On June 20, 2024 a
Exhibit,Appendix
was filed
involving a dispute between
Delphine Knight Brown,
Elizabeth Hildebrandt,
Helena G Rice,
Jillian Maginnis,
Michael Maginnis,
Scott Engler,
The Lake George Association,
The Lake George Waterkeeper,
The Town Of Dresden,
The Town Of Hague,
and
The Adirondack Park Agency,
The Lake George Park Commission,
The New York State Department Of Environmental Conservation,
for Special Proceedings - CPLR Article 78
in the District Court of Warren County.
Preview
FILED: WARREN COUNTY CLERK 06/20/2024 03:52 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-72703
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/20/2024
February 20, 2024
Brian Primeau
Bureau of Pesticides Management
NYSDEC, Region 5
232 Golf Course Road
Warrensburg, NY 12885-0220
Re: Riparian Owner/User Objection to Proposed Aquatic Herbicide Treatment
(ProcellaCOR) in Blairs Bay and Sheep Meadow Bay, Lake George
Dear Mr. Primeau,
I am writing to you on behalf of myself and my family as an adjacent riparian owner/user
to formally object to the proposed treatment using the herbicide ProcellaCOR in our pristine
bay. Our property is located at 7131 Meadow Point Way, Huletts Landing, NY 12841, and we
received the Letter of Notification, dated January 30, 2024, from the Lake George Park
Commission.
I am also writing to you to formally request that the Department deny the requested
permit on the basis of this objection and the substantial harm that will be created in our bay and
to our use of our property as a result of this proposed aquatic herbicide treatment in our bay. If
you do not deny the requested permit, we respectfully request an adjudicatory hearing in
accordance with Department guidance and precedent.
Meadow Point is a 10 acre property that has 5 homes that use water pumped directly from
the lake using 2 water pumps. The fact that we use this pristine water is important for drinking,
watering gardens and lawn. We also rent these homes throughout the summer to tenants who
expect fresh water. If tenants hear that the water has been altered due to this process I fear that
they will be skeptical about renting these homes. This will adversely impact my ability to pay
taxes and other utilities.
We also have a dog friendly policy so most tenants enjoy bringing their pets to Meadow
Point and expect to have the lake water fresh for drinking.
The 2 water pumps are located where the herbicide will be added if this is allowed.
At this point in time we do not see any water use impairment from the Eurasian
watermilfoil. None of the tenants have complained about this.
Given all the information provided above, I would like to restate that I am not in favor of using
the ProcellaCOR in the Sheep Meadow Bay.
I urge you to halt this proposed use of the aquatic herbicide treatment process until the
impacted public, including my family, is given an opportunity to contest in an adjudicatory
hearing the many unresolved issues concerning the impact that this treatment will have on non-
target organisms, including endangered species and organisms that live in the lake bottom, and
FILED: WARREN COUNTY CLERK 06/20/2024 03:52 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-72703
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/20/2024
the impact this treatment will have on the overall quality of life on Lake George as we have
known it for years.
As riparian lake owners/users, we have substantial personal, heritage, and financial
investment in Lake George. There is a real risk that our near- and long-term use of the Lake
could be significantly and adversely affected by the State’s action. Examples of substantial
adverse effects include:
● As warned by the ProcellaCOR label, weed biotypes that are resistant to
this herbicide are likely to develop, thus necessitating a long-term addition
to chemical treatments;
● The ProcellaCOR registration and subsequent published literature
identifies impacts on native plants that could upset the delicate food web
and ecology of the Lake, including potential adverse impact on fisheries
and existing wetland classifications and levels of protection;
● The sheer potential for accidents when attempting to apply this chemical
in the Lake;
● As warned by the ProcellaCOR label, there are expected restrictions and
impacts on irrigation of gardens and livestock; and
● Irrevocable reputational damage to the pristine character of Lake George,
including potentially damaging impacts to property rental and sales values,
particularly in or adjacent to the treatment areas.
I have read the position paper from the Lake George Association and the Lake George
Waterkeeper and support all of the issues identified therein. I believe that there is no need to rush
to use chemical treatments in Lake George, that effective non-chemical treatment methods exist,
and that we should not experiment in Lake George.
At the most basic level, I believe the State has failed to demonstrate that the benefits of
the use of ProcellaCOR outweigh the known and unknown short- and long-term risks associated
with the introduction of a hormone-acting herbicide in Lake George. I believe this pesticide was
registered and intended for use in grossly infested water bodies where basic uses (e.g.
transportation, hydropower, boating, swimming) are fundamentally impaired or prevented due to
gross infestations of invasive plants. That is just not the case in Lake George.
As has been demonstrated through affidavits in the pending litigation and extensive
public comments before the APA relative to the previous applications that were nullified in
court, there are substantial questions concerning how quickly the herbicide will drift from the
target area. Therefore, impacts will occur to non-target species and organisms inside and outside
of the proposed treatment area. These concerns are supported by a preponderance of recent
literature published since the registration of this herbicide that identifies substantial problems in
real-world applications in larger lakes. Examples of these recent research findings include:
● Use of dyes with the pesticide by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in
other lakes shows great difficulty in achieving needed concentration-
exposure times because of dynamic and moving water in the lakes.
FILED: WARREN COUNTY CLERK 06/20/2024 03:52 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-72703
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/20/2024
● Inadequate pre- and post-monitoring to determine herbicide efficacy and
environmental impacts.
● DNA/genetic testing is needed to distinguish between Eurasian
watermilfoil and hybrid/native milfoils.
● Impacts on native aquatic vegetation is clearly demonstrated, and
ProcellaCOR is not as “selective” as represented.
● Substantiated evidence that “hormesis,” or unintended accelerated growth
of aquatic vegetation, will occur at diluted levels of the herbicide.
● Since the pesticide registrant (SePRO) chose not to apply for a U.S. EPA
experimental use permit, there is a lack of information on the use and
efficacy of the pesticide in actual lakes.
In addition, there are better and successful alternatives to the proposed chemical
treatment, including diver-assisted suction harvesting. It’s interesting to note that the APA’s
presentation to the APA Board in April 2022 showed that Blairs Bay was hand harvested
annually from 2007 through 2017, and no hand harvesting has been conducted since. In the case
of Sheep Meadow Bay, hand harvesting was stopped in 2014! We believe the State’s rationale
for chemical treatment would not exist had it simply continued the safer hand-harvesting
alternative in these two bays. The failure to continue hand harvesting in Blairs Bay and Sheep
Meadow Bay, along with the State’s mischaracterization of adverse impacts of Eurasian
watermilfoil in Lake George, is part of this manufactured “crisis.”
In accordance with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Policy
DSHM-PES-05-05 Aquatic Pesticide Permit Program, we understand that, as riparian
owners/users, our consent must be obtained, or the applicant must be able to certify that we will
not be adversely impacted by the proposed treatment. We do not believe that the applicant has
demonstrated the lack of adverse impact, and we most certainly do not consent.
Based on the issues identified in this letter and the position paper from the
LGA/Waterkeeper, we respectfully request that the permit applications be denied. As we stated
above, if the Department believes that the permit application should be processed, in accordance
with Policy DSHM-PES-05-05, this matter should be referred to an adjudicatory hearing relative
to the substantive and significant issues that have been identified in opposition to the use of
ProcellaCOR in Lake George and the impacts to the use and value of our property that cannot be
mitigated.
Respectfully,
Elizabeth Hildebrandt
205 Carmen Hill Road 2
New Milford, CT 06776
elizabeth.hildebrandt@gmail.com
(203) 770 9189
Preview
FILED: WARREN COUNTY CLERK 06/20/2024 03:52 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-72703 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/20/2024 February 20, 2024 Brian Primeau Bureau of Pesticides Management NYSDEC, Region 5 232 Golf Course Road Warrensburg, NY 12885-0220 Re: Riparian Owner/User Objection to Proposed Aquatic Herbicide Treatment (ProcellaCOR) in Blairs Bay and Sheep Meadow Bay, Lake George Dear Mr. Primeau, I am writing to you on behalf of myself and my family as an adjacent riparian owner/user to formally object to the proposed treatment using the herbicide ProcellaCOR in our pristine bay. Our property is located at 7131 Meadow Point Way, Huletts Landing, NY 12841, and we received the Letter of Notification, dated January 30, 2024, from the Lake George Park Commission. I am also writing to you to formally request that the Department deny the requested permit on the basis of this objection and the substantial harm that will be created in our bay and to our use of our property as a result of this proposed aquatic herbicide treatment in our bay. If you do not deny the requested permit, we respectfully request an adjudicatory hearing in accordance with Department guidance and precedent. Meadow Point is a 10 acre property that has 5 homes that use water pumped directly from the lake using 2 water pumps. The fact that we use this pristine water is important for drinking, watering gardens and lawn. We also rent these homes throughout the summer to tenants who expect fresh water. If tenants hear that the water has been altered due to this process I fear that they will be skeptical about renting these homes. This will adversely impact my ability to pay taxes and other utilities. We also have a dog friendly policy so most tenants enjoy bringing their pets to Meadow Point and expect to have the lake water fresh for drinking. The 2 water pumps are located where the herbicide will be added if this is allowed. At this point in time we do not see any water use impairment from the Eurasian watermilfoil. None of the tenants have complained about this. Given all the information provided above, I would like to restate that I am not in favor of using the ProcellaCOR in the Sheep Meadow Bay. I urge you to halt this proposed use of the aquatic herbicide treatment process until the impacted public, including my family, is given an opportunity to contest in an adjudicatory hearing the many unresolved issues concerning the impact that this treatment will have on non- target organisms, including endangered species and organisms that live in the lake bottom, and FILED: WARREN COUNTY CLERK 06/20/2024 03:52 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-72703 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/20/2024 the impact this treatment will have on the overall quality of life on Lake George as we have known it for years. As riparian lake owners/users, we have substantial personal, heritage, and financial investment in Lake George. There is a real risk that our near- and long-term use of the Lake could be significantly and adversely affected by the State’s action. Examples of substantial adverse effects include: ● As warned by the ProcellaCOR label, weed biotypes that are resistant to this herbicide are likely to develop, thus necessitating a long-term addition to chemical treatments; ● The ProcellaCOR registration and subsequent published literature identifies impacts on native plants that could upset the delicate food web and ecology of the Lake, including potential adverse impact on fisheries and existing wetland classifications and levels of protection; ● The sheer potential for accidents when attempting to apply this chemical in the Lake; ● As warned by the ProcellaCOR label, there are expected restrictions and impacts on irrigation of gardens and livestock; and ● Irrevocable reputational damage to the pristine character of Lake George, including potentially damaging impacts to property rental and sales values, particularly in or adjacent to the treatment areas. I have read the position paper from the Lake George Association and the Lake George Waterkeeper and support all of the issues identified therein. I believe that there is no need to rush to use chemical treatments in Lake George, that effective non-chemical treatment methods exist, and that we should not experiment in Lake George. At the most basic level, I believe the State has failed to demonstrate that the benefits of the use of ProcellaCOR outweigh the known and unknown short- and long-term risks associated with the introduction of a hormone-acting herbicide in Lake George. I believe this pesticide was registered and intended for use in grossly infested water bodies where basic uses (e.g. transportation, hydropower, boating, swimming) are fundamentally impaired or prevented due to gross infestations of invasive plants. That is just not the case in Lake George. As has been demonstrated through affidavits in the pending litigation and extensive public comments before the APA relative to the previous applications that were nullified in court, there are substantial questions concerning how quickly the herbicide will drift from the target area. Therefore, impacts will occur to non-target species and organisms inside and outside of the proposed treatment area. These concerns are supported by a preponderance of recent literature published since the registration of this herbicide that identifies substantial problems in real-world applications in larger lakes. Examples of these recent research findings include: ● Use of dyes with the pesticide by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in other lakes shows great difficulty in achieving needed concentration- exposure times because of dynamic and moving water in the lakes. FILED: WARREN COUNTY CLERK 06/20/2024 03:52 PM INDEX NO. EF2024-72703 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/20/2024 ● Inadequate pre- and post-monitoring to determine herbicide efficacy and environmental impacts. ● DNA/genetic testing is needed to distinguish between Eurasian watermilfoil and hybrid/native milfoils. ● Impacts on native aquatic vegetation is clearly demonstrated, and ProcellaCOR is not as “selective” as represented. ● Substantiated evidence that “hormesis,” or unintended accelerated growth of aquatic vegetation, will occur at diluted levels of the herbicide. ● Since the pesticide registrant (SePRO) chose not to apply for a U.S. EPA experimental use permit, there is a lack of information on the use and efficacy of the pesticide in actual lakes. In addition, there are better and successful alternatives to the proposed chemical treatment, including diver-assisted suction harvesting. It’s interesting to note that the APA’s presentation to the APA Board in April 2022 showed that Blairs Bay was hand harvested annually from 2007 through 2017, and no hand harvesting has been conducted since. In the case of Sheep Meadow Bay, hand harvesting was stopped in 2014! We believe the State’s rationale for chemical treatment would not exist had it simply continued the safer hand-harvesting alternative in these two bays. The failure to continue hand harvesting in Blairs Bay and Sheep Meadow Bay, along with the State’s mischaracterization of adverse impacts of Eurasian watermilfoil in Lake George, is part of this manufactured “crisis.” In accordance with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Policy DSHM-PES-05-05 Aquatic Pesticide Permit Program, we understand that, as riparian owners/users, our consent must be obtained, or the applicant must be able to certify that we will not be adversely impacted by the proposed treatment. We do not believe that the applicant has demonstrated the lack of adverse impact, and we most certainly do not consent. Based on the issues identified in this letter and the position paper from the LGA/Waterkeeper, we respectfully request that the permit applications be denied. As we stated above, if the Department believes that the permit application should be processed, in accordance with Policy DSHM-PES-05-05, this matter should be referred to an adjudicatory hearing relative to the substantive and significant issues that have been identified in opposition to the use of ProcellaCOR in Lake George and the impacts to the use and value of our property that cannot be mitigated. Respectfully, Elizabeth Hildebrandt 205 Carmen Hill Road 2 New Milford, CT 06776 elizabeth.hildebrandt@gmail.com (203) 770 9189