Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Rogers Lake Authority Minutes 2011/12/14
ROGERS LAKE AUTHORITY
~MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 14, 2011
A meeting of the Rogers Lake Authority (RLA) was convened at the Rogers Lake Clubhouse at 7:00 pm on December 14, 2011.~ The following members were present:  Dennis Overfield and Elizabeth Sunshine (Secretary) of Lyme, Dick Smith, Robert Recor, and Tom Baehr of Old Lyme.
The meeting was called to order at approx 7:00 pm,
Minutes of November 17, 2011, were approved.
The chairman, Dick Smith, tabled all typical agenda items to allow the presenter George Knocklein the floor to present his findings of the study of the lake and weed infestation which he had conducted in July this year.
Mr. Knocklein presented the findings of his studies beginning with a broad overview of the current condition of the lake, the locations of the major infestations and the types of weeds in these areas.  He identified three major areas of concern.
First and most importantly, getting rid of the Fanwart.  
Secondly, the density of plants in the center of the lake, and areas of the lake under 4 ft deep.
Thirdly, the high density of the water-lilies in the shallows.  Almost every cove is completely covered in water-lilies.  In addition under the water-lilies are a variety of plant that if the water-lilies are removed these other existing weeds would proliferate.
The majority of the weed growth is in the shallows in the middle of the lake, in North side coves and around the entrance to the boat launch and Haynes park area.  In these areas you find the majority of weed growth in water depths of 4 to 6 feet. This encompasses approximately 100 acres of area that needs to be addressed. Currently there are nine different species of native and non-native plants.
Of particular concern was the identification of the weed known as Fanwart discovered in the lake last year. This weed has spread significantly since its discovery and Mr. Knocklein warned that this species is particularly invasive and will spread like wildfire.  There are two major ways in which the plant will spread;  First, through runners, which is where one "mother plant" will send out root runners in all directions and they will form new plants which will in turn send out their own runners. Secondly this weed spreads by fragmentation.  This second form is particularly dangerous given the location of the majority of the weed growth location is in the boat launch area.  Through the use of maps with multi colored markings he indicated that last year the weed was identified primarily in the boat launch channel itself.  However, this year it has spread to more than a dozen locations on the north side of the lake in the shallow waters by Grassy Hill Rd and some locations across the lake near the dam. This would be due to the boat props chopping up the weed as they enter and exit the lake and then the natural current of the lake bringing the clippings westward toward the dam. Of all the species of weeds in the lake Mr. Knocklein suggested that the Fanwart was the most concerning and needed immediate attention. He stated that this infestation is still in the "early infestation rapid response stage"
Present at the meeting was Tim Griswold, who asked the question; Is the introduction of this new infestation of Fanwart in any way related to the State boat launch? The answer was, yes.  Given the introduction location and spread of the weed Mr. Knocklein felt that the weed was undoubtedly introduce through the boat launch area.  Mr. Griswold asked if he could obtain copies of the findings to seek funds for treatment from the State.
Mr. Knocklein, continued that what was immediately necessary was a set of goals or desired outcome of any kind of treatment to the lake, such that a proper treatment plan can be created to achieve the desired outcome. What do we want to achieve? Is it clearing certain areas or certain species, waterfronts, the center channel or public access areas.  What do we want to concentrate on?  He felt that once we had established  the desired outcome it would be feasible to put together a plan to attain that outcome.
Mr. Knocklein discussed the proliferation of aquatic plants and how they will always tend to expand their cover and will create an environment which they will thrive.  There existence creates nutrients and phosphorus for future generations of plants. He stated that one of the advantages of selective herbicides is that it will kill the plant before it gets through its maximum growth and creates a lot of bio mass which would add nutrients to the lake. In addition in the following growing season any surviving plant root systems that re-grow will be significantly reduced and weakened, which gives a diminishing effect year after year rather than exponential increasing effect if left untreated.  Mr. Knocklein stated that another highly effective option is suction harvesting but suction harvesting (hand pulling) is also very expensive and time consuming you would be able to treat smaller areas of the lake each year.  A third option is the use of benthic mats.  This option is best used in shallow shoreline areas and could be a part of the bigger plan. The method of dredging is the most permanent method available however it is also the most costly method of handling weed infestation.  In fact to combat the whole issue from many fronts with a combination of methods would be the best option. As some methods work well for some problems and not well for others.
Discussion resumed about setting priorities and outcome goals in order to create a plan of action.  It was determined that since the new infestation of Fanwart was still in an early infestation rapid response stage" meaning that it could be eradicated now with minimal effort that that should be a primary objective in the overall plan. Mr. Knocklein felt the most effective means of treatment of this highly invasive plant was immediate suction harvesting or hand pulling of the weed.
In discussion of the density of the weed growth in the coves he felt that hydro raking was a viable option, which could be followed by benthic mat placement for small areas or targeted applications of herbicide for larger area maintenance.
In his explanation of herbicide use, Mr. Knocklein noted that any herbicide use would need to be permitted by Department of Environmental Protection agency (DEP) and permit approval would take some time therefore permits would need to be submitted relatively shortly. He went on to discuss the approximate costs of some of the herbicides that he would recommend for use on the plants in our lake. The approximate cost of application runs around $175.00 per treated acre.
Mr. Knocklein was questioned as to locations to find research studies on the herbicides that would be used on weeds like Fanwart, Milfoil, Nyade, and Water Lillie. Specifically, research not directly from the chemical company itself but independent sources.   Mr. Knocklein suggested that there are more than 400 lakes in Connecticut which use herbicide to maintain their water quality and more than 600 permits per year approving its use in Connecticut waters. There are studies done, just as we did for Rogers Lake, of these other lakes using the herbicides and the response to treatment.  The best way to get results information would be to talk to the people who have been doing it.  Regarding the chemical composition and effects the internet is a great source.  In addition well monitoring is a part of the herbicide permit process, and is done on other lakes where wells are in close proximity to the lakes.
The chairman asked Mr. Knocklein to summarize the results of the survey and treatment options and costs to first; handle the Fanwart infestation and secondly to clear the center section of the lake approx 60 acres of the lake of the Milfoil.  With these priorities in mind Mr. Knocklein said that he would get a package together with options and costs for treatment by the end of the year.  
David Evers brought up the topic of weeds and road sediment entering the lake from the inlets, streams and coves and storm water drains.  Mr. Knocklein responded that a survey and treatment response should be done on that overgrowth as well to determine the extent of the problem as well as a recommended course of action.
There was a question as to how long it would be at the current rate of fill in before the center of the lake would be impassable to normal boat traffic, and if there was a way to use the water depths taken in the 2002 as compared to current water depths to make any educated estimations. Mr. Knocklein said that he could take measurements  in 2012 to get a 10 differential but that there are many variables that could affect the estimations.
Chairman Dick Smith Thanked Mr. Knocklein for the presentation and looks forward to recieving the written summary of the study and recommendation for courses of action based on the priorities of eliminating the Fanwart and clearing an approximately 50 acre swath down the center of the lake.
The meeting was adjourned, ending at approximately 8:45 P.M.
~
Respectfully submitted
132012_20540_0.png~
Elizabeth Sunshine
Secretary for RLA
elizabethsunshine@sbcglobal.net