• Starboard Choice Marine
  • Moore Boats


By Louie Stout

One of the biggest concerns shared by many anglers this time of year is the spraying of chemicals designed for killing aquatic vegetation on Michiana waters.

Yet, if you talk to waterfront residents, they would tell you those treatments are necessary to allow recreational use of the waters.

It’s a controversy that DNR managers battle every spring and early summer.

Who to contact to report weed treatment issues.

Lake associations employ professional contractors to come onto lakes to kill non-native plants they believe interfere with boating and other recreational activities.

Anglers see the vegetation as necessary fish habitat and the lifeblood of a good fishery. Fish biologists agree emphatically that vegetation leads to a healthy eco-system, but understand that shallow areas can become weed choked and inhibit boating activities if not kept in check.

Aquatic plants provide other benefits. They provide oxygen that in turn helps keep the water clear. Decaying plants rob the oxygen and diminish water clarity.

Both states prohibit the eradication of native plants. The most common weeds being treated are curly leaf pondweed and milfoil and a few other exotic plants.

Left untreated, those plants growing in shallows can mat on the surface and restrict boating.

However, many lakes have lost the bulk of their native plants and, in some cases, milfoil provides the primary habitat.

As one biologist noted, “some milfoil is better than no plants at all.”

A relatively new exotic plant, Starry Stonewort is creating more concerns. It actually is an algae that attaches to mud bottoms, grows so thick fish can’t swim in it and many of the most commonly used “safe” chemicals can’t eradicate it. Some biologists fear that obsessive eradication of other plants allows the Stonewort to spread.

The permit process

Both states require permits before chemicals are applied to state waters.

To gain permission, a lake group will contract with a professional applicator to assess a lake, identify non-native plant areas, prescribe the chemicals and potency needed to kill or reduce them, and apply to the respective state for approval.

Approved chemicals in specified amounts are said to cause no harm to fish.

When permits are submitted, DNR officials review them to insure they fall within guidelines, but rely heavily upon professional applicators’ judgement on what needs to be treated and where.

In the eyes of many anglers, some of the treatments are overdone and criticize state officials for allowing offshore areas for being “carpet bombed,” especially those areas where plant life is not a threat to boaters.

State officials say they don’t have the money or the manpower to follow up on each treatment, although they will occasionally visit a site beforehand to see if warrants extensive treatment.

Prior to the past year, Hoosier fish biologists handled all of the permits within their respective districts. That chore has been passed along to Joey Leach, aquatic vegetation permit biologist in Indianapolis.

Except in extreme cases, Indiana doesn’t allow more than 10 percent of lake’s acreage of warmwater lakes to be treated and 5 percent on the acreage on coldwater lakes.

Applicators are required to list the plants being targeted, chemicals to be used and areas being recommended for treatment.

“We examine various geographic information systems (GIS) to include satellite mapping, to identify shallow areas,” Leach said. “We look at fishery biological reports, and in some cases, consult with biologists to get their input. If the request is questionable, we will go to the lake and look it over before approving the permit.”

Michigan regulations are a bit more liberal, allowing residential shorelines to be treated out the five-foot depth contour. On some lakes, that can run hundreds of yards into the main lake basin.

“If they are targeting non-native plants then we do allow treatment to go beyond that but it has to selective for that particular plant species,” said Eric Bacon of Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality Aquatic Nuisance Control Program.

Michigan also requires applicators to avoid active spawning areas. Indiana has no regulation preventing the treatment of fish spawning beds.

Michigan also does desktop map analysis, reviews GIS imagery and factor in fisheries’ biological reports for each lake on which the permit is sought.

“If we determine the lake has poor or very limited vegetation we will be very selective in that permit or will implement certain conditions,” Bacon said.

“We are governed by state statue in what we can or cannot deny in a permit.”

Final thoughts

Bacon said his department has begun working closer with fisheries division to determine if changes in the decades-old statute are required or if tighter controls are necessary.

Anglers believe they are required. Some lakes in southwest Michigan have experienced rapidly diminishing vegetation where applicators have been seen “legally” treating massive areas.

Conversely, anglers need to understand that there are lakes in which excessive plants restrict a property owner’s use of his shoreline and some treatment is required.

There are definitely flaws in both states’ systems, not the least of which is a more concentrated oversight and follow-up after lakes have been treated. Given the hundreds of natural lakes in this region, state governments don’t have the funding to adequately oversee projects and applicators – and lake associations know it.

On the other hand, some weed treatments are necessary.

“There is a night and day difference in opinions between lake residents and fishermen,” said Leach. “Fishermen have a vested interest in habitat yet many lake property owners also understand the benefits of aquatic plants and only want those treated that are causing boating or recreational use issues.”