Grass carp monitoring program at Candlewood Lake.
FOLLOWING IS A PRESENTATION ON IMPACTS TO OUR WATER QUALITY.
go site “A LAKE IS NOT A SWIMMING POOL”
More Wildlife Fish are Experiencing ‘Intersex’ – What Could be Causing This?
Endocrine disruptors threaten reproduction in fish and frogs
by Mike Barrett
Posted on June 18, 2017
More wildlife are experiencing strange reproductive abnormalities, but why? In a study released last year, the U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) tested male smallmouth and largemouth bass from 19 National Wildlife Refuges. The researchers found that 85% of the smallmouth bass “had signs of female reproductive parts.” Of the largemouth bass, 27% were intersex. What could be causing this?
Luke Iwanowicz, a USGS research biologist and lead author of the paper, says:
“It is not clear what the specific cause of intersex is in these fish. This study was designed to identify locations that may warrant further investigation. Chemical analyses of fish or water samples at collection sites were not conducted, so we cannot attribute the observation of intersex to specific, known estrogenic endocrine—disrupting chemicals.”
Referencing an older study also examining examining Intersex occurrence in freshwater fishes in the U.S. between 1995 and 2004, Fred Pinkney, a USFWS contaminants biologist and study coauthor, said:
“The results of this new study show the extent of endocrine disrupting chemicals on refuge lands using bass as an indicator for exposures that may affect fish and other aquatic species. To help address this issue, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service encourages management actions that reduce runoff into streams, ponds and lakes — both on and off of refuge lands.”
As Pinkney mentioned, chemical runoff could be a real issue here. There are a number of chemicals and contaminants that could be contributing to these reproductive problems, including:
Organochlorine compounds such as chlordane and dieldrin
Glyphosate and atrazine are 2 agricultural chemicals made by Monsanto and Syngenta. These widely-used chemicals leak into U.S. lakes, rivers, streams, and reservoirs. Multiple studies also show that they are endocrine disruptors that may negatively affect reproductivity. 
According to a fact sheet on atrazine from Michigan State University:
“Atrazine is used on crops such as sugarcane, corn, pineapples, sorghum, and macadamia nuts, and on evergreen tree farms and for evergreen forest regrowth. It has also been used to keep weeds from growing on both highway and railroad rights-of-way. Atrazine can be sprayed on croplands before crops start growing and after they have emerged from the soil.”
The herbicide then seeps into lakes and waterways. Some of it moves from the surface into deeper soil layers, where it contaminates the groundwater.
“Only a few reports are available that examine the health effects of atrazine in humans. Some of these reports suggest that atrazine could affect pregnant women by causing their babies to grow more slowly than normal or by causing them to give birth early. However, the women in these studies were exposed to other chemicals in addition to atrazine, so it is not known how or if atrazine may have contributed to these effects.
Atrazine has been shown to cause changes in blood hormone levels in animals that affected ovulation and the ability to reproduce. These effects are not expected to occur in humans because of specific biological differences between humans and these types of animals. Atrazine also caused liver, kidney, and heart damage in animals; it is possible that atrazine could cause these effects in humans, though this has not been examined.”
Glyphosate – the other hormone disruptor –has been found in human urine, blood, and even breast milk, as corroborated by three different studies. Although biotechnology company Monsanto refutes the evidence of glyphosate’s possible negative impact on reproduction (based on non-human studies), other studies have shown that the chemical could hamper the reproductive systems of animals, including female Jundiá, zebrafish, and rats.   
Still, some research suggests that it may not be the worst culprit:
“The primary objective of our study was to measure the stress response in juenile largemouth bass, micropterus salmoides, that were exposed to the following aquatic herbicides: diquat, endothall, 2,4-D, fluridone, and glyphosate (Rodeo).
An analysis of glucose and osmolality levels showed that the intensity and the rate of occurrence of the stress response varied with each herbicide. These differences were also associated with the concentration of the herbicide and the length of exposure. Of the five herbicides tested, glyphosate elicited the lowest stress response in the bass. This response was not related to either dose or exposure period … 2,4-D elicited the most intense stress response in the bass … The magnitude of the stress response was greater for 2,4-D than for any other herbicide tested.
The results of this study suggest that of the aquatic herbicides tested, glyphosate and endothall may be the least stressful herbicide to juvenile largemouth bass.”
The quantity of glyphosate in the environment has been difficult to analyze due to its physicochemical properties, such as its relatively low molecular weight and low organic solvent solubility.
However, an innovative study used a magnetic particle immunoassay to test for the presence of glyphosate in roughly 140 samples of groundwater from Catalonia, Spain. The analysis, published in the journal Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, found that glyphosate was present “above the limit of quantification” in 41% of the samples. This indicates that “despite manufacturer’s claims, it does not break down rapidly in the environment, and is accumulating there in concerning quantities.”
Needless to say, more research is needed.
The earlier referenced study examining Intersex occurrence in freshwater fishes in the U.S. between 1995 and 2004 mentions other chemicals, though doesn’t pinpoint them as the causes:
“Total mercury, trans-nonachlor, p,p′-DDE, p,p′-DDD, and total PCBs were the most commonly detected chemical contaminants at all sites, regardless of whether intersex was observed.”
What we can probably conclude is that the presence of these endocrine disruptors in our most protected waters – those of our National Wildlife Refuges – is likely threatening wildlife, and we should take further measures to protect the animals and environment as a whole.
Environmental Health News
About Mike Barrett:
Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.
Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/atrazine-and-glyphosate-in-waters-wildlife-refuges-6135/#ixzz4wddVquBj
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook
A study shows an alarming spike in levels of Roundup’s chemicals in people’s urine
The latest study to look at the long-term effects of Roundup, a popular weed killer developed by Monsanto in the 1970s, raises questions about the herbicide’s possible contributions to poor health in certain communities.
The study, published Tuesday in JAMA, tracked people over the age of 50 in southern California from 1993-1996 to 2014-2016, with researchers periodically collecting urine samples during that time.
Researchers led by Paul Mills, professor of family medicine and public health at the University of California San Diego, found that the percentage of people who tested positive for a chemical called glyphosate, which is the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, shot up by 500% in that time period. The levels of glyphosate also spiked by 1208% during that time.
Read more:Study Links Widely Used Pesticides to Antibiotic Resistance
Exactly what that means for human health isn’t quite clear yet. There are few studies of the chemical and its effects on people, although animal studies raise some concerns. One trial from the UK, in which rats were fed low levels of glyphosate throughout their lives, found that the chemical contributed to a higher risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, a condition in which fat accumulates in the liver and contributes to inflammation and scarring of the tissue. Mills says that the levels of glyphosate documented in the people in his study were 100-fold greater than those in the rats.
To follow up on these results, Mills plans to measure factors that track liver disease, to see if the levels of glyphosate he found are actually associated with a greater risk of liver problems in people. He heads the Herbicide Awareness & Research Project at UCSD, an ongoing research project in which he invites people to provide urine samples to test glyphosate levels. By gathering more information about people’s exposure, he is planning to tease apart how much of it comes from actually ingesting products sprayed with the chemical, and how much can be attributed to breathing in particles that have been sprayed into the air, especially in farm communities.
For now, he says the findings should make people more aware of what they are ingesting along with their food. While Roundup was developed to eliminate most weeds from genetically modified crops — and thus reduce the amount of pesticides sprayed on them — recent studies have found that many weeds are now resistant to Roundup. That means growers are using more Roundup, which could only exacerbate potential negative health effects on people who consume those products. Eating organically grown produce may help to reduce exposure to some pesticides and herbicides, but it’s not a guarantee that the products are completely free to potentially harmful chemicals.
“From my perspective it’s remarkable that we have been ingesting a lot of this chemical over the last couple of decades,” says Mills. “But the biomedical literature hasn’t said much about its effects on people. That’s a gap that we endeavored to address and bring more awareness to with this study.”
The State of Lake Kenosia 2013
A non technical summary of current environmental conditions in Lake Kenosia
The photo below illustrates the water and shoreline of Lake Kenosia with one of the buffer gardens (discussed in more detail, below) This report aims at condensing an extensive series of lake studies, lake management strategies and the current focus of the Lake Kenosia Commission in conserving Lake Kenosia, in a non-technical format. The goal of this report is to provide citizens of Danbury with a “snapshot” of the current water quality of the lake and the challenges that are being addressed by the Lake Kenosia Commission, in creating environmentally desirable conditions for recreation and natural beauty.
This annual report includes the same summary (from previous annual reports) of past studies of the lake and management options that have been completed over the past 30-plus years. A listing of significant recent events that will affect the quality of the lake follows this. The “State of the Lake” report concludes with a discussion of the challenges facing the community in managing the lake and the best management strategies that are being pursued by the Lake Kenosia Commission.
Background of Lake Studies
Lake Kenosia has been extensively studied over the past 31 years:
(Please note: The terms underlined in bold are defined in the Glossary section of the website.)
In 1980, the King’s Mark Environmental Review, comprised of an interdisciplinary team of 13 environmental professionals, conducted a field inspection and data review of the conditions of Lake Kenosia. They concluded that the lake is eutrophic, covered by extensive growth of aquatic plants and algae and is very susceptible for conditions leading to “accelerated eutrophication,” which occurs when runoff from human development increases the rate of aging of a lake by filling the basin with nutrients and plant decay that will cause the shallow lake to fill in.
The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station in 1980 conducted water quality tests that supported the King’s Mark conclusion that the lake is eutrophic. Field conditions in July 1980 verified the extensive growth of thick beds of watermilfoil and aquatic weeds.
In 1989 Lake Management Consultants conducted two water quality sampling rounds that included transparency (Secchi disk), plant density (chlorophyll a), and nutrients. This baseline study concluded that the lake is mesotrophic to eutrophic in character. This study also noted abundant overgrowth of the aquatic weed, Eurasian watermilfoil and moderate growths of algae. The study also determined that the bottom layer of the lake became devoid of oxygen, which causes “internal recycling” of phosphorus that is normally locked in the sediments to diffuse into the water, facilitating the growth of algae and weeds.
In 2000, ENSR Consultants conducted the most extensive keystone study of the lake. They determined that the phosphorous loading to the lake was over twice the recommended “permissible load.” This is a key cause of aquatic weed overgrowth and their survey verified the excessive growth of Eurasian watermilfoil along with a similar weed, coontail. In addition to extensive chemical and biological surveys on the lake, the ENSR study also quantified that the main source of nutrients in the lake enters from runoff from the extensive urbanized watershed (as opposed to the amount of nutrients that are recycled to the lake from the sediments). They determined that a 20- 25% reduction of phosphorous loading to the lake is needed to bring the lake below the critical loading limit. Finally, the study analyzed various lake management options to reverse the accelerated eutrophication of Lake Kenosia, including retrofitting storm drainage, suction harvesting, phosphorus inactivation by alum treatments and enhanced grazing of plants by introduction of weed eating fish (e.g., grass carp). Most of the management technologies are expensive.
Recent History of Lake Monitoring & Management
Lake Monitoring. The Kenosia Commission retained George Benson, a limnologist in 2005, 2007 and 2008 to monitor water quality and weed growth. In these years, Benson tested the lake water for key biological and chemical indicators. He documented dense and moderate growth of watermilfoil and coontail and blooms of green algae. Since 1999, the overgrowth of nuisance weeds has accelerated, reflecting the lack of active treatment of weeds since the 2003 ban on herbicides (see below). Additionally, the 2008 Benson report notes that the population of algae has shifted significantly to a species of blue green algae that is indicative of more rapid aging of the lake.
Herbicide treatment ban. In 2003, the Connecticut Department of Public Health ruled that application of herbicides (other than copper sulfate for algae) would be prohibited in Lake Kenosia due to the fact that the City sporadically uses the lake as an emergency water supply. The City had routinely conducted herbicide treatments with SONAR throughout the 1990s, which controlled the growth of nuisance weeds, particularly watermilfoil. This herbicide ban terminated this weed control strategy.
Lake Kenosia Commission goals. In 2006, the Lake Kenosia Commission re-defined its goals for managing the lake, focusing on weed management, and demonstration projects and public education. Monitoring will continue, and efforts to control the weeds will focus on watershed demonstration projects such as the buffer gardens at the Lake Kenosia Park, a feasibility study for introducing grass carp and grants to conduct projects to show how small steps can improve the quality of Lake Kenosia.
The buffer gardens at the Lake Kenosia Park. The buffer gardens are a demonstration project to bring beauty to the shoreline of the lake, promote biological diversity, improve water quality, and deter Canada Geese. They also preserve sand from the erosive effects of stormwater. For more detail link to the buffer gardens section of the website. The focus of this project is discussed below.
The State of Lake Kenosia, simply put, is aging fast. The scientific term for the aging of a lake is eutrophication. When a lake is aging fast, it is referred as “cultural eutrophication.” The evolution (or aging) of a lake from a deep-water body to a marsh is a natural process that is fueled by nutrient inputs from the watershed and the bottom sediments of the lake to the water body. These nutrient inputs (particularly phosphorus) fertilize the waters to allow the growth of algae and weeds.
The extensive studies of Lake Kenosia that are described here all document the extensive fertilization of the lake that has fueled the growth of nuisance weeds (watermilfoil and coontail) and algae. The sources of fertilization in Lake Kenosia are:
Runoff of nutrients from the watershed – Roads and parking lots accelerate the flushing of nutrients that would otherwise be absorbed by soil and vegetation. The watershed land area that drains to the basin of Lake Kenosia is very large compared to the area of the lake. Also, human development in the watershed since Interstate 84 was constructed has transformed open space areas to housing and commercial development. Both of these factors result in a large influx of nutrients to the lake from the land area that drains into it.
Recycling of nutrients from the bottom sediments – The bottom muds of the lake are a reservoir of decaying plant materials that include the nitrogen and phosphorous nutrients that were locked in their tissues. Every summer there is a release of these nutrients back into the lake water that “recycles” them into the water column making them available for new plant growth.
As a result of both sources of nutrients, Lake Kenosia is aging faster than it would have if human development in the watershed had not occurred as rapidly as it did in the last 50 years. The biggest manifestation of the human based nutrient flow to the lake is an overgrowth of rooted aquatic weeds, primarily coontail and Eurasian watermilfoil in the shallow water zone of the lake. Coontail is a native plant that grows naturally in North America. Eurasian watermilfoil is a plant that does not normally grow in North America, but was imported from Europe and has proliferated throughout many lakes in the US. Both are nuisance weeds, which interfere with recreational uses of swimming and boating. However, of the two weed species, coontail is ecologically more acceptable since it is part of the normal habitat of this part of the country and better suits its ecological role in Lake Kenosia. However, the large nutrient input to Lake Kenosia makes the overgrowth of these weeds a problem. The two species are “cousins” – anatomically and physiologically similar. Hence, the pattern of growth of these weeds in Lake Kenosia see-saws from year to year. For example, prior to 1989, watermilfoil dominated the lake. Then from the late 1990s to 2004, coontail was the dominant weed in Lake Kenosia, with only small pocket of milfoil. This may be attributed to a period of time when the lake was routinely treated with contact herbicides that had a greater effect of controlling watermilfoil until the 2003 ban of herbicide applications to Kenosia.
In 2011, Lake Kenosia is characterized by “co-dominance” of the lake waters with some areas that were covered almost exclusively with watermilfoil (north -north east side, from the Lake Kenosia Park to the lake outlet at Kenosia Avenue) with the remainder of the shallow zone of the lake that has cover of dense growth of both coontail and milfoil. One significant exception to the dense shallow water dominance of these weeds is the park beach – which was relatively clear of weeds, following several years of suction harvesting. This project will be discussed in more detail, below.
In addition to Eurasian watermilfoil and coontail, which are rooted and grow to the surface of the water column, Lake Kenosia is also characterized by an assemblage of emergent aquatic plants – rooted in the sediments, growing through the water column and with leaves that emerge over the surface of the water. This includes water lilies and pickerelweed. These plants are not considered nuisances (do not interfere with recreation), do not massively overgrow the shallow water zone and provide a balanced ecological function for the lake (including cover areas for fish populations).
Finally, there is the growth of algae – microscopic plants and cyanobacteria that grow directly on surface water and do not have stems. Although they are individually microscopic, they grow colonially – joining into clumps or mats that float on the surface of the lake. Unlike the rooted weeds, which draw their nutrients from the lake sediments, algae are entirely dependent upon the nutrients that are in the water column. They are, therefore, more direct indications of the eutrophication (aging) status of a lake. The algae that are present in Lake Kenosia are indicative of an aging lake. This was noted in the 2000 ENSR Diagnostic Study and has been echoed by the Benson Environmental surveys of recent years. In the 2008 Benson survey, the report noted: the shifting trend from dominance of chrysophyte algae in the 1980s to blue-green algae noted in the 2008 Benson Environmental survey, and a notable increase in the density of algae colonies in the water. “Blooms” of algae can sometimes occur in Kenosia (as was documented by Benson in 2007) but algae growth in Lake Kenosia is still considered moderate for a recreational lake. The lack of a nuisance infestation of algae in Lake Kenosia is likely, due to the overgrowth of the rooted weeds, which are currently utilizing the vast reservoir of nutrients available for plant growth. However, successful control of the nuisance weeds that dominate the lake may result in increased periods of nuisance algal blooms in the lake. From a lake management perspective, this potential side effect” can be effectively controlled by application of copper herbicides that are still allowed for treatment in Lake Kenosia.
All of this characterization of the current state of Lake Kenosia leads to the point of lake management measures and the role of the community in improving water quality, shoreline and lake habitat and recreational quality of the lake. The Lake Kenosia Commission is Danbury’s advocate and watchdog for stewardship and lake management. Over the past several years, the Kenosia Commission has investigated several management techniques for the lake and has invested in pilot projects to improve the quality of the lake’s environment. Notable in these efforts are the following successes:
1. Pilot projects to evaluate non-chemical control of nuisance weeds, including hydroraking, benthic covers and suction harvesting. The most promising non-chemical alternative is suction harvesting. In 2008, the suction harvesting of the waters off the beach at Lake Kenosia Park (an area approximately 15,000 square feet) effectively maintained the bathing area at the park clear of nuisance weeds. This was documented by a pretreatment and post treatment snorkel survey by Kozuchowski Environmental Consulting and was independently cited by Benson Environmental Inc., in his 2008 lake-wide survey. The report of Benson Environmental observed that the park’s bathing area was the “weed free” exception to the coverage of all other areas of the lake by moderate-dense coverage of coontail and milfoil. According to the suction harvesting contractor (Lockhart Environmental), a bathing area like the one at Lake Kenosia Park could benefit from a few repeated years of harvesting, along with an oil containment boom (cleared daily of weed cuttings drifting in from other parts of the lake) to maintain the “oasis” condition of allowing the public to attain a weed free zone for swimming. Another three years of suction harvesting and evaluations of the performance took place to verify that this technique could be the non-chemical weed treatment of choice. If the continued success of this operation is verified, shoreline landowners including homeowners, the banquet hall, condominium owners, and the State boat launch may replicate the operation, to create additional “oases” of treatment.
In addition, the Commission evaluated grass carp introduction as a means of grazing control of bottom weeds. However, the potential negative effects of backwater flooding due to clogging of the outlet structure at the Kenosia Avenue culvert, the possibility of inducing algal blooms and the unlikely prospect of the Connecticut DEEP permitting this work has removed this strategy from active consideration.
Finally, The Kenosia Commission has noted the documented success of the seeding of lakes in the Midwest with the milfoil weevil, which has recently been employed at Candlewood Lake. This would be a gradual long-term removal process that would selectively eradicate milfoil plants, whose stems would be destroyed by the weevil. The milfoil weevil is a native species and feeds exclusively on Eurasian watermilfoil. The selective and gradual removal of milfoil would allow a gradual re-colonization with plants that are less of nuisance weeds and may promote a better ecological diversity of plant life in the lake. Though it is currently too expensive to employ this method of control in Lake Kenosia at this time, we will continue to monitor usage of the weevil and its results.
2. The Buffer Gardens. The State of Lake Kenosia is characterized in 2013, by a great success in the City of Danbury’s buffer gardens demonstration project (see photo of buffer garden iat the beginning part of this report). Launched in 2006, the project utilized a Meserve Grant and collaboration with The Land Trust of Danbury to establish a small plot of grasses, shrubs and flowering plants that created a microhabitat, an environmentally attractive garden that flowers sequentially throughout the growing season. In 2007 and 2008, the initial plot was extended to cover an area that circumscribes approximately 20% of the beach area in the Lake Kenosia Park. In 2011, after the installation of Phase 3, the buffer gardens completely encircled the shoreline of the park and the beach. The gardens have been successful in discouraging Canada Geese – eliminating the water quality problems due to beach pollution with their feces – away from the park. They also provide a filtering mechanism for intercepting stormwater flow to the lake and filtering out nitrogen, phosphorous and other pollutants. In addition to these benefits, the buffer gardens have been shown to offer a surprising advantage in “holding” the beach from erosion after major storm events.
Historical comparison of water quality monitoring data:
In 2013, following the September 2012 monitoring of the Lake, the Lake Kenosia Commission conducted a historical comparison of the data collected from 1980 -2012. A graphical presentation of this data and a detailed discussion of the water quality parameters tested and the interpretation of the results can be found in the Water Quality Monitoring section of this website. Overall, the data for each parameter is too sporadic (5 samplings over 30 years) and the database is too small to draw conclusions about emerging trends at this time. However, the long period of monitoring provides a good baseline to compare to future monitoring periods. In this regard, the Lake Kenosia Commission has committed to monitoring the Lake at least once per year to create a database that will be long enough and frequent enough to establish trends. Five to ten years of monitoring results should allow the Lake Kenosia Commission to begin drawing conclusions whether the lake is
Photographs taken by Lake Kenosia Commissioner Steve Landau, September 2008
The photo on the left, illustrates the extreme erosive force of a severe storm that occurred in 2008 in the center of the beach area. The photo below exhibits the area immediately below the initial planting of the buffer garden after the same storm, exhibiting only minor erosion and a minimal loss of beach sand, demonstrating yet another benefit of the buffer gardens: financial. The September 2008 storm that caused the erosion was not a hurricane or an extreme event. Typically a storm such as this occurs a few times every year. Hence, the now-completed buffer gardens will, over time, save the City the cost of replacement sand for the beach.
In summary, there are a host of options for controlling weeds and beautifying Lake Kenosia. First of all, there are the expensive options that include in-lake alum feed systems or massive watershed stormwater control projects. These control methodologies are the most effective and time efficient methods for reducing nutrient inputs that would ultimately eliminate the massive weed growth that currently plagues the Lake. However these systems will be in the range of $1,000,000 to $ 5,000,000 and in this economic climate are not realistic options at this time. However, these aggressive in-lake or watershed-based treatment technologies should be considered the gold bar standard for the City of Danbury and the Lake Kenosia Commission to strive for in future years, when grants and/or Foundation funding becomes more available for such projects.
Short of aggressive nutrient removal systems, the options are limited to short term weed controls. In 2010, the Commission prepared the table below that identifies short term weed control options. In 2010, the Lake Kenosia Commission selected suction harvesting as the weed control option, but which would be limited to the Lake Kenosia Park Beach. Suction Harvesting was deployed in 2010, 2011 and 2012, which took place in June of those years. The suction harvesting successfully removed weeds from the bathing area in a manner that allowed a weed-free bathing zone from the beach to the dock. The success of the weed control was verified by a late season “snorkle survey” in late August or early September.
Petitioning President Lake Quassapaug Association
LAKE QUASSAPAUG ASSOCIATION: Keep Lake Quassapaug Clean! Please do NOT use toxic herbicides.
Jennifer Gowen Southbury, CT
If you use Lake Quassapaug, you need to know that the quality of the water is about to change. 170 gallons of the toxic herbicide, 2, 4-D is going to be put directly in the lake this month.
The Lake Quassapaug Association received a permit on May 20th from the DEEP to treat the invasive milfoil, which is located in the Tyler Cove area in Lake Quassapaug, with liquid 2, 4-D. You should be concerned, because 2, 4-D is a controversial herbicide that has links to causing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Its use in an aquatic environment comes with greater risk than with soil/land uses and comes with many unstudied/unknown effects, specifically on children. What is known about the herbicide is that when you are exposed to 2, 4-D when using sunscreen or insect repellent the absorption rate of the toxin increases significantly, one study showed a 39% increase and another jumped to 89%. According to the Sierra Club of Canada, 2, 4-D will remain in water supplies for 20 to 200 days. Health Canada recently re-evaluated the use of 2, 4-D a year ago, and determined that “all products containing the diethanolamine (DEA) form of 2, 4-D and products for aquatic uses are being phased out because the risks exceed current health and environmental standards or there was a lack of adequate data for assessment.” The DEEP’s permit states that two private wells located on Tyler’s Cove Road must be tested for 2, 4-D between 7 and 14 days after the application of the 170 gallons of the herbicide and that if there is 2,4-D present the Lake Quassapaug Association is responsible for the remediation of drinking water supplies. The permit also indicates that they have to notify its members 72 hours prior to the application and place signs and public notices at lakes with public access.
Listed on the warning label of a bottle of anime form 2, 4-D it specifically states: “Environmental Hazards – This pesticide is toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present, or to intertidal areas below the mean high water mark. Drift and runoff may be hazardous to aquatic organisms in water adjacent to treated areas. Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment wash waters or rinsate.”
There are other ways to treat milfoil organically that should be explored. And don’t be fooled, this will not be a single treatment, one-time event. Multiple treatments of 2, 4-D will be needed to treat the milfoil.
Further information should be requested from The Lake Quassapaug Association, The DEEP or The First Selectman of Middlebury. The Lake Quassapaug Association’s board of directors and contact information can be found at lakequassapaugassociation.org.
Speak up and be heard on this issue if you care about the water you swim in! Please sign this permit letting the Lake Quassapaug Association and Town of Middlebury, CT that this is not acceptable for the health of our children and families.
This petition was delivered to:
Lake Quassapaug Association
Jennifer Gowen started this petition with a single signature, and won with 2,297 supporters. Start a petition to change something you care about.
Start a petition
Aug 18, 2014 — Jennifer Gowen: The Lake Quassapaug Association agreed to hand pulling and harvesting the invasive weeds, instead of using toxic herbicides!!!
3 years ago
The Lake Quassapaug Association listened to our concerns. Now Let’s Help!!
The following is a portion of an email from the LQA Board asking for help to fund hand pulling of the invasive plants from Lake Quassapaug: Dear Members and Friends of Lake Quassapaug BOARD PLAN FOR MILFOIL…
3 years ago
Thank you to everyone for the support! The Lake Quassapaug Association has agreed to try hand pulling and harvesting of the invasive weeds and not use toxic herbicides in the lake. Your voices were heard!! Thank you!!
3 years ago
3 years ago
Jennifer Gowen started this petition
Reasons for signing
It causes cancer, unacceptable.
Gregory Grom, Southbury, CT
3 yrs ago
Why use toxic herbicides when there are other, non-toxic options that have been show to be effective? If Canada has decided to phase out the herbicide, why would we use it?
Mike Rosen, Southbury, CT
3 yrs ago
Live directly on lake and have young children that swim and fish in this lake. Many townfolk are unaware and oppose this in favor of less invasive/toxic hand pulling measures. As a member of LQA representing the West Shore Home Owners Association we vehemently opposed this effort which was sponsored by a minority group and rushed through without maintaining true representation or consensus from all effected parties. In addition, the herbicide 2-4-D has a well documented toxicity level for aquatic life particularly fish.
David Messina, Middlebury, CT
3 yrs ago
Community Organizing Kept Chemicals Out of Lake
July 01, 2015
By ABBEY GREENE/ecoRI News contributor
GOSHEN, Conn. — The crystal-clear waters of Woodridge Lake are used for kayaking, swimming, jet skiing, boating, diving and sailing. The northwestern Connecticut lake also is the source of drinking water for thousands of area residents.
Some 700 homes surround the popular 300-acre lake, providing residents a beautiful local getaway. When the lake’s authentic natural appeal was being threatened, Judy Fradin and her husband, Russ, jumped into action. The couple was shocked several years ago to receive a notice in the mail informing them that for the next few days the lake was off-limits. The Woodridge Lake Property Owners’ Association board of directors had decided to apply an herbicide called Sonar to get rid of weeds in the lake’s watershed.
Sonar is linked to numerous health issues and is banned in Europe, according to the Toxics Action Center.
“A group of us were totally livid,” Judy Fradin said. “The idea of putting toxic chemicals into crystal-clear waters was crazy to us. And they did it; we had no time to do anything about it. They actually put chemicals in the lake.”
This time last year, the board announced it wanted to do it again — reapply the chemical.
“We racked our brains as to what to do,” Fradin said. “The board at the time, really seemed to want this, but I knew we didn’t want it to happen again. So my husband and I came up with the idea of forming a nonprofit corporation to fight this, to fight for the overall environmental wellness and the surrounding community.”
The Woodridge Lake Conservancy was soon born.
The Fradins didn’t quite know where to begin, so they asked the Toxics Action Center for help. The center helped by organizing the couple’s goals and mission, and supplied the Woodridge Lake Conservancy with interns.
“We had eight interns. They were truly unbelievable,” Fradin said. “They worked so hard; they were so enthusiastic. We could not have done it without them.”
The interns helped lead a campaign called “Why Do I Love the Lake?” They went door to door and boat to boat gathering signatures and spreading the word about the Woodridge Lake Conservancy (WLC).
During the last 15 years, the homeowners’ board has made various applications to apply chemicals to reduce lake weeds, according to the WLC, including an application to apply diquat, a toxic chemical that has since been banned for use in the state. About four years ago, another application was made to the Connecticut Department Energy & Environmental Protection to use another herbicide that wasn’t approved for use in watersheds, according to WLC. The application was denied.
Fradin said the Woodridge Lake Property Owners’ Association board originally tried to stop the campaign with angry e-mails and calls to the police. Local authorities informed the board that no unlawful action was taking place.
Within three days, the conservancy’s team of interns had gathered 300 community signatures. Eventually, the board and the conservancy realized they had to work together. A WLC member has since been voted to serve on the property owners’ board of directors, and the Woodridge Lake Property Owners’ Association is now considering other ways to eradicate the weeds without using chemicals.
“I’d say it is a total success story,” Fradin said. “What I take away from it is community organizing really works. We could not have done it without the Toxic Action Center. They focused our thinking, helped us create our goals, and the interns were so dedicated and intelligent.”
Fradin is now working to build a regional movement to protect water resources in Connecticut, helping others living near lakes threatened by pesticides to push for nontoxic solutions.
New Fairfield rejects plan to apply herbicides to Candlewood Lake
By Anna Quinn Published 12:00 am, Saturday, June 10, 2017, THE NEW MILFORD SPECTRUM
NEW FAIRFIELD — Town officials no longer will pursue a permit to apply herbicides to Candlewood Lake after more than 200 voters adopted an ordinance to stop the plan Tuesday night.
The ordinance, proposed by the group “Candlewood Voices” earlier this month, requires a townwide vote whenever officials want to use chemicals on the lake. The group formed in opposition to the town’s proposal to treat the lake with the herbicide Diquat to kill invasive Eurasian watermilfoil and copper sulfate to treat blue-green algae.
In a packed town hall meeting at the New Fairfield Senior Center, all but several of the more than 200 residents voted to adopt the ordinance.
After the vote, First Selectman Susan Chapman said the town will no longer seek a permit with the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to use the herbicides.
“Well, this is democracy and this is how it works in a town hall form of government,” she said. “Obviously, we won’t be moving forward with the permit.”
The town had considered applying Diquat to about 10 acres of the Shelter Harbor Cove area after getting approval from about 10 residents in the cove, although they had not yet applied for a permit with DEEP. The plan was a scaled-back version of the town’s original proposal to treat about 60 acres of the lake with the herbicide Diquat and to apply copper sulfate on up to 160 acres.
Tuesday’s town meeting was scheduled after Candlewood Voices filed two petitions asking the town to hold a meeting on the ordinance. The selectmen scheduled the meeting two weeks ago after initially denying the group’s first petition for legal reasons.
John McCartney, a member of Candlewood Voices, said the group then spent the next few weeks getting the word out about the meeting by posting on its 400-member Facebook group and calling those who had signed the petitions.
“Super turnout and an awesome result,” he said after the vote. “This is the purest form of government in the United States.”
The group, made up of six core members from Danbury, New Fairfield and Sherman, said they worry about the negative health effects the herbicide could have on humans, wildlife and the existing grass carp in the lake. They also did not agree with the way town officials introduced the proposal.
Candlewood Voices organized after a March 2 forum on the proposal was attended by over 150 residents, most of whom spoke against using herbicides. The members of the group were frustrated, McCartney said, that the town didn’t abandon the idea after the negative feedback.
Khris Hall, a voter who is running for selectman, said residents should be the ones deciding whether to use herbicides in the lake.
“We’re obviously very happy with the result,” she said. “This is where the decision should have been made in the first place — in a town meeting.”
Another voter, Erin Badillo, said she may have considered supporting the herbicides if the town had gone about the proposal differently. But she voted to pass the ordinance Tuesday because she disagreed with the town’s process.
“The Board of Selectmen ignored repeated requests for input and questions,” she said. “… If it was a decision that was come to by the Candlewood Lake Authority with experts and scientists involved, I would go along with that.”
The Candlewood Lake Authority has said the herbicides might interfere with its existing grass carp program. About 3,800 carp were released into the lake in 2015 and 4,450 more will be stocked this summer.