A bill has been introduced that would place a moratorium on herbicides in Vermont lakes, but some in the state government say it’s not needed as they’ve begun a rule-making process to address issues people have raised.
H.31 “An act relating to aquatic nuisance control” was sponsored by Rep. Seth Bongartz, D-Manchester, and referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy on Jan. 10.
Bongartz is a member of that committee.
He said people who were upset about the Lake Bomoseen Association’s application to use an herbicide called “ProcellaCOR” on the lake asked him to put forth the bill.
The Lake Bomoseen Association (LBA) filed for the permit in early 2022. Strong public backlash followed. The Town of Hubbardton Select Board voted to take its name off the application, there was a protest at the Castleton Town Office, a large public forum where most people spoke against the permit, and several other town select boards voted to voice their concern over the permit being issued. The LBA had placed the permit on technical hold in the fall, and had the hold removed in December.
The permit is being considered by Misha Cetner, lake and shoreland ecologist at the Department of Environmental Conservation, who is expected to issue a draft decision at some point, followed by a public comment period.
The herbicide would be used, among other techniques, to control milfoil on the lake, according to past statements from the LBA. Its application can be viewed online at bit.ly/0317App online.
The LBA did not respond to several emails seeking comment.
The bill would put a moratorium on any “aquatic nuisance control permit by the secretary of natural resources that authorizes the use or application of pesticides, chemicals other than pesticides, or biological controls,” which would last for a year after the completion of an assessment done by a study committee on the impacts of such substances to human and environmental health.
“It quickly became clear to me that a moratorium and a comprehensive look at this through the eyes of somebody other than the (herbicide) manufacturer makes sense,” said Bongartz. “Milfoil is obviously a real issue, but it’s also hard to see how it can possibly be good policy to be dumping herbicides in lakes.”
The moratorium would take effect upon the bill’s passage into law and would last until Dec. 15 or until a year after the Aquatic Nuisance Control Study Committee releases its report, whichever comes later.
The bill makes some exceptions for the use of chemicals to control lampreys in Lake Champlain. It also allows the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) secretary to issue an herbicide permit in extreme cases, with the approval of other state leaders.
Bongartz said he’s hopeful his committee will take up the bill this session, but it’s still early and many members are new and in the process of orientation.
Bob Stannard, the leading voice in the opposition to the herbicide on Lake Bomoseen, said he’s read the bill and thinks it addresses the issues.
“I think it does what needs to be done, frankly,” he said. “We have a situation that Vermonters really have no idea how a very important process works in the state of Vermont. People have no idea, for instance, that one person, you, me, a guy on the street, can submit an application to have any lake sprayed in Vermont and the (Department of Environmental Conservation) is obligated to take it up and do something about it. That’s ridiculous at best.”
According to Stannard, the process used to issue lake herbicide permits isn’t transparent and is undemocratic.
“The idea behind a moratorium is that we put the brakes on this and we have a genuine healthy discussion about how this process works, or from my point of view, doesn’t work, and revamp this process,” he said.
DEC Lakes and Ponds Program Manager, Oliver Pierson, said the state is aware of the current processes’ shortcomings.
“I’ve been in this role since 2019 and one of the things I realized was that DEC had not done rule-making, ever, under this statute, although the statute specifically contemplates rule-making.
To that end, Pierson worked to convene a pre-rulemaking focus group, which met this week, made up of various stakeholders. Once the group is more established he plans to have a website for it where it will post agendas, announcements, and meeting minutes.
“Rule-making would better define permitting requirements, the rule-making would define some of the terms in statute that are a bit ambiguous,” he said. “For example, what does it mean to have reasonable non-target impacts? What do we mean by that, what did the Legislature intend?”
Much of the study work the bill calls for has been done, he said.
“They want a summary of the use of pesticides, chemicals, and biological controls in the lakes and ponds of Vermont since January 2000,” said Pierson. “We already have that information and we’ve published on our website already a list of all the lakes that were treated with ProcellaCOR since that herbicide began being used in 2019.”
ANR Secretary Julie Moore said H.31 isn’t wrong in that the current process could use some improvement, but it’s not as opaque as some suggest.
We’ve certainly heard their (the public’s) concerns,” she said. “There’s ample opportunity for public input during our permitting process and so part of the challenge here is that the process hasn’t run its course at this point in time.”
To issue an herbicide permit for a lake, the DEC has to look at five criteria:
— There is no reasonable non-chemical alternative available.
— There is acceptable risk to the non-target environment.
— There is negligible risk to public health.
— A long-range management plan has been developed, which incorporates a schedule of pesticide minimization.
— There is a public benefit to be achieved from the application of a pesticide or, if a pond located entirely on a landowner’s property, no undue adverse effect upon the public good.
“I think they’re (herbicide critics) interested in a higher barrier to entry to be able to seek a permit,” Moore said. “There’s strengths and challenges in that area. One of the things we will be looking at as part of the rule-making process is some greater clarity around definitions. I think, ultimately, that’s where folks’ discomfort comes in.”
Opponents of the LBA’s application claim that milfoil on Lake Bomoseen isn’t as bad as the LBA claims and that the herbicide would cause more harm than good.
Herbicides have been used for milfoil on Lake St. Catherine for many years now, said Jeffrey Crandall, chairman of the Milfoil Management Committee for the Lake St. Catherine Association.
Lake St. Catherine is roughly 10 miles south of Lake Bomoseen.
Crandall said milfoil began to appear on Lake St. Catherine in the 1970s and by the early 2000s had caused a great deal of ecological damage.
Herbicides were used early on to reduce the amount of milfoil on the lake, he said. Since then, spot treatments have been used as-needed in conjunction with diver assisted suction harvesting.
“The whole idea is to use a minimal amount of ProcellaCOR on an as-needed basis going forward,” he said. “The suction harvesting has been our primary approach for several years now, certainly in the main lake that’s the case, and the lake is in remarkable shape.”
Crandall said that Lake St. Catherine Association is ahead of many others in terms of controlling milfoil.
“It’s not just blindly dumping chemicals into the lake and every year holding our breath and hoping for the best, it’s really been a science based, balanced approach that we’ve used,” he said.
Jerremy Jones, a member of the Lake St. Catherine Association who handles its public outreach, said it works often with the DEC on when and how to use herbicides and other milfoil treatments.
“I think at the end of the day the conclusion will be there’s absolutely no reason that product could not be used on Lake Bomoseen and all the dire results that people are predicting on social media, there are no facts to support that,” Jones said.
keith.whitcomb @utlandherald.com
