Hydrilla problem growing in Chesterfield’s Swift Creek Reservoir
ALEXA WELCH EDLUND/TIMES-DISPATCH
Hydrilla, seen in Swift Creek Reservoir, is difficult to control.
Published: October 3, 2009
|
Hydrilla has attacked Chesterfield County's Swift Creek Reservoir.
The aquatic nuisance weed has spread rapidly in recent months in the 1,700-acre reservoir, especially the northern portion near Brandermill, covering much of the surface with dense mats of green.
The good news? It won't affect the quality of the county's largest source of drinking water.
The bad news? It's nearly impossible to control.
"You can cut it up, and it'll just reproduce," said Deputy County Administrator Millard D. "Pete" Stith Jr.
Allaying fears to the contrary, Stith told county supervisors last week that the plant "will not impact the quality of the drinking water, the amount of the drinking water and our ability to treat the drinking water."
Indigenous to Asia and Africa, the plant is believed to have come to Virginia via Florida, where it was sold as an aquarium plant in the 1950s. Two decades later, it had spread throughout the state's freshwater bodies.
From there it traveled north, transported mainly by boats and trailers. Once rooted, it grows at about an inch per day in water ranging in depth from an inch to 20 feet. The stems can grow as long as 25 feet, with each one capable of producing 6,000 more, according to the University of Florida's Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants.
In Virginia, the weed has become a problem in many bodies of water, including the Potomac River in Northern Virginia, Lake Anna in Louisa and Spotsylvania counties, and Lake Gaston in southern Virginia and North Carolina.
"This is the first year it has been a nuisance here," said Thomas A Pakurar, chairman for Hands Across the Lake, a Swift Creek Reservoir environmental group. "It has mushroomed voluminously on the Brandermill side of the lake."
Gil Blake, who oversees the Brandermill Sailing Center and lives at Commodore Point, said he noticed the hydrilla for the first time about a month ago.
"I couldn't believe it," he said. "I thought, 'What in the world is all this stuff?' It looked like a rug -- just a mat of grass."
So far, he said, the main issue has been for boaters.
"Where I've seen it the heaviest are in the coves, although it is floating out in the lake," Blake said. "It has been a real hindrance to launching boats."
Some also worry about the future implications for marine life. As some of the weeds die in the winter, they act like algae, absorbing oxygen from the water and choking native vegetation, which deprives fish of oxygen.
"Of course, if it sucks oxygen out of the water when it dies, that hurts the fishing," Pakurar said.
There are various treatment methods for dealing with the unwanted guest.
At Lake Gaston, where hydrilla has infested about 4,000 acres of the lake in the last decade, chemicals and sterile grass carp have each been used with limited success, creating their own problems and costing localities and the state hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Chemicals have killed some of the lake's native vegetation along with the hydrilla, and the 50,000-plus carp added to the lake since the 1990s have eaten the beneficial weeds, too.
Chesterfield has commissioned the help of consultant Black & Veatch to assess the situation at a cost that has yet to be determined. "It could be detrimental to recreational use . . . if it gets out of hand, so we're taking a good look at it," Stith said.
Tom Hoekstra, a Woodlake resident and frequent boater, said he's seeing it now in the eastern and western tips of the reservoir, and estimates nearly 20 percent of the lake is infested.
"Woodlake and Brandermill and others are extremely concerned about it," he said. "The potential impact on property values and the look of the lake are real issues."
Contact Wesley P. Hester at (804) 649-6976 or
.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
crimediver that it one of the best and most accurate posts I have ever seen on this website. I have fished this reservoir for over 15 years. I accessed it from the little dirt and gravel ramp off Woolridge road. You are spot on when talking about the lack of opportunity for ALL county residents. As a matter of fact it is a shame that Chesterfield does not have a lake comparable to this for public use. For a person to fish something similar and not be run over by 60 mile an hour bass boats you have to travel west to Farmville or east to New Kent county. It is nice to see at least one other resident who agrees. I have contacted my supervisor over the years only to have my questions ignored each time. If the Brandermill and Woodlake residents want it to be “their” lake then THEY should be responsible for the upkeep of it. If the county spends money to eradicate this nuisance then the lake should be open to ALL Chesterfield residents as you said. I for one will be watching this closely because like many others I know how the bread gets buttered in this county.
oneuser… I told you before… don’t talk about something you have no clue about.
Hydrilla is also spread by water birds like geese, ducks or herons and it is impossible to keep out. We had a half acre pond that had no boats or human traffic, but it had regular avian visitors. One year, one of the birds brought in hydrilla and it spread like wildfire. Any pond or lake can have this problem.
It is probably caused by over development.
Hydrilla has ruined the James river as well. A couple months ago there was an article heralding the wonderful water grasses in the river. There is nothing wonderful about this pest. Sadly there is really nothing that can be done about it. All waterways are or will be choked out by it. It’s a huge problem for the water treatment filtration systems too.
I find it funny that the land owners/boat owners are complaining about the weed when it is their fault for the weed being there. It can only get into the lake by being transported. Which is to say by being attached to a trailer or a boat from another infested area. So one of these owners had their boat in water with the weed, picked it up in their prop or trailer and then dumped into the lake when they launched their boat again. Congrats…you just screwed yourself.
I’m just surprised no one with Hands Across the Lake or the county is blaming developers for this. They blame developers for everything else. I’m sure they’ll get around to blaming developers eventually, just as stupidly as liberals get around to blaming Bush for everything eventually.
Not too many years ago residents of the community surrounding the resevoir went to the County Board of Supervisors to get an ordinance passed to ban hunting on the lake. There was an opinion made by the county attorney that the poperty owners own the resevoir bottom and that the county just has an easement to run the water in the impoundment over the property. The property owners pay taxes on the land underneath the water.
I attending the hearings where there were diagrams of the resevoir showing the plats of land owned by various corporations and owners. The consensus of the Board of Supervisors and county attorney was that the landowners could post their “piece of the pie” and prohibit hunters from hunting waterfowl unless they had permission from the landowner who owned the property beneath the lake where the hunter was located. The county attorney wrote a letter stating that the landowners retained rights to the land, including “recreational right” to the property and as such, could post these lands.
Using this logic it was common to see certain sections of the resevoir by landowners with a posted sign jutting out of the water on a stick stating “ Posted- No Hunting and Fishing”.
What struck me as ironic was that the residents of this area were pushing to claim the right to keep others off their piece of the pie for hunting, while the same reasoning would also keep these landowners from fishing, hunting or boating other sections of the lake unless they had landowner’s permission. If each landowner posted their property none of them could enter another section of the resevoir could without written permission of that particular landowner.
The article seems to indicate the county is considering how to pay for some treatment of the hydrilla problem. Since the article mentions there is no threat to the water quality as a result of hydrilla being present, why worry about it?
The resevoir was created to provide drinking water for the county residents. It was not created to provide hunting, fishing, or boating for county residents. According to the county, the only ones who can apparently use this resevoir for recreation are the select few of the residents who own land underneath the water. There is NO public access to this impoundment and the sentiment is that nobody can fish or hunt on this body of water without landowners permission.
If I am a Chesterfield Co. resident and wanted to go fishing or hunting at the resevoir and do it like the county attorney and the Board of Supervisors tell me to do it I have to find a person or corporation who owns a section of bottomland underneath the resevoir, get permission from them, or get written permission from them if the piece is posted and then fish or hunt only theat section. I must gain access to that section without crossing over someone elses property I may not have access to.
The county should not spend one dime of taxpayers money to open up the waters for boating or other recreation other than drinking water purposes.
If it does then ALL the residents of the county should be allowed access to hunt, fish and boat these waters and a public ramp installed with parking facilities for boat trailers.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement