Sunday, May 31, 2009

REMEMBER WHEN ... THERE WERE NO WEEVILS

New Fairfield schools seek $109M
Superintendent wants taxpayers to help with building renovations

By Brian Saxton
THE NEWS-TIMES

NEW FAIRFIELD -- Old and unreliable heating and ventilating systems. Worn and dated bathroom plumbing fixtures. Cracked toilets and windowless classrooms.
  A laundry list of problems at three of New Fairfield's public schools are the target of a sweeping $109 million blueprint to fix them with new building projects and renovations. District officials have labeled them "critical elements of concern."

Preliminary estimates predict that the net cost of the overall project after state reimbursements will total $78.2 million. "This is probably the most important issue facing New Fairfield," schools Superintendent Joseph Castagnola said at a public meeting Wednesday night. Current estimates and the time frame now being considered allow for financing the project through bonding over 20 years. The three schools earmarked for improvements are Meeting House Hill School, New Fairfield High School and New Fairfield Middle School.

Castagnola, who made a formal presentation of the plan at the high school, said he hoped the community could work together to develop a final format acceptable to taxpayers at a referendum. "This is about bringing forward the needs of the district and hoping people will come to understand those needs," Castagnola said. "It's important that taxpayers participate in this project."

Another public hearing is scheduled for 7 p.m. on Tuesday at the high school library on Gillotti Road. Castagnola indicated that if the project moved ahead on schedule, a town referendum to approve it could be held by June next year. Because of the magnitude of the work, Castagnola said it would take about two years to complete. After the presentation, Phil Ross, the district's director of buildings and grounds, said the project is important because of the age of the school buildings. "I think the community will be surprised by the numbers, but I think when they take the time to understand them and see what they'll get for their money they'll realize they're getting school buildings that will last for the next 20 years," Ross said. Ross described the proposals as "a first step" but added: "Construction doesn't get any cheaper."

The appointment of a five-member building committee and further studies of the plan by school and town officials are expected over the next few weeks. The district has until June 30 to file an application for state aid with the Connecticut Department of Education School Facilities Unit.  The building and renovation proposals range from updating utility systems and safety codes to providing new classrooms and labs and a 1,000-seat auditorium with a new stage for the high and middle schools.

Highlights include:
Meeting House Hill School (Built 1962). Code and safety updates. New water system and energy efficient lighting. New music rooms and renovated art rooms. Replacement of windows with energy efficient units. New classroom wing replaces existing building. 
Cost: $28.8 million. (After reimbursement: $19.8 million).

New Fairfield Middle School (Built 1995). New media center. Updated interior entrance vestibule. Office and meeting space for staff and visitors. Additional parking, improved site circulation and field access. 
Cost: $12.9 million. (After reimbursement $9.5 million).

New Fairfield High School (Built 1974). Conversion from electric heat to hot water heat. New and renovated technical education classrooms. Replacement of undersized and outdated choral and music rooms. Renovated kitchen, offices, meeting spaces and nurse's suite.
Cost: $67.4 million. (After reimbursement $48.9 million)

The project, which was developed by district officials, school administrators, architects, construction managers and other members of the community, is expected to be a major topic of conversation in town over the coming months.

New Fairfield resident Carolee Harkins, co-president of the Parent-Teacher Organizations at Meeting House Hill School, believes the town should support the project. "They've been talking about this for as long as I've lived in New Fairfield and that's been 11 years," Harkins said. "Now it's time to take care of it." Harkins has two daughters and a son who graduated from the high school and has one son in the middle school and a daughter in fourth-grade. "Although some people may be surprised by the costs involved, a lot of them just don't know the problems inside the schools," said Harkins, who described some classrooms at the high school as "poor." "Our schools are the hub of the town," said Harkins. "I want to see some nice facilities."

Contact Brian Saxton at
bsaxton@newstimes.com
or at (203) 731-3332

this story has been read 1266 times
 

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Letter from EnvrioScience, Inc. to Ralph

EnviroScience, Inc.
Letter Subject: Milfoil Weevil information
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:52:44 -0700

Dear Ralph,

It was nice talking with you this afternoon. Below please find a letter from Marty Hilovsky, EnviroScience president.

Thank you for your interest in our program for controlling Eurasian watermilfoil using native weevils. Please find some general information and a few questions that may help determine whether the milfoil weevil, a type of beetle, may be a good option for you.

This Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM) management program is named the MiddFoil® process. Developed by Dr. Sallie Sheldon and Middlebury College (VT), MiddFoil® utilizes an insect that specifically feeds on EWM. This insect, a native weevil, is intentionally introduced into the water body where EWM is a problem. Extensive field trials show that the weevil is a very effective control agent. Depending on the initial density applied, the weevils take from three to five years to permanently stabilize EWM below problematic levels. Most importantly, the MiddFoil® process is environmentally safe; the weevil does not damage native plants or animals. As EWM decreases in the treated lake, the weevil population gradually declines to a self-sustaining level.
Under an exclusive licensing agreement with Dr. Sheldon and Middlebury College, EnviroScience, Inc. is pleased to make the MiddFoil® process available to resource managers and the general public. EnviroScience is expert in biomonitoring and lake management services. We maintain one of the largest aquatic and ecological survey departments in the Midwest. In addition to a large in-house staff of aquatic ecologists, we are closely allied with a number of universities and nationally recognized experts. We draw on these resources as needed to support projects of virtually any size or complexity. Our combination of solid experience and state-of-the art equipment ensures that our projects are done right and completed on time.

With regard to cost, pricing is difficult to quickly estimate because there is no single formula to tell us how many weevils are needed to control the EWM in a given water body. Variables that can influence how many weevils we use in a given project include:

  • the size of your lake;
  • how many acres of EWM you have;
  • the density of the EWM;
  • when the weevils are stocked (early summer is best because they produce several generations);
  • how quickly you want control - the more you put in the faster they will effect lake-wide control.
With most lakes we incorporate pre- and post- application monitoring surveys in our projects. Under this program we perform initial baseline surveys at the time of stocking and then survey again at the end of both the first and second seasons to make sure the weevils are reproducing and spreading around the lake as expected. The surveys allow us to chart our progress and provide the association with detailed progress reports. The survey component also includes fees associated with stocking the weevils and generally costs between $4,000 and $5,000 for a single stocking program and for most lakes within 400 miles of our office. In addition, we add the cost of the weevils which are sold in units of 1,000 at $1,200 per unit. We do not install less than 2,000 to 3,000 in any one area of the lake. Most of our clients will place three or four thousand in several locations around the lake. In most cases, it probably does not make sense to spend less on the weevils than you do on the survey, so our smallest lake projects are generally at least $10,000 and have gone up to $150,000.

The difference, aside from cost, between putting in a total of several thousand weevils and the maximum rate of 2,000 to 3,000 per acre of weed bed, is the length of time necessary to get lake-wide control. Stocking at the maximum rate can produce relatively rapid results - about two years for lake-wide control of EWM. Stocking weevils at lower densities will produce more gradual results.

In special circumstances and with ponds and very small lakes we work with landowners to streamline the process and make it more affordable by allowing them to apply the insects and dispense with the monitoring component. This approach has both pros and cons and is generally not recommended for larger, more complex situations. In any case, the program is quite flexible and can accommodate most lake budgets.

The MiddFoil® process can be easily integrated with other types of control programs. Many of our clients use harvesting or herbicides in high priority areas like beaches and marinas while the weevils are becoming established in other parts of the lake. This is another reason why we build the survey component into most of our projects. The surveys enable us to inform you how the weevils are increasing and spreading so that you can make good decisions regarding where to treat with alternate control measures during the first couple of years while the weevils are becoming established and spreading out.

If your association has a fairly steady funding base from year to year, I would also encourage you to consider a program which would allow for stocking over a two-year period. Data collected over the past six years indicate that multi-year stocking programs provide a number of advantages over a single, larger stocking event.

If you believe there is sufficient interest in the program for this coming summer, we would be glad to arrange a meeting with you to answer any questions you may have.

Sincerely,
Martin Hilovsky President EnviroScience, Inc.




Invasive Aquatic Plant Program (IAPP) ~ A Federally Funded Program ... No Spin Zone!

EMAILED TO BOARD OF SELECTMAN




This is worthy of reading and reflection in considering what Candlewood Lake is currently undergoing.  This presents a multi-year program (2001 - 2008) using the same method from EnviroScience, Inc. from Stow, Ohio.
Information about Lake Bonaparte
Lake Bonaparte was named after Joseph Bonaparte, brother of Napoleon, who was exiled from Spain and came to live in Northern New York. He resided for a while in Natural Bridge, N.Y. and had his summer villa on the lake. The 1,286 acre lake has twenty-four miles of shoreline and parts of it border on Fort Drum, the home of the 10th Mountain Division. It is 768 feet above sea level and contains nine islands. It is over two miles long and is pring fed. The fish population includes wall eyes, great northern pike, rock and black bass, perch, and bullheads. There are two public marinas, a state boat launch, a public swimming area, and two restaurants. The recorded range of temperatures is from a high of 110 F to a low of minus 52 degrees. It once was the home of Boy Scout camp and a famous resort known as the Hermitage Hotel.


THE MILFOIL PROJECT
 EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL INVADES LAKE BONAPARTE

          In September 2001, the Lake Bonaparte community first became painfully aware that Eurasian Water Milfoil (EWM) had invaded the lake. Unfortunately, the discovery came several years after its introduction most likely by a visitor who launched their boat without washing it. The weed took root and flourished until it began to break through the surface in thick beds in several bays around the lake.

           The first call for help went to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation who sent a representative to tour the lake and gave positive confirmation of the presence of milfoil.

          Once positive identification had been obtained, the search began for a sensible method of control. The use of chemicals was immediately ruled out. For many people the lake is a source of drinking water and despite assurances that chemical introduction would cause no lasting harm to water quality, no one wanted to take the risk. Likewise, there was a concern that chemical introduction might harm the ecological system of the lake for generations to come.

           The Internet provided guidance as to a biologically safe method of control that has proven successful in other lakes. The introduction of an aquatic beetle that feeds upon EWM and reproduces rapidly appeared to be a logical alternative. A company that supplies the weevil, Enviroscience of Stow, Ohio, was contacted for further information. (www.enviroscienceinc.com.)

           By chance, a representative of Enviroscience had scheduled a trip to visit friends in Massena, N.Y. over the long Columbus Day weekend and agreed to extend the trip to visit the lake and assess its suitability for introduction of the weevil.

           Upon touring the lake with several members of the Board of Directors, the  aquatic biologist who made the initial assessment made an interesting and surprising discovery. The weevil was already present in the waters of Lake Bonaparte, although not in sufficient number to be able to retard the rapid spread of EWM.

           The Aquatic Biologist gave assurances to the LBCC Board of Directors that the weevils would not harm other native weeds, were not a threat to the fish population, would not harm humans, and would not fall prey to natural predators in the lake. In short, their introduction would be intended to jump-start the existing population in hopes that the abundant supply of EWM as a food source and the beetles rapid reproductive cycle would prove an effective counter measure to the spread of the nuisance weed.

           Although thrilled to learn that the weevils were already in the lake, the directors decided to take a conservative approach. They chose to purchase 10,000 weevils to be distributed in colonies of 2,000 in five different locations recommended by the company.

           The Enviroscience Company provides the weevils at an approximate cost of $1.20 each. Their program, which is called the Midfoil Program and patterned after research done at Middlebury College, also includes follow-up surveys and assessments along with a guarantee that if there is no evidence of weed damage from implantation, they will replace the same number of weevils free of charge for a second attempt in the original location.

          Because the Lake Bonaparte Conservation Club is a non-profit organization that charges only a minimal fee for membership, the challenge of raising approximately $17,000 to undertake the program was a formidable one. Letters were sent to all lake residents describing the problem EWM presents (it will kill native vegetation, take over fishing spawning areas, and prevent boating and swimming as well as having a disastrous impact upon property values) and asked for their financial assistance. In addition, the club planned a series of fund raisers to include a lake community picnic and auction, tee shirt sale, raffle of a hand carved loon by a well known artist who spends summers at the lake, a tee shirt party, sales of satellite photos and a short story book by a writer who resides year long at the lake.

         The response to the appeal and the fund raising activities was overwhelmingly positive and more than enough money was raised to underwrite the first year of the program. A special thank you goes to the Town Board of the Town of Diana that pledged the amount of $4,000.

          Although an agreement with Enviroscience called for the implantation of the weevils to be done on or about Memorial Day, 2002, poor weather conditions and difficulties obtaining donor sites for the beetles pushed back the implantation date to July 5, 2002.

           The follow-up study was conducted by the Enviroscience team and four independent divers not affiliated with the company six weeks after the placement of the weevils. Weed samples were taken at each of the five sites plus a control site where no weevils were placed and sent back to the lab for analysis.

           Although no damage was visible to the naked eye,  microscopic studies confirmed damage to the EWM was found at all of the five sites. Weevil eggs, larvae, and larval damage as well as re-growth of native vegetation was found in varying degrees at each location. Damage was found even at those sites where jet ski and boat traffic had violated the test areas.

           Although success was reported at each of the five sites, it is important to note that the weevils were in place for a very short period of time and that the minimum amount of weevils was placed in each spot. Damage in each location was limited because only 2,000 were implanted but there was ample evidence that the imported weevils met up with their native counterparts and rapidly established growing communities.

           With the good news in hand, the Lake Bonaparte Conservation Club has contracted with the Enviroscience Company for implantation of least 45,000 weevils in the spring of 2003. It is hoped that the 45,000 number will be increased as fund raising activities continue and word of the project spreads throughout the United States and Canada. The target date for insertion of the new weevils is June 1, 2003.

SPRING 2003
            Because of inclement spring weather, the target date for weevil implantation of June 1, 2003 was not met. Instead, 21,000 weevils were implanted on a rainy and cold June 14 and 31,000 more on the following Saturday, June 21, 2003. If you do the math, you will find a grand total of 52,000 new inhabitants for the lake! Thanks to the generous support of lake residents and friends, a last minute large monetary gift, the town of Diana, and the Enviroscience Company that provided a quantity discount, many more locations were stocked than was originally anticipated.  Fourteen areas were stocked, three of them  from the previous year and eleven new ones.

            Many people volunteered their services during the two stocking dates and all received the good news that the original crop of weevils wintered well and were back in the water eagerly meeting new friends and chomping away at the milfoil. They were found at all of the original stocking sites and some of the new stocking sites as well indicating that they had indeed prospered and multiplied.

           FALL 2003




          Forty lake residents welcomed Martin Hilovsky, President of the Enviroscience Co., to Ziggy’s Restaurant the evening of October 15, 2003 to hear his summary of the findings of the research team sent to the lake Labor Day weekend to assess damage done by the weevils during the summer months.

        Marty first addressed the five original sites that were stocked in the summer of 2002. All of those sites showed large increases in the number of weevils found there from late 2002 to mid-June 2003 and all showed dramatic decreases in milfoil density. What this means is that weevils stocked in 2002 survived, reproduced and spread from their original insertion point.

        Of the eleven new sites stocked in 2003, follow-up analysis revealed little, and often negative, new growth of milfoil. Also, most of the stocking sites showed increased species diversity (native plants other than milfoil growing where only milfoil was found before.)

         The only surprising finding Marty presented was that the number of weevils found at all of the 2003 stocking sites during the final survey Labor Day weekend was less than anticipated. One possible explanation was that they had already started to leave the lake to prepare for winter. The finding was not discouraging in that all other data indicates the weevils  are having a positive impact on the EWM.

        One comment from the floor concerned the spread of milfoil. It definitely found its way to new areas of the lake this summer. Marty emphasized that the weevil control method works slowly and that we must have patience. Weevils were found in many areas where they were not originally stocked indicating that they were spreading. Such migration is a slow process, however, and it may take three or more years to bring the problem under control.

        In the audience that evening was a representative from the Department of Environmental Conservation. He said Lake Bonaparte is the showcase lake for New York State for non-chemical control of milfoil and he receives questions from many other lakes about our weevil control program and its progress.
        SPRING/SUMMER 2004




              Again, we were unable to stock in early spring due to cold and rainy weather. The Enviroscience team was on the lake again in early July and placed an additional 32,000 weevils. The Club financed 26,000 of the total, the town of Diana 4,000, and the Enviroscience Company donated an additional 2,000. This year's supply of weevils came from a donor lake in Wisconsin. The biologists chose eight sites to stock. Some of these were the same as the previous year and others were new. Damage to milfoil was found at all of the sites stocked previously although the extent of the damage varied from site to site. We are happy to report that milfoil has not topped out (reached the surface) anywhere in the lake.
  
 FALL 2004
          We had the coldest, rainiest summer on record and consequently water levels were the highest on record. The unusually high water level and consequent cloudy water made the investigation of weevil progress difficult when the Enviroscience biologists returned to do their follow-up study on Labor Day weekend. Their report was generally encouraging but not all sites could be accurately evaluated.

 SPRING-SUMMER 2005
           Although the month of May was the coldest on record, the month of June was also the hottest on record. The good weather enabled the Enviroscience team to implant another 30,000 weevils in mid-June, giving us our earliest implant since the project began. Visits to old implant sites found general weakness brittle plant stems and damage that was not visible to the naked eye.

           Growing conditions for all weeds during the summer period were ideal as we had daily high temperature records set throughout July and August. The record warmth and sunshine resulted in substantial weed growth for species including EWM. Indeed, in spite of control in stocked sites, two large beds of milfoil were found in areas that were not previously infected.

 FALL 2005
                While we await the final lab analysis and summary end of the year report from Enviroscience, the Board of Directors authorized the following letter to be sent to all members. It was written by Ray Powers, resident of the lake, who accompanied the aquatic biologists as they dove into the lake to take milfoil samples and assess damage to the plant:

             “Despite the mild winter and a summer ideal for seaweed growth, the divers found reason for optimism. They found many weevils and eggs in the stocked sites and also in other areas where not stocked (indicating that the weevils are thriving and spreading throughout the lake). There was significant damage to the plants at all of the stocked sites and several were in the condition we have been aiming for – the milfoil, while still there, has thinned and the top is three to four feet below the surface. I saw first hand that the milfoil at these sites was turning brown, laying over flat, and breaking-off.

             “I know a concern that many people had this summer was the large amount of milfoil floating ashore. While raking it up is certainly a nuisance, the in-flow may actually be a good sign. If the plants were brown, it was a sign that the milfoil was brittle and dying and not spreading to other areas.

             “The biologists were quite helpful in identifying the many native weeds that also prospered during the summer. On of them, large leaf pondweed, reached the surface in many bays and was mistaken for milfoil. This is a native species that has always been in the lake and the weevils have no effect upon this plant.

             “I am pleased with what I saw and am convinced the weevil program is working in the lake. The Enviroscience team has always told us milfoil will never be entirely eliminated from Lake Bonaparte. The goal is to keep it below the surface to allow for boating, swimming and fishing. I think we are well on our way to achieving that goal.”

January 2006
                  The annual report from Enviroscience finds that  progress continues to be made. Of interest is the recommendation by Marty Hilovsky, President of Enviroscience, that an electro-shock fish study be undertaken in the spring to determine the population of pan fish. High numbers of pan fish can deter weevil progress and this is a new red flag for our program. If their number found to be substantially higher than average, the company will propose additional control and management measures to supplement the Midfoil program.
 June 2006
            The Enviroscience Co. returned once again to stock 31,000 weevils into the lake. This is the fifth year of stocking. Initially, it was believed control of milfoil would be seen after the third year. That has not occurred as the plant has spread to many new locations throughout the lake. Nonetheless, it has broken through the surface in only a few areas in marked contrast to the area of Mud Lake (the lake Bonaparte drains through) where no implants were done.  It has become completely overgrown and impassable.

             Enviroscience also completed an electro-shock study of the fish population and took sixty pan fish back to the lab for gut analysis. This was done to address a concern that blue gills in the lake may be eating weevils.

            On a very positive note, the state of New York awarded the Lake Bonaparte Conservation Club a one for two challenge grant of $54,000 to continue our efforts at milfoil control. To that end, the Board is exploring the hiring of an independent lake management consultant to review the Midfoil Program and its effect upon the lake.

 December 2006
            The year end summary report from the Enviroscience Company contains a recommendation for a change in strategy in the stocking of the insects. In the past several years, the club has endeavored to place them at strategic locations throughout the lake where the milfoil appeared to be the densest and threatened to break through the surface. This approach meant that at least six and as many as twelve different locations were chosen for implanting.

             While this approach has brought documented success, the change recommended by the company biologists is that larger number of weevils be concentrated in a smaller number of areas. This recommendation stems primarily from the results of a stocking site in the area of the Van Heuvel Marina. Approximately 5,000 more weevils than usual were placed there in June and the resulting damage to the milfoil was much more pronounced than in other areas.

             This is not to say that there was no damage in the other areas. Quite to the contrary, the divers found damage in all new stocking areas as well as many of the other older implant areas where new bugs were not placed. What appears to be happening throughout the lake, according to the report, is that the weevil population is successfully over-wintering and stabilizing. Since weevils do not return to the areas where placed, it is not unusual to find their numbers decreased at stocking sites from one year to the next.

            The report also addresses a concern that the large number of pan fish present in Lake Bonaparte may be limiting the effectiveness of the weevil program. The results of the electro-shock study of the fish population of the lake done in early spring can be found in the report as well.

            Because the findings are so important and address the concerns of some members, the summary paragraph follows: “It was found that the fishery for Lake Bonaparte was heavily dominated by bluegill. However, when examining gut content, the weevil was not the chosen food source. Fish that had consumed the milfoil weevil composed less that 2% of the total population sampled. It should be noted that plant matter (including milfoil) was found in more than 1/3 of the stomachs analyzed. Some weevils may have been consumed at this time but would not be considered the target food source. Based upon the available data, it does not appear that the fishery is limiting the success of the weevils.”

           July 2007
                The most encouraging results so far in the project! Divers returned to last year's stocking sites and were truly amazed at the damage done to the milfoil. Surviving plants are brittle and weak and well below the surface in all areas where the new strategy of stocking weevils in greater numbers was undertaken. Equally important, there was abundant evidence that the weevils had successfully over-wintered and returned to the lake. While milfoil beds remain in the lake, especially in shallow areas near some shorelines, the independent divers and conservation club members who accompanied the Enviroscience team, were well satisfied with the results.

                Fours sites, three old and one new were stocked this spring. Each site received approximately 11,000 insects. The new site is at the entrance to Mud Lake, an outlet for Lake Bonaparte, where milfoil has flourished and has become thickly matted on the surface. Since Mud Lake is privately owned, stocking weevils in it is prohibited. Placing them near the entrance is not.

Fall 2007
          Quoted from the October issue of the LBCC Internet Newsletter:
                 "Residents along the East Shore Road could hear the cheers from the divers and aquatic biologists sent by the Enviroscience Company to inspect the weevil stocking sites.

                 "They found massive damage inflicted upon the plants by the tiny insects that have been placed into Lake Bonaparte for the past five years.

                 "While damage was obvious to the company divers and the independent observers sent along for the inspection in years past, this was the first year when destruction beneath the water was obvious from the top. Large beds of the weed that protruded through the water last fall and began to form mats along the surface of the water were completely gone or well below the water line.

                 "Although the final summary report from Enviroscience will not be available until January 2008, it should be the most encouraging received to date. While it has taken longer and cost more than originally anticipated, non-chemical induced control of the invasive weed is showing success.

                 "Indeed, an email from Robert L. Johnson, an employee of Cornell University who has conducted an independent monitoring of the program, collaborated the successful results. He wrote, in part, 'We did see more weevil damage generally, at Bonaparte than in previous years especially at the Fort Drum site (entrance to Mud Lake).'

                 "While we will never be rid of the weed and new beds of it will be found throughout the lake, it was welcome news to lake residents that their pioneering efforts to control milfoil were showing demonstrable success."

 January 2008
                    The end of the year report from Enviroscience recommended the continued strategy of concentrating more weevils at each implantation site. It was felt that this effort contributed to the weevils reaching critical mass density to effectively control milfoil in some implant sites. Also, the report documented the finding of weevils in areas not previously stocked confirming their slow but steady migration throughout the lake. It was felt that 2007 was the most successful year of the program with much damage to the EWM apparent to the naked eye and large new growth of the native aquatic plant community. As one observer said in layman's terms, "The ballgame may not be over, but we definitely are now ahead in the game by a wide margin."

                    2007 marked the fifth year of the project. At its inception, the LBCC board agreed to undertake a widespread and comprehensive review of our strategy at the five year point and to plan our course of action to control EWM in the future. To this end, consultation will continue with the Enviroscience Company along with other professional lake management advisors about continuing the strategy of high density stocking as opposed to multiple site stocking, reviewing any new data about the impact of pan fish on weevils,  and any and all new scientific research developed in the last five years about weevil and other methods of control of milfoil. This review in no way changes our commitment to the implementation of a biologically safe method of EWM control. It is designed to be an audit of everything we have done in the past and a springboard for improvement of our efforts in the future.

June 2008
                Our "audit" has convinced us that we have chosen the right course and that weevils have been highly successful in Lake Bonaparte. A review of new research has found that some biologists believe that implanting weevils in the adult stage rather than larvae might lead to quicker adaptation and hence more rapid reproduction in a new body of water environment. Having the luxury of success, we have decided to participate in a study in which some implant sites will be stocked with weevil larvae from Enviroscience and some with adult weevils that are being provided by a company run by Robert Johnson, an employee of Cornell University. Damage to EWM at both sites will be compared at the end of the study. Also decided by the Board of Directors was that there was no need for another electro-shock study of pan fish at this time.
+ + + + + + + +

       (We invite you to visit our website frequently for updates on the progress of the program that can be found here and in the Newsletter that is posted on a regular basis for members and friends of the lake. We welcome e-mail inquiries atlakebonaparte@wildblue.net or written inquiries at Post Office Box 273 Harrisville, N.Y. 13648. Donations are always appreciated.)   
 
Copyright 2004 Lake Bonaparte Conservation Club, Inc.
To assist in funding a comprehensive program is not difficult.  Brookfield Assessor appraised FirstLight at $10,000 per arce and FirstLight didn't challenge the the appraisal.  New Fairfield which has 3,056 arces of Candlewood Lake within the municipal boundaries appraises FirstLight at $1,800 per arce.  DO THE MATH!!!
WEEVIL GATE
Would you invest money to start a project if you had absolutely no clue what it will cost to complete it?
Our 1st Selectman is acting like a spoiled brat over the Board of Finance’s recent rejection of his pet project and is challenging the Board of Finance’s decision, but that is standard operating procedure for him. Mr. Hodge was asked at the Public Hearing / Town Meeting, “What is the projected total cost to plant weevils in New Fairfield’s portion of the Candlewood Lake?” and our 1st Selectman said he did not know.
Would you invest money to start building something if you had absolutely no clue what it will cost to complete it?
Also at that meeting was Larry Marsicano, the Executive Director of the Candlewood Lake Authority [CLA]. When asked that same question, Mr. Marsicano also replied that he did not know the answer
Would you put a down payment on a house without knowing the selling price?
There are 5 towns involved with Candlewood Lake and none of the other 4 intends on launching a weevil project of their own or spending any money on this issue since they do not know how much it will cost to finish the job. In addition, this must be a collaborative effort by the 5 towns that surround the lake. But our 1st Selectman always knows better and wants to throw $15K out the window in order to get his way.
Having no plan is a plan for failure!
Not mentioned at the aforementioned meeting: IJune 2008 a controlled experiment was launched to study the effect of weevils on dense milfoil areas of the lake. This is a cooperative effort with the CLA teaming up with scientists at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, Western Connecticut State University and EnviroScience to “explore a process to combat the aquatic weed’s grip on the lake.
So why is New Fairfield throwing $15,000 into the lake, with the knowledge this scientific study will be completed next summer? Who knows?
“Act in haste, repent at leisure.”
We are aware of three sites that are being studied, one of which is just off Sail Harbour. So what is our CEO up to with wanting to spend $15 large, other than that he wants to do it just because he wants to do it? But that is his egotistical modus operendus.
What’s the rush to throw money at a very complex ecosystem dilemma, knowing there is a controlled scientific study going on that is nearly 50% complete and will be finished next summer?
 Also consider these two pointsFirst: Sunfish feed on weevils and anyone who has taken their young child fishing in Candlewood Lake knows it is chock full of sunfish [also known as bluegills, brim and sunnies]. Second: When the milfoil dies after the weevils have done their thing, the dead milfoil sinks to the bottom and, as it decomposes, it provides wonderful compost for growing new milfoil next year. Hmmmm….
Haste makes waste.
The other 4 towns that are involved with the milfoil problem in the lake are waiting for the results of this experiment, as they should. I still do not understand New Fairfield’s rush to throw money at a problem that has no defined total cost.
“Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.”
Finally, some self-serving individuals who reside on Candlewood Isle have circulated a petition in an attempt to ramrod this ill-advised project through to approval ~ by bonding the $15,000 expenditure!!! The people who signed the petition did so because they are too cheap to pay for mechanical harvesting of the milfoil around their properties. The cost of bonding is way too large to make any business sense for this Don Quixote venture, but bonding it circumvents the state statutes and makes it “legitimate”. Aren’t politics in New Fairfield just lovely?
One alternate to controlling the milfoil is to use sterile grass carp per the ongoing project that has been underway at Ball Pond for quite a few years. These carp feed on aquatic plants such as milfoil and cannot reproduce and upset the ecobalance of the pond in the process. The results have been quite encouraging in Ball Pond. Also, we know what it will cost to plant a sufficient number of carp in Candlewood to control the milfoilbut perhaps not completely eradicate the milfoil bed:
[1] There are about 500 acres of milfoil in the lake right now. [2] For one acre of milfoil, between 9 and 25 carp are recommended. For the sake of argument, let’s split the difference and use 17 carp per acre. [3] That means about 8,500 sterile grassarp would be needed. [4] The cost per carp ranges between $5 to $20, depending on the supplier, the proximity of that supplier, etc. I would expect a large volume purchase over 5,000 would command a low price, but let’s use $12 for this brief analysis. Do the math: 8,500 x $12 = $100,000. There is the total cost estimate for sterile carp. Where is the comparable estimate for the weevils? It does not exist.
This sterile carp alternate should be given serious consideration before diving head-long into the weevils as the solution without knowing what that will cost to completeIn addition, right now there is no guarantee that weevils will do the job in a man-made lake. After the experiment is complete next summer, there should be some data to both quantify the effect of the weevils that were planted and also allow extrapolation to the total cost to do the lake, assuming the current test produces favorable results. At that point, the 5 towns need to sit down together and agree on a strategy and how the total cost will be shared amongst them if the test results are favorable.
So let’s cool the 1st Selectman’s jets and wait one year for the results of the controlled scientific study that is under way.
Please join me at the Town Meeting that was announced yesterday and VOTE NO to this pointless $15K expenditure, since nobody knows [1] will it work on a man made lake that has water pumped into it by the successor company to CL&P since that has never been tried before?[2] if it does work, what will it cost to do the New Fairfield portion of the lake? and [3] will the weevils migrate to the shorelines of other towns, giving them a “freebie” on the backs of New Fairfield’s taxpayers?
QUOTABLE QUOTES
The great corrupter of public man is the ego....Looking at the mirror distracts one's attention from the problem. – Dean Acheson
Doug Thielen