all directions and have been observed at 30 m lengths with new shoots emerging ~30 cm (Figure 3). The resultant yearly growth of an established colony can be exponential and expansion has noticeably increased with the decline in Lake Huron water levels (Figure 4). 11

12 J.M. Gilbert Figure 3. New shoots of invasive Phragmites plants growing out of the rhizome from one parent plant, St. Josephs Island, Lake Huron, J.M. Gilbert Figure 4. Rhizomes growing lake-ward from parent invasive Phragmites plants as water levels declined along the Lake Huron shoreline, August

13 Unlike native Phragmites (Phragmites australis subsp. americanus), the European strain has no known natural controls to keep the population in check. As a result, expansive mono-dominant stands develop and greatly reduce native plant diversity thereby altering habitat and significantly impacting wildlife. While bird and amphibian usage has been observed within narrower tracks and along the edges of expansive Phragmites cells, interior areas are effectively dead zones. Within coastal ecosystems the impacts have the potential to be cumulatively devastating for many wetland dependent species, including a number of Species At Risk (SAR) which depend upon these habitats for all or a portion of their life cycle. For humans, Phragmites negatively impacts aesthetic and recreational values by blocking views and making access to shorelines difficult and unpleasant. Fire hazards from standing dead stalks is also becoming more of an issue as are traffic hazards from blocked views at intersections where Phragmites is present within roadside ditches. Effective control methods in Ontario are limited and site specific. A number of considerations must be taken into account to determine the most appropriate control strategy. These include cell size, density, proximity to water, timing, presence of desirable plant species, habitat value, presence of wildlife including SAR, human activity, funding, ownership, and long term management plans. Mechanical options, including cutting, drowning, smothering, grazing, excavating, and burning have all been attempted with varying success. Control efficacy is related to cell density, size and site conditions. Each method has its drawbacks and limitations and can have negative impacts. Flooding Phragmites to promote drowning can be difficult. Studies have shown that for established stands water depths must exceed 1.5 m for at least 6 weeks. Cutting stalks to enhance drowning opportunities in non-dyked sites may be an option if high water periods occur. However, all stalks must be cut and located in flooded zones for this method to be effective. Logistically, dewatered periods need to occur to allow for cutting, since the use of cutting equipment in water can be challenging. In some areas cutting is not an option due to unfavourable site conditions including access issues, soft substrate, and expansive stand size. Within low nutrient, drier sites, cutting has been effective at dampening Phragmites spread and stature, however this activity is required several times during the growing season and on an annual basis. One significant consideration about whether or not to cut is that native plant species or wildlife may be harmed during the process. This risk greatly increases as the Phragmites stand thins and native species re-establish. Fire has also been used to try to reduce Phragmites densities but this only results in thinning out the standing dead biomass. The use of fire alone to control Phragmites is not an effective control method since Phragmites tends to thrive during the growing season after a burn has occurred. The use of fire to reduce dead stalks and seed heads 13

14 has its limitations since not all sites lend themselves to being burned due to wetness or safety concerns. Smothering with thick dark plastic has also been attempted with limited success since rhizomes can extend out from under the covered area. The method can be laborious as Phragmites stalks must first be cut and tarps are heavy. There are also stand size and location limitations, since covering large areas or flooded areas with tarps would be impractical. Bio-controls for Phragmites are currently being investigated by a research team lead by Dr. Blossey at Cornell University. This laboratory was instrumental in identifying the appropriate beetles to control the once troublesome purple loosestrife. It is estimated that many more years of research are required before host specific herbivores to control the European strain of Phragmites can be introduced. The fact that native Phragmites also exists in North America may hinder this progress. Even if bio-controls are found and a release program implemented, many more years may pass before any noticeable impact takes place given the considerable biomass production and reproduction rates of Phragmites. Ultimately the advent of natural controls provides the only long-term viable solution for dampening the spread of this highly aggressive plant. However, the amount of habitat impacted during the estimated several decades if not centuries (if Typha angustifolia is any indication) that will pass before this will take effect dictates that action be undertaken now where ever possible. It is also important to note that even where this strain of Phragmites occurs naturally in Europe it has developed into monoculture stands and been problematic. The most effective and efficient control of Phragmites in the United States has been achieved using two herbicides Rodeo (glyphosate) and Habitat (imazapyr). Both products can legally be applied over water and aerially and have an efficacy of between % control after one treatment. The best results were obtained when the two herbicides were combined. Both chemicals kill the plant by shutting down key enzyme production within the belowground structures. Since these same enzymes are not present in non-plant life, the chemicals pose little risk to humans and wildlife. Unfortunately neither Rodeo nor Habitat is available in Canada. Legal chemical options in Canada are limited to two products Weathermax and Vision and neither product can legally be applied over water. Both are glyphosate based and although this active ingredient is safe for overwater application, both products also contain the surfactant polyethyloxylated tallowamine (POEA) which is harmful to aquatic life. Vision, which is more expensive, is used by the forestry industry and can be applied aerially. Weathermax is the best option available for on-the-ground Phragmites control when no surface water is present. 14

15 Timing herbicide applications to occur when no water is present has allowed for some of the seasonally wet sites to be sprayed. However, for coastal areas including wetlands, the timing window for dewatered conditions can be rather short and can change year to year. Usually, even with dewatered sections, wet areas remain interspersed making effective and efficient control difficult. Site specific conditions such as: wildlife use of Phragmites edges and adjacent habitats for breeding, brood rearing, foraging or the presence of SAR plants, and recreational use of beach areas, also impact the timing window. Also, since glyphosate is a broad spectrum herbicide, it kills all vegetation nonselectively. Use within dense, mono-dominant Phragmites stands does not create issues since native plant presence is rare and, if present, they are generally under the Phragmites canopy and would not receive spray drift. However, in less dense stands or along the edges of Phragmites cells, native species can be quite prevalent. In these situations, timing spray events to occur early to mid-fall, before a heavy frost when most native species have already senesced but Phragmites is still green, has resulted in successful Phragmites control and positive native species response the following growing season. Spot spraying using backpack units or hand wicking can be used to control sparse Phragmites. Using these methods of herbicide application, the timing window is much greater since plants can be targeted anytime during the growing season after they have reached ~1m in height and have sufficient leaf surface for chemical uptake. Depending upon the weather and location, Phragmites plants may reach this stage from mid-may to mid-june. Phragmites control efficacy is greatly enhanced when both herbicide and fire are combined. The best results occur when the site can be rolled and then burned prior to being sprayed. This serves to remove the standing dead stalks, which can make up to 70% of the biomass in a live stand. Rolling just prior to burning ensures for drier and safer conditions and promotes the incineration of seed heads. Burning should occur sometime between late fall to early spring when all standing stalks are dead and dry to improve effectiveness and reduce smoke. With the removal of this biomass, new shoots emerging the following growing season can be easily observed. If conditions allow, these plants can be sprayed when the plants are ~1m in height which is well before seed heads set, further reducing new introductions and amount of chemical applied. Failing the ability to burn, rolling or cutting the standing dead stalks can provide some additional measure of control enhancement in combination with the herbicide application. The recalcitrant stalks lying on the ground tend to decay at a quicker rate than those standing. The prostrate stalks may also promote drowning of the below ground structures when water is present since the standing straws are removed. Rolling or cutting does not however, rid the site of seeds which have the potential to germinate the following growing season. And, in established Phragmites stands, the resultant thick layer of downed biomass greatly reduces native species response in comparison to sites that have been burned. 15

16 It should be noted that since Phragmites has become so pervasive throughout Southern Ontario, total eradication on a site level is practically impossible. Seed and rhizome dispersal from uncontrolled sites, combined with human activity will ensure constant reinfestations. For this reason it is highly recommended that an ongoing monitoring and rapid response control program be implemented to ensure that Phragmites densities do not return to pre-control conditions. This can be achieved by monitoring sites during the growing season and controlling new shoots by either mechanical (cutting, pulling) or chemical (backpack, handwicking) means. A reduction in these efforts should be realized each subsequent year as control efforts throughout the region continue to expand. 4. Control Options a) All-terrain track vehicles The large, dense Phragmites cells would be most effectively controlled by using a retrofitted all-terrain vehicle such as a Centaur. This equipment is currently being used by Frank Letourneau of Dover Agri-serve who is a licensed pesticide applicator and the most experienced Phragmites control contractor in Ontario. His machine is equipped with commercial grade herbicide application equipment (tank, pump) and a spray deck and has been used at numerous sites throughout the province to control Phragmites (Figure 5). The machine can traverse rough terrain and access more remote and difficult to reach cells. Depending upon weather and site conditions up to 8.5 ha (21 acres) of Phragmites can be sprayed in one day using this equipment. The herbicide used is Weathermax (registration No ) which is mixed with clean water at 4-5% concentration. The surfactant MSO Concentrate Methylated Seed Oil (Adjuvant commercial, active ingredients 70% methylated soybean oil, Registration No ) is also added to increase plant uptake and improve efficacy of the herbicide. J.M. Gilbert J.M. Gilbert Figure 5. Shown is Frank Latourneau, (Dover Agri-Serve) spraying Phragmites from the deck of his modified Centaur (a, b). 16

17 The recommended timing for control using the Centaur along the Municipality of Kincardine shoreline is dependent upon site specific conditions including wildlife presence, recreational use and lake water levels. The shoreline has been divided into Blocks based upon shoreline features which provided logical dividing points. Each Block has been assessed and mapped and has recommended control and timing windows which are provided in Section 5. b) Manual Control i) Backpack Spraying Backpack sprayers come in a variety of styles and can be either hand pump (Figure 6) or battery operated. The hand pump style is much lighter without need for the battery pack and tends to have more spray reach. The herbicide and surfactant used is identical to that used in the Centaur. All applicators must be certified pesticide applicators. The herbicide cannot be applied over water and care must be taken to ensure spray drift lands only on the intended target. Backpack spraying is recommended for sites considered too sensitive for the Centaur to enter, sparse or small patches, cells located along streams and rivers, or in areas where boulders or other obstructions are too plentiful for the Centaur to navigate. Since backpack spraying is far less intrusive on wildlife that may be present, the timing window for application is wider. Frogs, nesting birds or other wildlife are more likely to be observed and avoided by the backpack operator. As long as surface water is not present, backpack spraying can occur anytime after the plant reaches ~1m in height and continue until the first heavy frost. Targeting the plant before it develops a mature seed head would be preferable. Shown: Darren. Jacobs, Sept J.M. Gilbert Figure 6. Controlling a patch of invasive Phragmites within a sensitive habitat in Rondeau Bay using a hand pump backpack sprayer. 17

18 The removal of the standing dead stalks either by rolling, cutting, or fire, prior to the growing season greatly increases the ease in spray application to the targeted plants. It is also safer since the applicator does not have to navigate through the brittle stalks or risk tripping hazards. Backpack spraying requires the applicator to follow a strategic plan to ensure that cells are sprayed in a systematic fashion. This reduces the chances of missing sections or spraying sections more than once. Laying out a spray pattern prior to starting with flagging tape or other markers will greatly assist with this process. Since all areas being sprayed must be posted, these markers will also serve as a visual aid to keep people out of the sprayed areas. It is recommended that the site be assessed ~3 weeks after the spray event to control any Phragmites plants that remain green and alive. ii) Herbicide Wicking In some areas where SAR plants are located within a low density Phragmites cell or, on very windy days, hand wicking may be a better option than backpack spraying. Wicking by hand entails the application of the chemical directly to each Phragmites plant. The applicator wears a chemical resistant glove under an absorbent mitt. The mitt is either dipped into a bucket with the herbicide or the chemical is sprayed onto the glove using a spray bottle. The applicator then grabs the Phragmites stalk near the bottom and wipes upward toward the tip (Figure 7). The herbicide and surfactant used is identical to that used with the other methods. All workers must be certified pesticide applicators. D. Jacobs Figure 7. Handwicking invasive Phragmites along the Lake Huron shoreline on a windy day, September

19 This method also has minimal impact on any wildlife that may be present. The timing window for wicking is quite large, from the time the plant reaches ~1m in height up until the first heavy frost. Targeting the plant before it develops a mature seed head would, be preferable. Much like backpack spraying, a systematic plan for wicking should be established to reduce plants being missed or wicked more than once. A dye can be added to the herbicide to assist with identifying wicked plants. It is also recommended that a grid pattern be flagged to help guide the wickers. iii) Control of wet sites As previously discussed, available methods for controlling Phragmites in standing water remain limited. A pilot project testing the efficacy of using a tenting method over Phragmites in standing water at Kettle Point in 2012 showed encouraging results. The tent was a heavy, dark canopy draped over a secured frame that had been placed over a Phragmites cell located in standing water. During the Municipality of Kincardine mapping exercise, which occurred in early May of 2013, a few wet sites with Phragmites were observed. If these sites do not de-water over the course of the growing season control using tent structures should be pursued. 19

20 5. Mapping Phragmites along the Municipality of Kincardine Shoreline In May 2013, the shoreline between Baie du Dore and the MacGregor Point Provincial Park was traversed on foot to record Phragmites locations and densities as well as wildlife presence, flooded areas, native plants, terrain conditions, access points and other relevant information (Figure 8). Phragmites was observed along the entire shoreline with the exception of one short stretch. Figure 8. Satellite image of the Kincardine Shoreline between Baie du Dore and MacGregor Point Provincial Park showing the extent of invasive Phragmites as illustrated by blue flags. The coastline was divided into 16 manageable sections or Blocks using features that provided logical boundary lines (Figure 9). Within some Blocks, Phragmites formed a dense, almost continuous cell along the shoreline while in others it was sparse and patchy. In some Blocks, Phragmites within the area between the shoreline and tree line was widespread and well established while in others it was sparsely scattered or present in small, isolated cells. 20

21 B9 B11 B10 B16 B15 B14 B13 B12 B8 B7 B5 B4 B3 B2 B1 B6 Figure 9. Location of Phragmites control Blocks accessed for densities and management options along the Municipality of Kincardine shoreline. Approximately 68 ha (~169 acres) of the coastal wetland currently has Phragmites present. Of this, ~25.6 ha has dense (~30% to 100% coverage) Phragmites cells present. Small, less dense cells and scattered Phragmites occur over ~39 ha (~96 acres). One ~3.7 ha (~9 acre) section (Block 12) has no Phragmites present. Maps for each Block showing Phragmites densities and recommended control options were developed using the program Expert GPS and Google Earth images into which the GPS waypoints had been uploaded. Cells outlined in solid green lines represent where all terrain track vehicle use is most appropriate. Sections within the solid white lines represent areas that should be controlled using backpack sprayers or handwicking. Some of these sites had surface water present during the assessment in May and all sites should be evaluated prior to any control activities taking place. Detailed control information for each block is provided below. i) Block 1 Block 1 (Figure 10) is ~ 1.1 ha (~2.7 acres) in size. Of this, 0.4 ha (0.9 ac) is dense Phragmites that can be controlled using the Centaur. The remaining acreage should be controlled using backpack spray units (Table 1). The dense cells had been burned in the early spring of 2013 to allow for easier control. A snapping turtle was observed crossing the road heading toward the lake in the area just behind this Block (Figure 10, WP 374; Figure 11). Within the Block, Canada Geese, Killdeer, gulls and a dead raccoon were observed. With the exception of the dense Phragmites cells along the lake edge, native wetland plants were common throughout (see Appendix A). It is recommended that, 21

22 due to the proximity of this Block to a boat ramp and fishing area, this area be targeted for control after Labour Day when recreational activity would be much reduced. This section can be accessed from Institute Road which joins to Concession Rd. #8. Block 1 C5 C4 C3 C2 C1 Figure 10. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control in Block 1. The areas within the white lines (C1, C3, C4) can be controlled using backpack sprayers. The two sections outlined in green (C2, C5) should be controlled using the Centaur. Table 1. Control information pertaining to Block 1 cells labeled in Figure 10. Block 1 Perimeter Area Waypoint Recommended Cell # distance, m m2 ha acre # control method Comments C ,376 backpack section along edge of boat ramp and man-made jetty C backpack 7 small, sparse patches in this area C backpack 2 small, sparse patches C ,378 Centaur cell had been burned, along edge of lake C Centaur cell had been burned, along edge of lake Total observed: snapping turtle,killdeer, gulls, Ca. geese, Backpack dead raccoon Centaur Centaur able to navigate rocks/bolders in this area 22

23 Figure 11. Block 1 photos, May 2013: a) snapping turtle, b) spares Phragmites patches along edge of boat ramp, c) Cell 2 area where dense Phragmites had been burned, d) sparse Phragmites in Cell 4. ii) Block 2 Block 2 is ~1 ha (~2.5 ac) in size with 0.4 ha (~1.1 ac) of dense Phragmites (C4) that should be controlled using a Centaur (Figure 12). The remaining area consists of three cells with small patches and scattered Phragmites which should be controlled by a backpack crew (Table 2). Some Phragmites was in standing water in Cell 3 in May but, these shallow depressions should become drier during the summer. It is recommended that this Block be targeted between August and the first heavy frost. This section can be accessed off of Cedarwood Lane which joins to Concession Rd. #8. Photos of this Block are provided in Figure

24 Figure 12. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control in Block 2. The areas within the white lines (C1, C2, C3) should be controlled using backpack sprayers. The cell outlined in green (C4) should be controlled using a Centaur. Table 2. Control information pertaining to Block 2 cells labeled in Figure 11. Block 2 Perimeter Area Waypoint Recommended Cell # distance, m m2 ha acre # control method Comments C backpack sparse Phragmites throughout C backpack small patch 1x1m C backpack 10 small patches throughout, some in water C Centaur Phragmites in this area had been burned Total Observed: leopard frog, Backpack vehicle tracks, yard waste piles Centaur

25 Figure 13. Block 2 photos, May 2013: a) view from treed ridge on south side of Block looking toward lake, b) vehicle tracks through coastal meadow marsh, c) view looking toward lake with yard waste pile and wet areas in front. iii) Block 3 Block 3 (Figure 12) is ~ 0.8 ha (~2 acres) in size and of this, 0.2 ha (~0.4 ac) is dense Phragmites in four separate Cells (C1, C6, C9, C12) that can be controlled using the Centaur (Figure 14). The remaining area has 8 Cells with small patches and sparse Phragmites and should be controlled using backpack spray units (Table 3). Three sparse patches are located in front of a cottage and the owners will need to be notified prior to any control activity taking place. It is recommended that this block be targeted for control after Labour Day to reduce impact on recreational activities. Two Least Bitterns were observed in this area and any disturbance to them and other wetland wildlife would also be minimized by spraying after this time period. Access to this Block can be made from Concession Rd. #8. Images of Block 3 are provided in Figure

26 Figure 14. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control in Block 3. The areas within the green lines (C1, C6, C9, C12) can be controlled using the Centaur while the sections demarcated with the white lines (C2-C5, C7, C8, C10, C11) requires backpack spraying. Table 3. Control information pertaining to Block 3 cells labeled in Figure 14. Block 3 Perimeter Area Waypoint Recommended Cell # distance, m m2 ha acre # control method Comments C backpack 4 small 1x1m patches near edge of lake C backpack 1 small, sparse patch near edge of lake C backpack 1 small, sparse patch near edge of lake C backpack 3 small patches in front of cottage C backpack sparse Phragmites throughout C backpack 1 small, sparse patch C backpack 13 sparse patches, goes along rock wall near road C backpack sparse, 2x2m C Centaur Phragmites had been burned C Centaur thick patch, in wet seep area C Centaur burned section, small creek flowing through C Centaur dense patch Total Observed: 2 Least Bitterns flying over Backpack cottages in this embayment Centaur Figure 15. Block 3 photos, May 2013: a) sparse Phragmites in Cell 2, b) sparse Phragmites in Cell 5. 26

27 iv) Block 4 Block 4 is ~ 0.2 ha (~0.5 acres) in size (Figure 16) with four cells of sparse Phragmites totaling ~300 m2 which should be controlled using backpack sprayers (Table 4). The remaining area had two dense Phragmites cells which can be controlled using the Centaur. Access to this site can be made from Concession Rd. #8. This Block is located near a boat ramp and boat channel and would best be targeted for control after Labour Day weekend when recreational activity should be greatly reduced. For logistical purposes Blocks 4 and 5 should be targeted on the same day. Figure 16. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control in Block 4. The area within the white lines (C1, C2) can be controlled using the Centaur while those within the green lines require a backpack sprayer (C3) or wicking (C4). Table 4. Control information pertaining to Block 4 cells labeled in Figure 16. Block 4 Perimeter Area Waypoint Recommended Cell # distance, m m2 ha acre # control method Comments C backpack small, sparse patch ~10m x 3m C backpack 4 small, sparse patches C backpack small, sparse patch ~2m x 2m C backpack small, sparse patch ~1m x 1m C Centaur dense patch C Centaur dense patch, had been burned Total Backpack Centaur

28 v) Block 5 Block 5 takes in the area around a public boat launch and dredged channel which goes out to the lake (Figure 16). There are a number of homes, cottages and trails in this section and control activity would be best left until after Labour Day weekend. All residences should receive notice prior to activity commencing. Most of this Block will require use of the Centaur to control three dense Cells totaling ~1.9 ha (~4.6 acres). Some dense patches have been burned. There are a few small, sparse patches that will require backpack use to control (Table 5). Access to this site can be made from Concession Rd. #8. Table 5. Control information pertaining to Block 5 cells labeled in Figure 16. Block 5 Perimeter Area Waypoint Recommended Cell # distance, m m2 ha acre # control method Comments C backpack sparse patch ~5m x 5m C Centaur sparse and dense patches, burned areas C ; Centaur dense patches throughout C Centaur dsnse patches along shoreline Total Observed: 3 Northern Water Snakes, Ca. Goose on nest Backpack with 6 eggs, 4 Midland Painted Turtles in boat channel Centaur Killdeer and Sandpiper sp. along shoreline Figure 17. Block 5 photos, May 2013: a) Phragmites near boat channel in Cell 2, b) Phragmites patch in Cell 2, c) two Northern Water Snakes (Nerodia sipedon) near the edge of the lake in Cell 1. 28

29 vi) Block 6 Block 6 has dense Phragmites along the shoreline in an area covering ~0.4 ha (~1.1 acres) and could be controlled using the Centaur (Figure 18). Much of the standing dead stalks were burned in March, This area also has three Cells with sparse, small Phragmites patches covering a total of ~385 m 2 which should be sprayed using backpack units (Table 6). One of these cells, C4, is located along the lakeshore in an area with numerous boulders and rocks making it too rough for the Centaur to traverse. Phragmites in Cell 2 was in pooled water with ~9 cm depth in early May, Access to this Block can be made from the Sunset Drive cul de sac, turning south off Concession Rd. #10. This area has numerous vehicle tracks throughout which is negatively impacting the wetland (Figure 19). It is recommended that this Block be targeted between August and the first heavy frost. Figure 18. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control in Block 6. The section within the green lines (C3) can be controlled using the Centaur. The three cells outlined in white (C1, C2, C4) should be controlled using backpack spray units. Table 6. Control information pertaining to the Block 6 cells labeled in Figure 18. Block 6 Perimeter Area Waypoint Recommended Cell # distance, m m2 ha acre # control method Comments C backpack small, sparse patch ~3m x 5m C backpack small, sparse patch ~5m x 10m, in ~9cm deep water C backpack 4 small patches, very rocky, too rough for Centaur C Centaur dense patches along shoreline, burned, varies in width 5m-15m Total Observed: numerous vehicle tracks throughout meadow marsh, Backpack brush piles Centaur

30 Figure 19. Block 6 photos, May 2013: a) vehicle tracks in coastal meadow marsh, b) trail coming from Sunset Drive cul de sac through coastal meadow marsh, c) native meadow marsh vegetation and d) vehicle tracks coming into coastal meadow marsh from property with storage shed. vii) Block 7 Block 7 is the largest section and the most impacted by invasive Phragmites (Figure 20). Much of the shoreline has dense Phragmites which extends into the central area of the coastal meadow marsh and covers ~7.8 ha (~19.2 acres; Table 7). The remaining area between the tree line and the dense Phragmites cell has scattered Phragmites throughout and covers an area ~5.4 ha (13.3 acres). Phragmites in this large cell should be controlled using backpack sprayers and in some areas, where Phragmites is growing up between willows, could be hand wicked. Phragmites is growing along a creek which flows through the centre of this Block and along an excavated boat channel at the northern edge. Leopard Frogs were observed near the creek and throughout the less dense section and a Northern Water Snake was swimming along the shoreline. A bird nest was on the edge of a dense Phragmites section on the lake side and a number of birds were seen and heard throughout this area. Numerous large rocks and boulders are present along some sections of the shoreline interspersed by stretches of soft sand or organic muck. ATV tracks and brush piles were also present in this section of coastal meadow marsh. Due to the extent and density of Phragmites, this Block is going to require the greatest amount of effort and time to restore. This Block can be accessed from Sunset Drive turning south off of Concession Rd. 10. It is recommended that this Block be targeted between August and the first heavy frost. 30

31 Figure 20. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control in Block 7. The section within the green line (C1) can be controlled using the Centaur. The area outlined in white (C2) should be controlled using backpack. Table 7. Control information pertaining to the Block 7 cells labeled in Figure 20. Block 7 Perimeter Area Waypoint Recommended Cell # distance, m m2 ha acre # control method Comments C ,739 backpack numerous scattered Phragmites between treeline and dense cell C Centaur dense areas along shoreline and into meadow marsh interior Total Observed: leopard frogs, Killdeers, Northern Water Snakes, Backpack Spring Peepers, Ca. Geese, Mallards, shorebirds, raccoon Centaur tracks, dead fish,white-throated Sparrows, gulls 31

32 Figure 21. Block 7 photos: a) dense Phragmites along the shoreline (May 2013), b) Phragmites within the interior of the coastal meadow marsh (May 2013), c) bird nest along edge of Phragmites (July 2012) and, d) Leopard Frod observed in sparse Phragmites section of the coastal meadow marsh (July 2012). viii) Block 8 Block 8 is another large section totaling ~12 ha (~29 acres) with one large dense Phragmites cell and one large Cell with scattered Phragmites throughout (Figure 22). The dense Phragmites occurs in pockets along the shoreline and extends into the interior meadow marsh in some areas. Dense Phragmites is also present along a creek near the road at waypoint #780 (Figure 23). A female Mallard and an unidentified duck were flushed out of this area as were a pair of Red-winged Blackbirds although no nests were found. Four Northern Water Snakes were observed among the rocks along the edge of the lake. Numerous birds were heard while traversing through this section as was a Spring Peeper. There was a groomed beach area between waypoints #746 and #747 with Phragmites on either side and a waterfowl hunting blind was in the Phragmites along the shoreline. Due to the wildlife and recreational use of this section, control would be best left until after Labour Day Weekend. The area with dense Phragmites covers ~7.8 ha (~19.2 acres) and should be controlled using the Centaur (Table 8). This includes an island that was connected to the shoreline due to low lake levels. ATV tracks were observed at this site (WP #751) and traversed through the meadow marsh. Smaller pockets of less dense Phragmites were scattered throughout the remaining ~5.4 ha (~13.3 acres) of meadow marsh extending up to the tree line. Numerous rocks and boulders are scattered throughout the entire Block and along the shoreline this is interspersed with sections of sand and soft organic muck. 32

33 This Block will require similar time and effort as that of Block 7 in order to fully control Phragmites and restore the coastal wetland. It can be accessed from Sunset Drive, turning north off of Concession Rd. 10. Figure 22. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control in Block 8. The area within the green line (C1) can be controlled using the Centaur. The area outlined in white (C2) has sparse Phragmites and can be controlled using backpack spray units. 33

34 Figure 23. Block 8 photos, May 2013: a) dense Phragmites along creek near road, b) cleared beach section along lakeshore, c) dense Phragmites along shoreline, and d) sparse Phragmites throughout coastal meadow marsh between tree line and dense section. Table 8. Control information pertaining to cells in Block 8, labeled in Figure 22. Block 8 Perimeter Area Waypoint Recommended Cell # distance, m m2 ha acre # control method Comments C ,780,784,785, backpack numerous scattered Phragmites between treeline and dense cell C Centaur dense areas along shoreline and into meadow marsh interior Total Observed: 2 Mute Swans, female Mallard, cormorants, Spring Peeper, pair of Backpack Ca. Geese with nest, male and female Red-winged Blackbirds, muskrat tracks Centaur Northern Water Snakes, Garter Snake, dead gull and Yellow-shafted Flicker ix) Block 9 Block 9 covers ~9 ha (~22 acres) of coastal meadow marsh (Figure 24; Table 9). Dense Phragmites exists along a ~10 m wide strip along the shoreline, around a wet depression, and along the edge of two small creeks flowing in from the upland. There is also a small (~15 m x 20 m) dense cell (C2) in the central area of the sedge meadow. Cells 1 and 2 can be controlled using a Centaur. The wet depression in Cell 2 appears to dry out since the sediment basin had cracks throughout. There was very little Phragmites in the Cell 3 section but this became much more prevalent in Cells C4 and C5 and will require control using backpack spray units. Within the section of Cell 5 close to the road there was water throughout the sedge meadow and Phragmites was scattered throughout. This may dry out during the summer months. Wildlife observed in this area included Leopard Frogs, Red-winged Black Birds, song birds, American Coot, female Mallard and Garter Snake. Access to this Block can be made off of Sunset Dr. turning north from Concession Rd. #10 but there is a barrier of large boulders running along the 34

35 lakeside of the road here (Figure 25). It is recommended that this Block be targeted between August and the first heavy frost. Figure 24. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control in Block 9. The areas within the green lines (C1, C2) can be controlled using the Centaur. The areas outlined in white (C3, C4, C5) has sparse Phragmites and can be controlled using backpack spray units. Table 9. Control information for Block 9 cell labeled in Figure 24. Block 9 Perimeter Area Waypoint Recommended Cell # distance, m m2 ha acre # control method Comments C backpack very little Phragmites throughout this section C backpack wet sedge meadow section with scattered Phragmites C ,817 backpack scattered Phragmites throughout area C Centaur narrow fringe of thick Phragmites along shoreline, around pond and along 2 creeks C Centaur dense Phragmites cell ~15m x 20 m Total Observed: Leopard Frog, Red-winged Black Birds, Sparrows, female Mallard Backpack Garter Snake, Centaur heard Am. Coot, song birds 35

36 Figure 25. Block 9 photos, May 2013: a) in Cell 1 near the lakeshore looking toward pond, b) wet sedge meadow section near the road with scattered Phragmites throughout, c) rock wall along lakeside edge of road in the area of Block 9, and d) dense Phragmites patch along the lakeshore. x) Block 10 Block 10 takes in ~5.1 ha (~12.6 acres) and includes a small portion of Brucedale Conservation Area managed by Saugeen Conservation (Figure 26; Table 10). The CA section is located in Cell 3 which takes in a groomed beach with Phragmites around the perimeter (Figure 27a). Due to the heavy recreational use of this section of the coastline, control efforts should not occur until after Labour Day weekend and be coordinated with the Saugeen Conservation staff. The section that would best be controlled using the Centaur includes patches of dense Phragmites along the shoreline which in some areas continues back into the central area of the meadow marsh. It tends to become less dense closer to the tree line however, it is still too much to control using backpack sprayer units alone (Figure 27d). 36

37 Figure 26. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control in Block 10. The area within the green line (C1) can be controlled using the Centaur. The areas outlined in white (C2, C3, C4) has sparse Phragmites and can be controlled using backpack spray units. Table 10. Control information for each of the Block 10 cells labeled in Figure 26. Block 10 Perimeter Area Waypoint Recommended Cell # distance, m m2 ha acre # control method Comments C backpack very rocky area, sparse Phragmites C CA beach backpack CA beach section, sand C backpack along roadside, Phragmites amongst shrubs in some areas C Centaur lg section, extends from shoreline up to treeline,sm shoreline sections cleared for recreational use Total Observed: Red-winged Black Birds, Sparrows, female Mallard w. possible nest, Backpack gull w. possible nest, song birds, Garter Snake, Centaur

38 Figure 27. Block 10 photos, May 2013: a) cleared beach section for Brucedale CA (Cell 3), b) small cleared section at shoreline with Phragmites pockets on either side, c) sparse Phragmites section near road (Cell 4), and d) dense Phragmites section in Cell 1. xi) Block 11 Block 11 covers ~3.5 ha (~8.6 acres). The densest Phragmites occurs in the central part of this block and extends from the shoreline up to the edge of the road covering a 0.6 ha (1.6 acre) area (Figure 28). This cell (C2) and would best be controlled using the Centaur however, large rocks and boulders are numerous and it may be too rough for the track vehicle to safely navigate. If this is determined, this block can be controlled using backpack units which will also be required to control the sparse Phragmites present throughout the remaining area. Along the east side of the road is a large wetland that did not, at the time of the assessment, appear to have Phragmites. However, an ATV track was observed running through the middle of this marsh and, along with causing harm to flora and fauna, may increase the probability of Phragmites colonizing. There were two Northern Water Snakes observed along the rocky shoreline along with a Canada Goose which was behaving as if she had a nest and there were Leopard Frogs in the wet areas in Cell 3. Pitcher plants were also observed in a wet section in Cell 3. Access to this Block can be made where Concession Rd. #12 ends at Sunset Drive. Timing for control using backpack spray units should be appropriate starting in August while control using the Centaur should occur later in the growing season beginning at the earliest in September. 38

39 Figure 28. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control in Block 11. The area within the green line (C2) can be controlled using the Centaur. The areas outlined in white (C1, C3) has sparse Phragmites and can be controlled using backpack spray units. Table 11. Control information for each of the Block 11 cells labeled in Figure 28. Block 11 Perimeter Area Waypoint Recommended Cell # distance, m m2 ha acre # control method Comments C , backpack small pockets on shoreline and scattered Phragmites back to road edge C backpack groundwater seeps throughout this section, very sparse Phragmites throughout C Centaur fringe along shoreline extending back to roadside Total Observed: 2 Northern Water Snakes among rocks along shoreline, flushed out Ca. goose, Backpack possibly has nest, Leopard Frogs, pitcher plants, ATV tracks throughout Centaur

40 Figure 29. Block 11 photos, May 2013: a) viewpoint from the edge of the road looking toward the lake in Cell 1, b) viewpoint looking north along the edge of Sunset Drive, c) Phragmites along shoreline, and d) groundwater seep in Cell 3. xii) Block 12 Block 12 is a ~3.7 ha (~9.2 acres) stretch of shoreline were no Phragmites plants were observed (Figure 30, Table 12). Some of the shoreline had been altered for boat channels (Figure 31). However, the majority of this area was a relatively unaltered coastal meadow marsh. Phragmites growing in front of 476 Sunset Drive has been actively cut by the property owners since This has reduced density and expansion in this site but requires continual maintenance to keep the Phragmites at low density. It is recommended that the Phragmites not be cut in the growing season that this section is targeted to be sprayed, to improve efficacy. Control can occur in this area using backpack spray units anytime after the plants reach sufficient height (~1.5 m). 40

41 Figure 30. Satellite image showing location of Block 12. Table 12. Information pertaining to Block 12. Block 12 Perimeter Area Waypoint Recommended Cell # distance, m m2 ha acre # control method Comments , 824 monitor no Phragmites plants were observed throughtout the area between Waypoints 840 and 842 there were three sections of shoreline with excavated boat channels Figure 31. Photo taken in Block 12 from waypoint # 839 looking northeast, May

42 xiii) Block 13 Block 13 is located where Sunset Drive ends heading north along the lake (Figure 32). This area covers ~3.9 ha (~9.7 acres) and the majority of this section of coastline has scattered Phragmites and small isolated pockets that can be controlled using backpack spray units (Table 13). There are two sections along the shoreline where a dense Phragmites fringe varying between 5m and 10 m in width occurs within a 0.5 ha (1.2 acre) area. These two cells (C1, C2) would be more effectively controlled using the Centaur although control using backpack spray units would also be possible. There are a few cottages in the tree line along this stretch and recreational use of small portions of the shoreline is evident. Contact with these residents should be made before control work commences. If backpack control is to be used, control in this section could occur anytime after the plants reach ~1m in height up until the first heavy frost. Centaur access should be acceptable anytime after the bird nesting period has finished (mid to late June). This section of shoreline could be accessed from cottage lanes, pending permission, or from Sunset Drive. Figure 32. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control in Block 13. The areas within the green lines (C1, C2) can be controlled using the Centaur. The areas outlined in white (C3, C4, C5) has sparse Phragmites and can be controlled using backpack spray units. 42

43 Table 13. Control information pertaining to each cell labeled in Figure 22. Block 13 Perimeter Area Waypoint Recommended Cell # distance, m m2 ha acre # control method Comments C backpack scattered Phragmites and small pockets throughout this area C ,846 Centaur fringe of thick Phragmites along shoreline ~10m wide C ,848 Centaur fringe of thick Phragmites along shoreline ~5m-10m wide Total Observed: flushed out Ca. Goose, female mallard Backpack Centaur Figure 33. Photos taken in Block 13, May 2013 showing a) section of shoreline used by cottagers with Phragmites in background, and b) fringe of Phragmites along shoreline. xiv) Block 14 Block 14 is located in the most isolated section along this shoreline and can only be accessed from the same location as that of Block 13 or from entering from the northern end off of Richardson Road (Figure 34). There are four cells (C1-C4) with dense Phragmites in this block which fringe the shoreline and cover an area of ~0.7 ha (~1.8 acres). The remaining ~3.5 ha (~8.6 acre) has scattered Phragmites throughout (Table 14). There are large, wet, shallow depressions throughout this block with Phragmites along the fringe (Figure 35). These would be expected to dry out during dry periods in the summer. This Block could be targeted for control anytime after the bird nesting period has ended (mid to late June). 43

44 Figure 34. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control in Block 14. The areas within the green lines (C1, C2, C3, C4) can be controlled using the Centaur. The area outlined in white C5) has sparse Phragmites and can be controlled using backpack spray units. Table 14. Control information pertaining to each cell labeled in Figure 34. Block 14 Perimeter Area Waypoint Recommended Cell # distance, m m2 ha acre # control method Comments C ,852,855, backpack scattered pockets of Phragmites throughout area C ,852 Centaur dense Phragmites which extends from shoreline back to treeline C ,854 Centaur small patch of dense Phragmites along shoreline C ,857 Centaur fringe of dense Phragmites along shoreline ~7m wide C Centaur fringe of dense Phragmites along shoreline ~7m wide Total Observed: 2 mallards in pond, Backpack no signs of human disturbance in this coastal wetland Centaur

45 Figure 35. Photo taken in Block 14 looking toward tree line, May xv) Block 15 Block 15 covers ~6 ha (~14.8 acres) and has scattered Phragmites throughout (Figure 36, Table 15). This section of coastal meadow marsh has large wet depressions with Phragmites along the fringe (Figure 37). Water in these shallow depressions would be expected to reduce during dry summer months allowing for chemical control. Although the Phragmites is widespread throughout this block, there are no large, dense patches and therefore this entire section would best be controlled using backpack spray units. Timing for control would be best after the wetter sites have dried and prior to the plants developing mature seeds (~late August) but could begin after birds have finished nesting. Access to this site can be made from Richardson Road. 45

46 Figure 36. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control area in Block 15. The area within the white line has sparse Phragmites and can be controlled using backpack spray units. Table 15. Control information for Block 15. Block 15 Perimeter Area Waypoint Recommended Cell # distance, m m2 ha acre # control method Comments C backpack scattered Phragmites throughout much of this area Figure 37. Photo taken along the edge of the wet area in Block 15. May

47 xvi) Block 16 Block 16 is located in the northern most portion of the Municipality of Kincardine shoreline and is adjacent to the MacGregor Point Provincial Park (Figure 38). This section takes in ~2.7 ha (~6.7 acres) and has Phragmites scattered throughout much of this area (Table 16). Despite the prevalence of Phragmites, there are no dense cells that have yet developed and there are numerous large rocks and boulders (Figure 39). Therefore, this site would best be controlled using backpack spray units. There are pockets of Phragmites along the shoreline within the Provincial Park boundary and these areas should also be controlled during the same period, which will require coordination with Park staff. Timing for control of this Block would be best after birds have finished nesting and before Phragmites seeds have matured. Access can be made off of Richardson Road. Figure 38. Satellite image showing area for Phragmites control in Block 16. The area within the white line has sparse Phragmites and can be controlled using backpack spray units. Table 16. Control information for Block 16. Block 16 Perimeter Area Waypoint Recommended Cell # distance, m m2 ha acre # control method Comments C backpack scattered Phragmites throughout much of this area 47

48 Figure 39. Photos taken in Block 16, May 2013 showing a) sparse Phragmites along the edge of a pond, b) small Phragmites cell in the coastal meadow marsh, c) Phragmites cell along the edge of the lake, and d) rocks and boulders along the shoreline. 6. RECOMMENDED CONTROL STRATEGY The ultimate goal of Phase I of the Municipality of Kincardine s Phragmites Management Plan is to restore the coastal region between Baie du Dore and the MacGregor Point Provincial Park. In so doing, the aesthetic qualities and recreational opportunities valued by the local community will be returned and the current threat to native flora and fauna significantly reduced. These objectives can only be achieved with sufficient financial commitments to ensure the current infestation can be controlled in a timely fashion over the next few years. It is recommended that the funds be used to hire a licensed pesticide applicator to control the dense cells and to support a backpack crew to control the sparse areas and those sections a Centaur cannot navigate due to rough terrain. The licensed applicator should have equipment such as a Centaur to enable safe and efficient access and have experience controlling Phragmites in sensitive habitats. It is recommended that the backpack crew consist of at least 5 trained Municipal personnel who would be available as required. One crew member should have a supervisory role to: 1) ensure coordination with the Centaur crew, 2) undertake site visits prior to the target date to assess conditions, 3) develop a spray plan, 4) schedule required crew and manage field work, 5) ensure required signage is posted, 5) communicate planned activities with adjacent property owners and the local community, and 6) write annual reports detailing work completed and planned targets for the following year. It is recommended that the backpack crew undergo on-site training prior to actual control work commencing in Training should include backpack spray unit and 48

49 handwicking herbicide application methods, design of spray plan to ensure all cells are targeted, review of health and safety requirements, proper herbicide and surfactant mixing and handling, rare plant identification, overview of hazards, and other important items. The timing window for controlling Phragmites using backpack spray units can be broader than that for Centaur use since they are far less intrusive. Within some areas backpack control could occur between early June when the plants are ~1 m in height up until late fall, before the first heavy frost. Walking through the wetlands with backpack spray units or handwicking should have minimal impact on any wildlife that may be present. The applicator is more likely able to observe, and avoid, chemical contact with non-target species. The use of backpack spray units around residential sites and near recreational areas will have to be timed accordingly. Since we re recommending spraying between June and fall, I suggest we supplement this plan with a trained biologist to do field reconnaissance prior to each spray event. This will need to be costed into the program. Also, since this will occur during the recreation season, proper communications with the public will be required (notices, signs, etc.). If additional funding can be acquired, more support should go toward this program to increase acreage that can be controlled during one growing season. At the end of the 2013 field season the efficacy of the program should be evaluated to determine how much habitat can realistically be controlled within a given number of manpower hours by both the backpack and Centaur crews. This will guide funding requirements in subsequent years and provide a better projection for anticipated program costs and estimates for dates of completion. Funds will also be required to hire experienced personnel to burn the dead Phragmites after it has been treated in the dense cells. This will significantly reduce seed dispersal and increase native species response the following growing season. The timing window for Phragmites burning along this shoreline would be best between November and March. The actual target dates within this window are constrained by weather which affects wildlife activity and the required conditions to ensure a safe and effective controlled burned. a) Estimated Costs and Projected Control The following recommended control schedule is meant to serve as a guide and should be adjusted accordingly (Table 17). Some areas may be controlled in a much shorter time period than anticipated while others may take longer. Weather and equipment repairs will also impact the amount of acreage that can be controlled within the target period. The Municipality of Kincardine has allocated $20,000 for Phragmites control efforts in If more funds become available more acreage can be controlled. The estimated costs for controlling the areas are based upon a number of factors including Phragmites densities, travel distance, terrain, as well as aerial coverage. The sections with dense cells will likely require touch up by a backpack crew the following growing 49

50 season based upon mortality rates which tend to range between ~85% and 100% after one herbicide application. The increase in anticipated funds for years 2014 and 2015 reflects this additional effort required by the backpack crew. It also reflects the additional funds anticipated in order to control the suggested target sites. The three Blocks 1, 2 and 3 are in the vicinity closest to the lands owned by Ontario Power Generation which are heavily infested with Phragmites. Control efforts on these sections would be more efficient if done in concert with similar efforts targeting these areas. It is hoped that a program will be in place and in the process of being implemented by The Blocks closest to the MacGregor Point Provincial Park, B14, B15, B16 are currently scheduled for control in However, if more funds become available, and a partnership can be formed with Park staff to work together on this section and the shoreline within the park boundary, this area could be controlled much sooner. Table 17. Recommended control schedule and associated costs for Phase I. Targeted Sites Recommended Control year Priority Estimated control costs Estimated control area ha (ac) 0.5(1.1) Block high Block high $20, (32.5) Block high 0.2(0.5) Block high 1.9(4.6) Block high $27, (28.9) Block high 8.8(21.7) Block high 5.1(12.6) Block high 3.5(8.6) Block high 0.2(0.5) Block high 3.9(9.7) Block high 4.2(10.4) Block high 6.0(14.8) Block high $42, (14.8) Block high 1.1(2.6) Block high 1.0(2.5) Block high $9, (2.0) For the initial control work planned for 2013 it is recommended that the section of shoreline within Blocks 6 and 7 be targeted (Table 18). These areas have well established Phragmites cells which will expand rapidly this coming growing season if not controlled. This section of shoreline does not appear to have much recreational activity 50

51 and therefore could be targeted for control in August. This timing should not negatively impact any wildlife that may be present in the area. Negative impacts to native plant species should not be high due to the fact that very little desirable vegetation is among the dense cells where the Centaur would be broadcast spraying. And, backpack spot spraying in the less dense cells will reduce spray drift to non-target species. The Centaur and Backpack crews should plan to work on the same days to ensure that all target areas get covered and that there is no overlap in the spraying of cells. The coverage area estimated for the funds available for 2013 may increase or decrease and the 2014 forecast should be adjusted accordingly. The dense cells that get controlled in 2013 should be rolled, if possible, and burned sometime between November 2013 and March A quote for burning this section should be obtained. Cost estimates for this work are not included in this plan. Table 18. Suggested target areas, dates and estimated costs for Target Blocks Estimated Control area Est. costs Est. days (8hrs) B6 B7 Total 0.4 ha (1.1 ac) 3 cells ~385 m ha (19.2 ac) 5.4 ha (13.3 ac) 8.2 ha (20.3 ac) 5.5 ha (13.5 ac) 13.6 ha (33.6 ac) Centaur Crew $0.5k Backpack Crew (2-3 people) $0.25k Centaur Crew $15k Backpack Crew (4-5 people) $4.25k Centaur Crew: $15.5K Backpack Crew: $4.5K $20k Target Window Aug-Oct Aug-Oct Aug-Oct Aug-Oct Comments the Centaur and backpack crews should attempt to work on the same days The Blocks recommended for control in 2014 include sections to the south and north of the blocks to be targeted in 2013 (Table 19). Blocks 4, 5 and 8 are in areas where summer recreational activity occurs and should therefore be accessed after Labour Day Weekend. These sections will require both Centaur and backpack application and crews should plan to work on the same days to ensure that all cells get covered and that there is no overlap in the spraying of cells. The areas sprayed in 2013 will likely need touch up and a backpack crew can do this work anytime after the plant reaches sufficient height (early-mid June). The dense cells in Blocks 4 and 5 were burned in the spring of 2013 and may not require further treatment after herbicide application. The dense cells in Block 8 should however, require rolling, if possible, and be burned. This could take place anytime between November 2014 and March The estimated cost for this activity 51

52 depends on whether or not Blocks 4 and 5 will also need burning and can be adjusted accordingly. Table 19. Suggested target areas, dates and estimated costs for Est. Target Estimated Est. costs days Blocks Control area (8hrs) B6,B7 B4 B5 B8 Total 0.4 ha (1 ac) 0.2 ha (0.5 ac) 4 cells ~298 m ha (4.6 ac) 1 cell ~133 m ha (19.2 ac) 3.9 ha (9.6 ac) 9.9 ha (24.3 ac) 4.4 ha (10.8 ac) 14.2 ha (35.1 ac) Backpack Crew (2-3 people) $0.5k Centaur Crew $0.5k Backpack Crew (2-3 people) $0.5k Centaur Crew $5k Backpack Crew (2-3 people) $0.5k Centaur Crew $15k Backpack Crew (4-5 people) $5k Centaur Crew: $20.5K Backpack Crew: $6.5K $27K Target Window 0.25 June-Oct Sep-Oct Sep-Oct Sep-Oct Sep-Oct Sep-Oct Sep-Oct Comments Touch up of cells targeted the previous year the Centaur and backpack crews should attempt to work on the same days Year 2015 efforts should focus on the remaining shoreline between Block 8 and MacGregor Point Provincial Park. The Blocks targeted in 2013 should require no to very minimal touch up while the Blocks controlled in 2014 may require touchup efforts in the areas that were most dense. These areas can be targeted any time after the plants are sufficiently developed and should only require a backpack crew of 2-3 people for one day. Blocks 14, 15 and 16 have a very rocky shoreline and may have to be done with backpack sprayers. These are larger sections and will require much walking. Use of an ATV to transport mixed chemical and supplies may be beneficial. These sections should be done the same year that the shoreline within the MacGregor Point Provincial Park is targeted. If recreational use in these areas is high during the summer months they may best be left until after Labour Day weekend. If this is not an issue, these areas could be targeted anytime after birds have finished nesting in late June. 52

53 Blocks 9 through 13 are all in areas where summer recreational activity takes place, including the Brucedale Conservation Authority visitors, and should be controlled after Labour Day weekend. With the exception of Block 12, all sites require both Centaur and backpack crews and they should coordinate efforts to ensure all areas get sprayed and reduce duplicating spray efforts. Block 12 did not have any visible Phragmites plants present at the time of this assessment in May However, it was subsequently learned that property owners in this area have been controlling Phragmites by cutting plants every summer since Notice of impending chemical control efforts should go out to these residents early in the growing season to ensure plants are present at the time control efforts are planned. These plants could be sprayed in June using backpack units along with the section in Block 13. The dense Phragmites in Blocks 14, 15 and 16 could be burned between November 2015 and March Due to the rough terrain, these areas will not be able to be rolled first. Estimates for burning this section of shoreline will have to be obtained. 53

54 Table 20. Suggested target areas, dates and estimated costs for Est. Target Estimated Target Est. costs days Comments Blocks Control area Window (8hrs) B6-B7 0 Backpack Crew June-Oct Touch up if B4,B5, B8 B9 B10 B11 (2-3 people) 0.8 (2 ac) Backpack Crew (2-3 people) $0.5k 1.6 ha (3.9 ac) 7.2 ha (17.8 ac) 3.2 ha (7.9 ac) 1.9 ha (4.7 ac) 0.6 ha (1.6 ac) 2.9 ha (7.1 ac) Centaur Crew $4.5k Backpack Crew (4-5 people) $6.1k Centaur Crew $9k Backpack Crew (2-3 people) $1.6k Centaur Crew $1.5k Backpack Crew (3-4 people) $2.5k B ha (0.5 ac) Backpack Crew (2-3 people) $0.5k B ha (1.2 ac) 3.4 ha (8.5 ac) Centaur Crew $0.8k Backpack Crew (4-5 people) $3k 0.25 June, Sep-Oct Aug-Oct Sep-Oct Sep-Oct Aug-Oct needed Touch up as required the Centaur and backpack crews should attempt to work on the same days Shoreline used by Brucedale CA visitors; the Centaur and backpack crews should attempt to work on the same days the Centaur and backpack crews should attempt to work on the same days 0.25 June-Oct Contact landowners at 476 Sunset Dr. the spring before treatment; currently cut plants Aug-Oct June-Oct the Centaur and backpack crews should attempt to work on the same days 54

55 Table 20 continued Target Blocks B14 Estimated Control area 0.7 ha (1.8 ac) 3.5 ha (8.6 ac) Est. costs Centaur Crew $1.5k Backpack Crew (4-5 people) $3k B ha (14.8 ac) Backpack Crew (4-5 people) $5k B ha (6.7 ac) Backpack Crew (4-5 people) $2.5k Total 6.6 ha (16.4 ac) 28.6 ha (70.7 ac) 35.2 ha (87.1 ac) Centaur Crew: $17.5k Backpack Crew: $24.7k $42.2K Est. days (8hrs) Target Window Aug-Oct June-Oct Comments the Centaur and backpack crews should attempt to work on the same days 3-6 June-Oct Very rocky terrain and dense cells 2-4 June-Oct along shoreline may best be controlled using backpack spray units By year 2016 only three small sections requiring Phragmites control should remain, Blocks 1, 2, and 3 (Table 21). These are located within the southern portion of the shoreline near Baie du Dore and the Bruce Nuclear Power Development (BNPD) property. It is anticipated that by 2016, restoration efforts will be well underway within the BNPD owned section of shoreline. This will greatly reduce re-infestation of the controlled sites. The Blocks controlled over the previous years will have to be assessed and any required touch-up work undertaken by a backpack spray crew. 55

56 Table 21. Suggested target areas, dates and estimated costs for Target Estimated Est. days Target Est. costs Blocks Control area (8hrs) Window B6-B7 B4,B5, B8 B9- B16 B1 B2 B3 Total 0.4 ha (0.9 ac) 0.7 ha (1.7 ac) 0.4 ha (1.1 ac) 0.6 ha (1.5 ac) 0.2 ha (0.4 ac) 0.6 ha (1.6 ac) 1.0 ha (2.4 ac) 1.9 ha (4.8 ac) 2.9 ha (7.2 ac) Backpack Crew (2-3 people) $5k Centaur Crew $1k Backpack Crew (2-3 people)$0.5k Centaur Crew $1k Backpack Crew (3-4 people) $0.5k Centaur Crew $0.5k Backpack Crew (2-3 people)$0.5k Centaur Crew: $2.5k Backpack Crew: $6.5k $9k June-Oct June-Oct 3-5 June-Oct Sep-Oct Sep-Oct Sep-Oct Sep-Oct Sep-Oct Comments Touch up if needed Touch up if needed Touch up as required Recreational area, therefore best controlled after Labour Day weekend; the Centaur and backpack crews should attempt to work on the same days 56

57 b) Long-term Monitoring and Rapid Response Program It is anticipated that, with sufficient funding support, a reasonable expectation for control of Phragmites within all mapped Blocks could be achieved by the fall of Once this goal has been achieved, an ongoing program to monitor and rapidly control newly establishing Phragmites plants should be in place. This can be designed as a community wide reporting program with a contact person responsible for control. Minimal funds would be required each year for equipment maintenance, chemical purchase, training and other expenses. The program could also be expanded to include other problematic invasive plants which require similar control methods. Without this program in place, the existing Phragmites issue within the Municipality of Kincardine is likely to return and the efforts and funds invested will be wasted. Since this shoreline does not exist in isolation, the Phragmites currently invading adjacent coastlines should also be controlled to reduce re-infestation rates. Phase II of this program should focus on these areas. It is anticipated that this Phragmites Management Plan will be used to guide a highly successful restoration effort that will become a model project for other Municipalities within the province requiring similar efforts. 57

58 7. LONG TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN During the implementation of Phase I the Municipality should begin making plans for the long term coordination of Phragmites control in Kincardine. There are other areas of the Municipality, particularly along the south shoreline (Inverhuron to Boiler Beach), where Phragmites also exists and, if not controlled, will continue to spread. The following actions are recommended to enable the development of an effective early detection, rapid response Phragmites Control Program. A schematic diagram is provided for visual reference (Figure 40). Recommendation 1: Designate a Project Coordinator for Phragmites Control in Kincardine. Phragmites control is a complicated process, and having one person from the Municipality designated as the program coordinator would be a great benefit. Recommendation 2: Mapping There are two components to mapping that should be considered. 1) Occurrence mapping: The Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation (Alexander, 2012) identified significant stands of Phragmites growing on the Lake Huron shoreline from Tobermory to Sarnia. These mapping details illustrate that a significant infestation does occur along the shoreline south of Bruce Power. This invasion presents itself like patchwork along the shore all the way up to the marina at Station Beach. Station Beach itself had no evidence of any Phragmites in 2011 when the survey work was complete, but a significant patch was found growing at Boiler Beach. The Friends of the Penetangore Watershed group collected some mapping details for the Coastal Centre in The results indicated that Phragmites was established in specific locations throughout the Penetangore Watershed, particularly in ditches. The entire watershed was not mapped, only the Phragmites stands that were easily seen from roads were reported. Although the rest of the Municipality has not been formally surveyed for the presence or absence of Phragmites, it does appear that Phragmites is not as serious an issue as it is for the shoreline, and that the infestations which currently occur in some ditches can be controlled using backpack sprayers. 58

59 Since the available occurrence mapping is isolated to the shoreline that is where the control work should begin. However, because of the aggressive nature of Phragmites, it is important to locate and control small stands that have established along waterways and ditches before they become a serious local issue or spread back to the shoreline. Option 1: Use a student. Mapping Phragmites occurrence using GPS technology is a very interesting, healthy and educational summer job for a student. In Kincardine, detailed mapping of river banks, creeks, drains, ditches and interior wetland areas may not take a full summer, as it appears that Phragmites does not present a serious problem for interior areas. Option 2: Train public works staff to recognize and report Phragmites occurrences. Municipal staffs that travel the rural areas can report where Phragmites occurs. A printed master map could be developed for staff to record their sightings on, and/or a map created in GIS format, where the data can be added. Using GPS technology to accurately record the location of Phragmites stands is recommended. This will provide valuable information to the municipality for the implementation of a rapid response, before stands of Phragmites has the opportunity to expand into a larger and more costly problem. 2) Management Program Tracking: GIS software is a useful tool to organize and coordinate control efforts and track progress. Phase I blocks could be imported into a Phragmites Management Project file in which maps are created using layers or colours to identify the areas that have been controlled, those targeted to be sprayed, those requiring a burn and, controlled areas to be monitored. Alternatively, a similar and less expensive system could be employed using a large printed map and coloured markers or tacks. Recommendation 3: Build a team of Back-Pack Sprayers that are trained to control Phragmites. A minimum of 2 licensed Landscape Exterminators are recommended, with 3 licensed Pesticide Technician s working under each exterminator. The Municipality may already have licensed exterminators on staff. Training information for the Exterminator Course and Pesticide Technician Course is available at Once they have acquired the required licenses, the Exterminators and Pesticide Technicians should receive additional training on herbicide application techniques specific to the control of Phragmites. They should also learn how to identify the natural heritage features that may be impacted during control programs. This will help build the capacity of the municipality to be able to carry out an ongoing program without the reliance and expense of outside contractors. 59

60 Recommendation 4: Hire Prescribed Burn Experts to complete all burning activities Prescribed Burning is an essential phase of an Integrated Pesticide Management Plan. Burning removes dead biomass, reduces seed dispersal, and allows for a quicker return of native species. This method is most effective in the dense Phragmites cells and is not required in the sparse areas. It is highly recommended that Prescribed Burn Experts be engaged for the planning and implementation of any/all burns of Phragmites. Recommendation 5: Community Outreach and Education Information about the Phragmites Control Program should be made available to all residents of the Municipality. This could entail postings on the Municipal website, local newspaper and radio ads, development of a pamphlet to be distributed throughout the community, and information signage at select locations. Residents and property owners within each area targeted for control should receive notification about planned activities and periodic updates, through , phone calls, letters or direct personal contact. In order to reduce the likelihood of a re-infestation of Phragmites on the shoreline, it is important to work with the residents of Kincardine, particularly those who live along the shoreline, to reduce the occurrence of activities that impact the health of coastal ecosystems. ATV use on the shoreline (i.e. west of the shore road) must be eliminated. ATV tracks are a common site within the northern coastal wetlands. They are a known spread vector of Phragmites and can impact, and sometimes kill, native species leaving disturbed pockets of wetland that are ideal for Phragmites colonization. Dumping activities must also be addressed. Field studies in the north wetland areas revealed several sites where piles of yard waste, compost and debris had been deposited. Dumping organic waste into a wetland can introduce other invasive species, smother and kill native plants, alter water flow and cause nutrient loading that contributes to algae formation. Non-native landscaping practices should be discouraged. Encouraging local nurseries and greenhouses to participate in the Ontario Invasive Plant Council s Grow me Instead program could help boost the use of native species in landscaping projects. Promoting the use of native species for public landscaping projects reduces the possibility of introducing new invasive species and helps deliver a strong message to residents and horticultural businesses in the area. This is something the municipality may wish to partner with the Coastal Centre to implement. 60

61 Recommendation 6: Manage Spread Vectors The Ontario Invasive Plant Council has recently released Clean Equipment Protocols aimed at those working with heavy equipment. This booklet (available from the Coastal Centre) provides general information on the more problematic invasive plants, how they are being spread through use of heavy equipment, and how to ensure that various pieces of machinery are properly cleaned and inspected for invasive species. It is highly recommended that the Municipality require contractors and public works staff to follow the protocols while working within the Municipality of Kincardine. Other groups that should also be made aware of and encouraged/required to follow these protocols, include recreational camps, trailer parks, ATV clubs and off-road biking groups. Phragmites should be controlled within all roadside ditches, and the agricultural community should be encouraged to control their tile drainage ditches. Phragmites in ditches represents a spread vector, and dense stands can cause water flow issues. The Municipality has been requested by residents to control Phragmites, thus it would be reasonable for the Municipality to request residents to refrain from planting exotic species that may become invasive in natural areas, and to check/clean shoes and equipment when leaving and entering natural areas, particularly the shoreline. It would be unfortunate for everyone should another invasive establish and become similarly problematic. Recommendation 7: Establish Partnerships Kincardine has an established partnership with the Coastal Centre, and the Centre is available as a technical resource. The Municipality of Kincardine is bordered by Huron-Kinloss in the south and Saugeen Shores in the north. Both neighbouring Municipalities have implemented successful Phragmites control programs. Huron-Kinloss should be notified of any planned control work involving the use of pesticides at Boiler Beach, so the Work doesn t duplicate what they are already doing to control Phragmites in their municipality. Kincardine borders two Provincial Parks: MacGregor Point Provincial Park in the north and Inverhuron in the central area. The current Area Supervisor is Keith Early. Keith has been made aware of the Municipality s plans to control Phragmites along the north shore. Preliminary discussions have taken place with MacGregor Point Provincial Park staff regarding a collaborative effort to control Phragmites along the neighboring borders. It is highly recommended that the Phragmites Control Coordinator within the Municipality continue this dialogue. 61

62 Inverhuron Provincial Park shares a boundary with the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and, since dense Phragmites cells are present along this shoreline, both properties need to be controlled in concert. Much of the OPG property has become severely infested with Phragmites, and the Baie du Dore area is currently under threat. The Municipality should approach Bruce Power and OPG about a Phragmites Control Plan for their properties. The plan would be similar to the one developed for the project area, but would likely be implemented by Bruce Power employees. Without action within the OPG properties the Municipality will have to continually monitor for newly established stands spreading from Baie du Dore onto Municipal Property, and Ontario Parks staff will also have to treat Phragmites at Inverhuron, up to the property boundary fence, year after year. It is recommended that a meeting be scheduled between the Municipality, OPG, Bruce Power, Ontario Parks, Janice Gilbert, and the Coastal Centre to begin discussions on how to develop the partnerships that will be required to ensure this entire stretch of sensitive shoreline is restored. 8. MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY Implementing the Phase I Management Plan for the coastal wetlands in north Kincardine will result in the control of the large dense stands of Phragmites, and will also prepare the Municipality for the implementation of Phase II, which will address other shoreline areas. The components of the long term management plan are all equally important and should be implemented in tandem. A multi-tasked approach will ensure the control program progresses annually along the shoreline, resulting in the control of as much of the Phragmites infestation as possible by The schematic diagram provides a visual of the various components of a long term management plan (Figure 40). Phase I Management Plan was drafted for the Bruce Addition because of the sensitivities of this area (Species at Risk, standing water, rare flora and fauna, etc.) With the acquisition of an OMNR Letter of Opinion, the Phragmites infestation along the remaining shoreline is controllable using back pack sprayers and a combination of all the described components. 62

63 Figure 40. Schematic diagram showing the various components of a long term Phragmites Management Plan. 63