Report: Hydrilla dropped by 59 percent in 2007

The annual Lake Gaston Weed Control Council Meeting (LGWCC) may have started out a little unusual, but it ended up with everyone walking out knowing that hydrilla had lost out in 2007 in all areas of the lake.

To start things off Bridget Robinson Lassiter, a research assistant in the North Carolina State University Department of Crop Science, armed with charts and handouts, had nothing but praise for the Lake and many volunteers that provided their time and boats to chart hydrilla around the lake. 

Fourteen volunteers, mostly members of the Lake Gaston Association (LGA), supplied more than 97 man-hours of labor and collected data from 1,180 sampling points on the lake. In all they covered about 67 miles of the 321 mile shoreline. They were able to use hand held Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) computers to register the sampling points.  

At each sampling point the volunteers would rake the bed of the lake to collect plants, and measure the water depth and check for clarity of the water. They also noted the floating mats.

The final report showed that in the areas they sampled hydrilla was beaten back considerably. Many of the sampled areas showed no hydrilla at all.  This was especially true in the upper end of Pea Hill Creek and the lower ends of Poe Creek and Pretty Creek. In addition they did not find hydrilla on the western end of the lake, west of the railroad bridge in an area known as the flats.

Added to these reports was information that a very limited number of floating mats were found. According to Lassiter there were only a few mats found and none of them were larger than 100 feet by 20 feet. 

When Chris Cheek, president of Professional Lake Management (PLM) presented his report he noted that all the areas that Lassiter reported with no hydrilla were areas PLM treated this year.

Cheek went to report that there were 3,032 acres of hydrilla at the start of the 2007 season. The weed council paid for treating 1,564 acres and private citizens paid for treating 600 acres. The final survey of the lake completed in mid October revealed there is 1,438 acres of submerged vegetation, of those was 1,235 acres of hydrilla. This represents a 59 percent decline in hydrilla this season. 

The total cost of chemically treating last year came to $1,086,129.80.  In addition the council stocked 7,700 grass carp last year at a cost of about $39,000.

Hydrilla was cut back by approximately 1,797 acres. This leaves approximately 233 acres that were not treated directly with chemicals. There seems to be no way of knowing how much of this is from chemicals and how much from grass carp. 

The third report on the 2007 treatment came from ReMetrix, a lake survey company that utilizes hydroacoustics sampling and specific point sampling. Hydroacoustics is a way of interpreting and studying the signals from active sound in water (sonar) that is used to study fish.

“Pea Hill Creek is a real success story,” Cheek told the gathering. He felt this year’s treatment was better than last year’s. He also noted that the area known as the flats, by the railroad bridge at the west end of the lake, was more successful this year than anticipated.

When Brown asked Cheek what led to the successful year he said limited rainfall, early treatment, and Sonar placement. According to Cheek limited rainfall helped keep the chemical concentrated in the treatment area longer. Less rain means less water movement. 

Cheek feels that the early treatment allowed him to attack the plant before it grew too much. Sonar placement, done a specific way helps the treatment results and further the chemical according to Cheek.

“In my ten plus years I’ve been here this has been the best year for lack of [hydrilla] growth,” stated Skip Wiegersma of Skip’s Aquatic Solution, who was formerly with Aquatic Nuisance Plant Control Inc.

Although the meeting may have ended up with some of the best news in fighting hydrilla on the lake, it started off a little unusual.

With what appeared to be a full house, and after most people had completed their dinner, Dr. Elton Brown tried to get the weed council meeting started. Someone in the audience objected because it was still 6:40 and the announced time for the meeting to start was 7 p.m.  The objection surprised almost everyone because Dr. Brown was following a procedure that has been used for years. 

Before the meeting was over the council decided to have meetings start at 6:30 p.m. and the dinner start at 6 p.m., for those who want to eat.

Throughout the evening Dr. Brown allowed visiting non-board members to ask questions. Someone asked why they can’t put chemicals in areas to prevent the hydrilla from getting started. In the short answer, they were told that it is illegal to put chemicals in the water to treat weeds if you can’t see the weeds. 

Wally Sayko informed the council that the council’s Website update is almost complete. The site at www.lgwcc.org has more information on it than it had before. Included on the site is a link to Frequently Asked Questions. This is designed to answer many of the questions that come up year after year as more people move into the lake area. 

There was a discussion on the cost effectiveness of trying to treat the hydrilla mats that form on the lake.  It is felt that some of these mats have living hydrilla turions in them that can fall to the lake bed and start new plants. The question was turned over to the Lake Gaston Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for further discussion.

The nominating committee recommendation of keeping the same officers from 2007 for 2008 was approved and the council voted to approve the recommendation with Dr. Brown continuing as president.

After he agreed to stay on Dr. Brown told the council that having J. Rives Manning Jr. and Tom Winebrenner serve on the council has been a blessing. 

The question of bidding the 2008 treatment was brought up by Manning. He informed the council that they would be sending out new bid requests that would include the requirement of a performance bond by the winning bidder. 

Manning revealed that when he sent the bid request out this year he followed the format of the previous bid request. He said that a couple of the county attorneys noted the lack of a performance bond requirement in the bid request and felt that re-bidding the contract was necessary.   

The next question he addressed was a problem in North Carolina. Bow hunters in the state can shoot and remove two grass carp per day from the lake.  “LGWCC should go on record as opposed to being able to hunt grass carp on Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Lake,” Manning stated.

In his closing remarks Dr. Brown told the council that because last years treatment was so successful no grass carp would be added this year. He also stated it was the responsibility of the TAG to look into the grass carp and make any recommendations they feel necessary. 

“The worst that we can do is provide a bigger problem than we already have,” Dr. Brown said. He was referring to making sure the treatment of noxious weeds in the lake is a balanced approach. “We don’t know how much we would have to spend on a new problem,” he added. With last year’s treatment so successful it appears they may have reached that balance.