The removal of invasive weeds at Lake Quonnipaug has become a seasonal process for town officials and volunteers alike, but this year the process hit a bit of a snag. The Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (DEEP) denied the permit to use a specific herbicide to remove weeds in the south end of the lake, sparking new questions over ownership of the lake and long-term solutions regarding weed growth.

Weed growth has been a problem at the lake for a number of years. In 2016, DEEP announced Guilford received $20,000 for the remediation of aquatic invasive species at Lake Quonnipaug. The town removed invasive weeds in a 10-acre area in the north end of the lake and an eight-acre section in a shallow area in the middle of the lake. Officials used DEEP-approved herbicides to treat the weeds.

In the following years, the town removed weeds with benthic barriers—tarps secured to the bottom of the lake to smother the weeds—in the swimming area and with herbicides in other sections of the lake.

The problem this year involved trying to remove weeds in the southern most part of the lake, according to Friends of Lake Quonnipaug President Joan Stettbacher. She spoke at a recent Board of Selectmen (BOS) meeting and informed the board that the permit to use a different agent to remove the weeds in the southern part of the lake had been denied, and the weeds are now out of control.

“This last year we though everything was underway, the permits were granted or applied for,” she said.

Stettbacher said the group hired All Habitat to file and conduct the treatment, which she said it did in the spring, ahead of the prime treatment season of early summer.

“DEEP never got back to us that they had OK’d that we could do this, so finally we got a letter from DEEP on July 5…and they denied the right to be able to go ahead and do that,” she reported.

According to Stettbacher, the problem seems to be that DEEP believes there are two endangered or protected weeds in the southern area of the lake and will not approve the remediation of any weeds until a survey of the area is conducted. Stettbacher said a survey is a problem because the southern end of the lake is now so choked with weeds getting a survey team in would be difficult.

“The southern most part of the south end is in worse shape,” she said. “If someone fell in there right now it would be a disaster trying to get them out…The permit says the work can’t be done until the survey is done. The problem is the south end is totally impenetrable.”

Now, Stettbacher said she came before the BOS because she would like to see the roughly $17,000 designated for weed remediation put toward just trying to clear out the southern end of the lake rather than use any type of chemical agent.

“What we would like to do since it’s late in the season and if we re-apply for a permit to do the treatment of the lake, in another month and a half the weeds are going to be dying and falling to the floor of the lake,” she said. “What we would like to do is move along as quick as we can and use the money, which is why I am coming before you, to get a weed harvester in there and try to do some hydro-raking to open up that south end before it totally closes up.”

First Selectmen Matt Hoey asked why, after the permit had been denied, the friends group and the Parks & Recreation Department didn’t simply go back to using the weed-killing agent it had used in prior years. Parks & Recreation Director Rick Maynard said the product used in prior years was designed to help cut down the number of lily pads in the area and wouldn’t work on these weeds. He also said the potential presence of the endangered species makes most options impossible.

“Greg [Bugbee of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station] is really frustrated because he surveys this lake and he hasn’t found this weed for at least three years,” he said. “He just did the survey again on Aug. 10 and overall he said the lake is in pretty good shape, it’s just that southern end is so bad you just can’t even get in there and do anything.”

Considering the denial of the permit, Hoey said it might be time to re-think how the town cares for the lake in terms of which department is in charge and how the town thinks about funding annual remediation efforts.

Hoey said he thinks the Inland Wetlands Commission should be in charge of the lake and that the town needs to come to an understanding with the state as to who has final authority over the lake. The state has occasionally stepped in on permitting and issues like ice fishing, but not annual upkeep payments.

“There is also some unsettled business,” he said. “No one seems to know who owns the lake. This has been an ongoing battle between the state and the town for a number of years, so at some point we need to get some clarification. I think the state has basically said, ‘It’s not ours’ because they know these problems exist relative to maintaining it as a usable piece of property.”

In the meantime, Hoey said any recommendation regarding weed removal or a new permit application needs to come through the Parks & Recreation Commission and then the town can start thinking about long-term goals and solutions for the lake.