About 40 people attended our meeting at the West Fairlee Community Center. Many of them had attended one of the prior meetings, but there were several new faces as well. We held the meeting to discuss the Aquatic Vegetation Report prepared by Lycott Environmental at our request.
Lycott was represented by Lee Lyman, the principal, and Will Stevenson. Lyman explained his forty plus years working first as a pesticide researcher then as a lake and pond manager. [more here] He spoke briefly about the survey his firm had undertaken at our request, noting that scientists had visited the lake three times this summer to observe and collect data. He explained a little about the sampling methodology and how the sampling locations were chosen. Stevenson discussed the “rake toss” method of sampling aquatic plants, and spoke to why sometimes no milfoil showed up at a location where residents know it is present.
The stated purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Aquatic Vegetation Report prepared by Lycott Environmental, Inc. Some of the questions that followed addressed this specific topic, but many more related more generally to the issue of the safety of the proposed herbicide treatment, the details of the permit process, and the way the proposed introduction of chemicals into the lake would proceed. Two environmental scientists from the Vermont DEC were in attendance, and answered questions about the permit requirements and the application process. Several times they referred to the language of Lake Morey’s herbicide permit as a source of authoritative information on these subjects, so we have attempted to summarize this document here.
There were many questions about the safety of triclopyr for humans and pets. The scientists from both Lycott and the State explained that the concentration of the chemical once introduced in the lake would be only a few parts per million, and that it breaks down quickly in water. They spoke about the layers of testing and research trials that an herbicide had to survive first to be licensed by the EPA and then to be found acceptable to the Vermont Department of Health. Suzy Kerr, President of the Lake Fairlee Association, reported that all five MD’s who live around the lake support our decision to use a herbicide.
The question of how far downstream of our lake might be affected was raised. It was noted that Lake Morey’s permit required notice, testing, and use restrictions down to where the outflow passes under Route 5, less than a mile. Susan Brittin, from the DEC, suggested that this determination is made by the State on a case by case basis, and that we might have to go two or three miles, but certainly not down to the Connecticut River.
One property owner asked about the possibility of contamination of water from his well, which is located close to the lake, and is not deep. It was explained that groundwater flows downhill towards the lake, and that hydrostatic pressure would keep lakewater from contaminating his well — unless the lake level somehow would rise a couple of feet.
Doug Sonsalla, a member of the West Fairlee Selectboard, asked what his town’s part in the application process should be? Skip Brown replied that The Town of Thetford’s Selectboard had asked the same question, and he had given it some thought. The State will accept a permit application from either a town or a lake association. Because Lake Fairlee is abutted by three towns and there is no other entity ready to step forward, the Lake Fairlee Association is the logical applicant. He said that if West Fairlee or one of the other towns wanted to join in the application or take it over he would be more than willing. Answering whether the question of herbicides should be put to a democratic vote, Brown suggested that the votes of each town at their town meetings for or against continuing funding for Lake Fairlee’s milfoil program could provide that opportunity.
There was discussion of just who must be notified prior to the actual treatment. A prescribed informational notice must be mailed to property owners adjoining the lake and downstream. The same notice will be mailed to parents of children attending summer camps on the lake. There will be signs posted around the lake (and downstream) every 1000 feet.
The question was raised just who decides whether the herbicide can be used. There was discussion about the permit application process, the notice and period for comment, and the possibility of appeals. Although the proposal has to be developed by the consultant and the application filed by the applicant town or lake association, the ultimate authority rests with the State. The Department of Environmental Conservation, in consultation with the Department of Health and the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has to make a determination of the necessity and safety for the treatment to go ahead.
This meeting does not end the process, but many questions were answered and all left with greater understanding. Members of the Association will be meeting with Lycott to hear their recommendation for a treatment plan. We will share this information here, and will use it as the basis for a permit application to the State. We will be making additional presentations to the Conservation Commissions and the Selectboards of the three adjoining towns. We are trying to keep this process as open as possible so that no one will be surprised. Please feel free to contact us with questions of concerns.
