“Aquatic herbicides are hands down the least expensive way to go on a per-acre rate,” Chris Hanlon of Aquatic Technologies told a group of Bright’s Cove residents at a weed-management seminar this spring. As a result, they’re a popular option, particularly among those who live in the shallowest parts of the lake, such as Landing, Crescent Cove, Byram Cove, and Woodport.

Because permits are required for all aquatic pesticide use in New Jersey, the data on how much treatment the lake receives is pretty specific: according to Lake Hopatcong Commission records, 21 permits for aquatic pesticides have been issued so far this year, treating 149 acres—roughly 5.6 percent of the lake’s total acreage.

“For Lake Hopatcong, the majority of permits issued are for lake or property owners’ associations, beach clubs, or a group of residents that ‘chip in’ to cover the costs,” Donna Macalle-Holly, administrator of the Lake Hopatcong Commission, said.

The commission itself straddles a fine line on the use of herbicides.  A document given to residents who inquire about herbicide use suggests that, although the commission recognizes the safeguards in place within the state’s permitting system, the best long-term strategy to combat weeds is by preventing nutrient influx into the lake, with weed harvest as a short-term corrective measure. “While the commission does not question the effectiveness of using aquatic herbicides as a short-term remedy, we also recognize that herbicides are, in fact, poisons that are toxic to beneficial aquatic plants as well as nuisance plants, not to mention some other species living in Lake Hopatcong,” the document says. “So, as a practical measure, we would prefer less usage of aquatic herbicides in the future as opposed to more.” 

With regard to minimizing nutrient influx into the lake, it’s not just about using phosphorus-free, lake-friendly fertilizer at least 10 feet away from the lake, replacing septic systems with sewers, cleaning up pet waste, not feeding the geese (decreasing water fowl waste), properly pumping out boat sanitation devices, and avoiding washing cars or boats near the lake—all of which are important.  The use of herbicides actually contributes to the nutrient levels, too, because the plants that die go to the bottom and fuel future weed growth.

That issue was less problematic when harvesting operations were in full force. “When our harvesting program was funded and fully operational, the commission staff worked closely with [aquatic herbicide application] firms to coordinate our efforts,” Macalle-Holly said. “The harvesters would go in and harvest as many areas that were scheduled to receive pesticide treatments first. With this approach, most of the plant biomass is removed by the harvesters, then the applicators would treat the area and there was less plant biomass that would die off and sink to the bottom.”

For that reason, among many others, Macalle-Holly and the rest of the Lake Hopatcong Commission are seeking a stable source of long-term funding.

Five firms have received aquatic pesticide permits for use on Lake Hopatcong: Agra Environmental (Dover; 973-989-0010), Allied Biological (Hackettstown; 908-850-0303), Aquatic Analysts (Middleville; 973-383-6264), Aquatic Technologies (Branchville; 973-773-9567), and Knollwood Environmenta (Andover; 973-398-3517). About half of the treatment on the lake is applied by Allied Biological.

The N.J. Department of Environmental Protection’s Pesticide Control Program (PCP) provides completed permit forms to the commission before issuing permits. (Information on the permitting process is available at this link: http://www.pcpnj.org/bpo-permits.htm and the permit itself is available here: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/enforcement/pcp/bpo/aquatics/bpo-01.pdf)

There are some restrictions to the types of pesticides that can be used, and the commission itself is restricted from using state funds to treat the lake with herbicides—a barrier that was put in place when the commission was formed. Treating the lake on a broad scale would not be effective anyway, Macalle-Holly said. “Since Lake Hopatcong is 2,658 acres and there are areas of the lake—because of its depth—that do not have aquatic plants, there would never be a need to treat the entire lake.”

Macalle-Holly adds that, to the best of her knowledge, there are no aquatic pesticides that treat tape grass, a native plant species in Lake Hopatcong that she says has received “nuisance” status, but does not reach the nuisance level of the Eurasian watermilfoil, which can be treated by herbicides.

Tapegrass has leaves that are up to 2 meters in length and have a central stripe, and serve as a valuable plant for refuge for aquatic organisms and a source of food for wildlife. It also stabilizes the sediments and near-shore habitats. “If you boat around the lake and look closely along the shoreline in the Woodport section of the lake, you will see the ‘floaters,’ which are primarily tapegrass now.  We are definitely removing more tapegrass in this year’s [weed harvesting effort] than we have in years past.”

For all other weeds, including the dreaded Eurasian watermilfoil, residents are frequently skipping the mechanical treatment in favor of a chemical approach.

To read about other weed treatment options, check out these past stories on LakeHopatcongNews.com:

Got Weeds?  You’ve Got Options, Residents Learn (May 26, 2010)

Green Scene: How to Be a Tree-Hugging Seaweed Killer (June 17, 2009)

Comments

Add New Search

Tim Clancy   |2010-07-29 11:09:45 People need to understand that this lake is not a swimming pool but an ecosystem. Mechanical harvesting accomplishes several goals, it does enhance the recreactional usage of the lake, but more importantly it removes biomass. Which reduces nutrients that would act as fertilizer for future weed growth. Every ton of weeds that is physically removed from the lake reduces phosphorous & other nutrients by a specific amount. That amount of nutrients also increases future weed growth, it's a very well understood & accepted formula. There are nuances that are not easily solved, Bright's Cove being an example, even if the Lake Commission was adequately funded it would be problematic to concentrate weed harvesting in that shallow & not easily accessable cove. Should a harvester and conveyor be pulled off the lake, transported to Btight's Cove to cut weeds for 1/2 a day, and then another day to pack it all up and get back to business on the main lake? Three days work to get less than a day's worth of weeds. Using the bang for the buck logic, the lake as a whole would get a better result if those areas went unharvested. That is why "spot" hebicidal treatment is likely always going to play a role in the lake's maintenance. The people who live there can't be expected to tolerate thick matted weeds, so chemical treatment is their best option. Also some shallow rocky areas on the lake are diificult to harvest and besides taking longer to get the same biomass, often equipment is broken costing money and down time. There is new equipment on the market that is more like a tracked backhoe and can also float like the harvester once it is in deep enough water that could be used in these type of areas and would be better for the ecosystem then chemical treatment. It can't harvest the quantity that a typical harvester can but would be ideal for these spot treatment areas, but we obviously are not buying anymore equipment and it costs about $1,500 per day w/ an operator to contract out, so maybe in the future, but not in this fiscal environment. As the Commission continues to struggle w/ funding their ability to conduct a lake wide weed harvesting effort is greatly diminished and frustrated home owners are more likely to start opting for chemical treatment. That will bring immediate relief, but in the long term cause greater problems. Around 2003 when the Just recently formed Commission was at it's peak, well funded and properly staffed, under the lleadership of Bill Clark it was able to run a very robust weed harvesting operation. They had what I referred to as a Blue/Gold team operation. Two seperate teams working very efficiently at two ends of the lake and when they completed harvesting all of the littoral zones they were able to return and do a second cut of the weeds that had grown back. If we slide towards a new pardigm of massive chemical treatment as a solution, people will see immediate results, but it will do great harm in the long run, and almost immediately it will have a negative impact on the lake's fishery. Broadcast treatments that kill off all of the weeds will destry habitat that supports young of the year fish populations along with all kinds of other critters like, snails, crayfish, grass shrimp and all sorts off other organisms that most people don't even know are their but are the most important part of the food chain. A healthy fishery actually improves water quality for eveyone but that's too much science to try to explain here. Another big issues are the flaoters that are a byproduct of the weed harvesting operation. It's a double edge sword in that we need to physically remove the biomass from the sytem to reduce nutrient load, but it can produce alot of floating weeds along our docks. Especially for those of us who live on eastern shores. The harvesters were just in my cove and I've picked out the floater and dried them on my dock and have filled about 6 large resyclying backs so far. Up until know I have been filling about a bag a week, those were caused by boat props cutting off the weed that had grown high into the water column. I expect to see alot less in the coming weeks because much has been removed so the boats will generate less. But if we never harvested at all and just chemically treated along our shores the thousands of boats the are out beyond the treated areas would be cutting off & creating a lot more floaters over the course of a boating season. If properly funded and staffed, more effective methods of harvesting would occur. Two of the larger machines could be cutting paths and one of the smaller machines could be following up capturing most of the floaters. That was how it was planned when their was adequate funding and full time staff. We even created a plan called channel cutting, based on scientific studies, by cutting at varying depths and creating what is called the "edge effect" it greatly improves the entire fishery. Those are just dreams now as each year we struggle to barely get some of the equipment out and do as best we can with nearly no money. In the end, sometime in the future, we will have a user fee mechanism in place that will generate consitent funding. It's a matter of how long, how much pain we will endure and how much harm will be done to the lake's environment before we get there. Unfortunately we will wind up with the worse possible form of user fees structure, because it will be something that will be slapped together at the last minute to get something going. We should have been developing different user fee models to analyze. Fleet based? land based? maybe the entire watershed particpates at vaying levels, the further you cast the net the less onerous it is on any one particular group. But those discussion have not & will not occur until it is so late that we will be forced into what is simple. PS: Jess, great thought provoking article. Reply | Quote 1   0

Glenn Sullivan  - President     |2010-07-30 11:32:26 Mr. Clancy makes a valid point that killing off all the weeds would remove critical habitat, but there's no reason that herbicides would need to be applied in that manner. In fact, the best approach for plant management in Lake Hopatcong would be to use selective, systemic herbicides to control the Eurasian watermilfoil throughout the lake. This could be done early in the growing season before most native pondweeds have begun to appear. Once the milfoil was eliminated, then the harvesters could more easily manage the native plants, which would only reach nuisance levels in a much smaller area. This would eliminate the constant re-distribution of milfoil by harvesters, a process that ensures milfoil grows back year after year. In the long run, the proper combination of chemical and mechanical controls can provide better recreational conditions without eliminating a productive fish community. The goal is to restore a proper balance that has been upset by the introduction of milfoil. Reply | Quote 0   0

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Website:
Subject:
UBBCode:	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.