With the recent flurry of articles and letters to the editor about the need for herbicides to “save the lake,” do we really know what the lake needs? Some simply defer to Mother Nature because she knows how all of nature works. Others use the language of a lake which may be intimidating. I have heard people say they are not scientists, so they can’t speak to the lake needs. There are parts of analyzing the lake that are very complicated. A combination of limnology, ecology, meteorology, geology, atmospheric deposition, biology, botany, chemistry and some politics are all possibly needed to understand what the lake needs. But do not stop reading. This is not about all those sciences. This about a group of people who do have the cumulative expertise to wade through the tough stuff and refocus on what the lake really needs.

There were a large number of individuals, professional scientists and organizations who were represented at the July meeting of the Chautauqua County legislature. Those in attendance came from the Conewango Creek Watershed Association, the Chautauqua Watershed Conservancy, the Chautauqua (Institution) Property Owners Association and The Chautauqua Institution. There were individuals who represented fishermen, conservationists, organic farmers and citizens concerned about the unnecessary use of herbicides in Chautauqua Lake. Other entities such as, Warren County and the national organization, Muskies, Inc. have voiced their concerns to people who were in attendance. There are a growing number of diverse, experienced and professional individuals who are ready to lend their help to the lake in any way possible.

There are a couple of lake needs that need to be tackled immediately. Currently, the Chautauqua Lake Partnership (CLP) is running a scientific experiment in Bemus Bay on Chautauqua Lake. Per the NYSDEC permit for this data-collection project: the primary goal is to access the efficacy of different combinations of Aquathol-K (endothall) and Navigate (2,4-D) on invasive species, the secondary goal is to assess the impact of different combinations of these chemicals on desirable native species and a third goal is to assess drift into control zones. By definition, efficacy means ” the ability to produce the intended or desired result.” The CLP clearly stated that the main problem that they have experienced is the accumulation of unwanted weeds on their shore, the decaying of those weeds, which then led to the foul odors at their homes. The hope of reducing the smell and foul conditions seems to be a “desired result” of this herbicide application. It is yet to be seen if the reduction in smell will occur.

The herbicide manufacturer’s specifications often state that their product will possibly work for two years. Since this action was permitted specifically as a data collection experiment, the experiment must be allowed to run its course for at least those two years. Other research studies expect much longer time periods. The data collection should include autopsies of any dead fish that wash up on shore during those two years. The efficacy on the plants does not just mean their immediate survival or death. As long as this test was already done, allow it to determine if these chemicals work for more than one year. Additionally, the half-life of 2,4-D in the sediments varies dependent on conditions, but is averaged to be186 days. This means that in 186 days half of the active ingredient in 2,4-D remains. One year from now there will still be over half a ton of 2,4-D in the sediments of the bay. This means, newly growing plants will continue to absorb that chemical. The possible effects on the plants will not be known within weeks, it will take years. The treatment area should be left undisturbed for at least two years and during that period, data collection should continue.

However, since weeds washing up on the shore were perceived as the initial problem, the second part of the work by the CLP in Bemus Bay is for a shoreline cleanup demonstration project. This action is expected to use a modified hydrorake, reportedly deemed by the NYSDEC as not needing a permit. The results of this project are unknown at this time and now encounter two difficulties. Even though this was not part of a permitted, data-collection project, how will its effectiveness be demonstrated? There is no known data of the amounts of shoreline debris and accumulation before the demonstration. Poundage of accumulated material with dates would give a picture of when the shoreline weed problem is at its worse. To answer the question,” Did it work?” the results should be compared to something before the demonstration of the hydrorake. With nothing for comparison, how will its “success” be judged?

Secondly, since the treatment area should be left undisturbed for at least two years, the effects of shoreline action or actions are critical. Did the herbicide application help reduce the accumulating weeds on the shoreline? Did the application fix the perceived problems of rotting weeds and stench? If the shoreline is cleaned at any time during the two-year period of the experiment, no one will know if the lower amount of accumulating shore weeds is from the herbicide or from the shoreline cleanup operations. Have the property owners been cleaning their shorelines this summer in Bemus Bay? Did anyone realize if they did that, they were corrupting the results of a very important and expensive experiment? Likely not and it would not be their fault. It is the responsibility of Town of Ellery and the Village of Bemus Point to follow the guidelines of the assigned permit. They are the permit holders of a data collection experiment that was tasked with finding the efficacy of chemicals on plant growth and death. The dead plants could wash up on shore and they should be documented. They must be left undisturbed until their species and amounts can be recorded. To keep the experiment legitimate, the shoreline demonstration project should take place in a totally different area of the lake. The demonstration project should be away from any of the treatment or control areas to preserve the integrity of that experiment.

The plants accumulating at the shoreline, with their associated stench, was the reason the CLP constantly repeated as the need for the application of herbicides. We believe the shoreline could also be the solution to their problem along with some very talented persons in the county and elsewhere who are ready to tackle what Chautauqua Lake really needs.

Jane Conroe, is a state CSLAP volunteer and member of the Chautauqua Lake and Watershed Management Alliance Science Advisory Committee. Jan Bowman is a Jamestown Community College professor of Biology and Environmental Science