State of the Lake

STATE OF THE LAKE AND ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS REPORT - 2008 ABOUT THE LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM The Lake Champlain Basin Program (LCBP) was created by the Lake Champlain Richelieu River Sutton Special Designation Act of 1990. Our mission is to coordinate the implementation QUÉBEC Philipsburg of the Lake Champlain management plan, Opportunities for Action. Program partners Richford include New York, Vermont, and Québec, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and other federal agencies, the New England Interstate Water Pollution Chazy Control Commission, and local government leaders, businesses, and citizen groups. St. Albans

The Lake Champlain Steering Committee leads the LCBP. Its members include many Plattsburgh of the program partners, and the chairpersons of technical, cultural heritage and recreation, education, and citizen advisory committees. The LCBP’s primary annual funding is received through a USEPA appropriation under the Federal Clean Water MountainsStowe Burlington Act. Visit www.lcbp.org to learn more. Adirondack Lake Mountains Champlain Lake Placid Montpelier Elizabethtown

Green

Port Henry Middlebury

Ticonderoga

Lake George Rutland

Whitehall

Champlain Canal

COVER: The Missisquoi River delta in spring 2008. NEW YORK VERMONT

CREDITS: BACKGROUND, LCBP. INSETS LEFT TO RIGHT: LCBP, LAKE CHAMPLAIN MARITIME MUSEUM, RUBENSTEIN ECOSYSTEM FIGURE 1 | THE LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN OR WATERSHED SCIENCE LAB, FRIENDS OF THE WINOOSKI, USFWS AND NYSDEC. INTRODUCTION What is the State of the Lake report? 2 The Lake Champlain management plan 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Collaboration around the Basin 3 PHOSPHORUS AND ALGAE Are phosphorus levels too high in the Lake? 4 What contributes phosphorus to the Lake and its tributaries? 7 What is being done to reduce phosphorus from all sources? 9 Don’t “P” on your lawn 9 Incentives to reduce pollution from agricultural sources 10 Climate change & the state of the Lake 11 Wetlands and rivers 11

HUMAN HEALTH AND TOXINS Is it safe to swim in Lake Champlain? 12 What causes pathogen and cyanobacteria problems? 14 What’s being done to reduce beach closures and alert the public? 15 Can I eat the ﬁ sh from Lake Champlain? 18 2008 What are the sources of mercury? 19 ECOSYSTEM What is being done to reduce mercury pollution? 20 INDICATORS Are there other toxins of concern? 21 SCORECARD BIODIVERSITY & AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES PAGES 16-17 Lake Champlain biodiversity 21 What do we know about the Lake’s lower food web of plankton? 22 How are alewives and other invasive ﬁ sh changing the food web? 23 What is being done to understand the changes to the food web? 23

What is known about the health of the Lake’s sport fi sh? 24 How are sea lamprey harming the Lake’s sport fi sh? 25 What is being done to support fi sheries and control sea lamprey? 26 Cormorants and water birds 26

How many aquatic invasive species live in the Lake? 27 Which aquatic invasive species threaten the Lake? 28 What are we doing to prevent and manage new invasions? 29 You can help the Lake! 29

Is water chestnut still a problem? 30 What is being done to manage it? 30 LOCAL CONNECTIONS Cultural heritage, recreation and the state of the Lake 31 Education programs and local involvement 32

2008 STATE OF THE LAKE & ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS 1 LCBP management through Congressional authorizations, major federal appro- Introduction priations and guidance. It also is an important update for Governor David Paterson of New York, Governor Jim WHAT IS THE STATE OF THE Douglas of Vermont, and Jean Charest, Premier of Québec, Canada, who have LAKE REPORT? made vital commitments to implement Opportunities for Action (OFA). The he Lake Champlain Basin State of the Lake and Ecosystem Indica- Program (LCBP) periodi- tors report provides an account of the cally produces a State of the Lake stewardship challenges and the efforts T of all partners to date for the Regional report about the water quality, fi sheries, wetlands, wildlife, recreation, and Administrators of the US Environmen- cultural resources of the Lake Champ- tal Protection Agency and the other lain Basin. The primary purpose of this federal partners that have endorsed the report is to inform residents about the implementation of OFA, and provided Lake’s health and provide them with a support for the program. THE ADIRONDACK MOUNTAINS from the Northeast Arm of Lake Champlain. better understanding of both the prob- Through the seventeen year his- lems and solutions, as well as the serious tory of the LCBP, a large network of challenges that lie ahead. public leaders has worked together in a collaborative, nonpartisan tradition to organizations around the world. In this confront cross-boundary and regional framework, the central focus is the condition of the ecosystem or its “State.” To LCBP lake problems in this large watershed. Planning and implementation efforts understand why this condition exists, have involved nonprofi t organizations, we also track human activities that can scientists, business organizations, and exert “Pressures,” which can result in the public. complex, long-term and cumulative This 2008 State of the Lake report impacts on the ecosystem. These pres- has been expanded to include ecosystem sures result in changes in the “State” of indicators and a scorecard. An indica- the ecosystem and its natural resources. tor provides information about the Changes in the state of the environment condition of the ecosystem with a set of often elicit a management “Response,” measures that represent or “indicate” its such as new environmental policies overall state. Ecosystem indicators have or management actions. With proper been used in the Chesapeake Bay, the management, pressures can be reduced Great Lakes and many other watersheds. to bring about a more desirable state The indicators in this report were cho- of the Lake. The status of the “State” indicators also provides the basis for the CROWN POINT’S historic bridge across Lake This report also is prepared for our sen with the guidance of dozens of sci- Champlain links New York and Vermont. entists and state, provincial and federal scorecard on page sixteen. US Senators, Patrick Leahy and Bernie Since both citizens and managers Sanders (VT); Charles Schumer and technical experts. Please refer to the last page for the listing of the key partners. are concerned most with the “State of Hillary Clinton (NY) and US Repre- the Lake,” in this report, the State is sentatives, John McHugh, and Kirsten The LCBP has adopted the Pres- sure-State-Response or PSR indicators discussed fi rst, related Pressures are then Gillibrand (NY) and Peter Welch (VT) addressed, followed by relevant manage- who have supported Lake Champlain framework for its indicators (fi gure 2). This approach has been used by many ment Responses.

2 LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM COLLABORATION LCBP

Phosphorus AROUND THE BASIN Human activities runoff PHOTOS: LCBP & USGS PHOTOS: exert PRESSURES ountless partners, from large on Lake Champlain federal agencies to volunteer The STATE of the Cand nonproﬁ t watershed groups, Lake Champlain are working hard to do their part to ecosystem is reduce phosphorus and other forms of impacted. pollution. Because the Lake crosses state and international borders, the LCBP was designated as the coordinating body THE LCBP works with many partners, including citizen groups Management to facilitate strategic planning across and agricultural agencies to implement the annual farm award. RESPONSES seek those boundaries. The comprehensive Algae bloom Stormwater to reduce negative management plan, Opportunities for quoi and local farm clubs to implement retention impact on the Lake Action (OFA), provides a common road its agreement with Vermont and the map for Vermont, New York and Qué- actions in the 2003-2009 Missisquoi Bay bec to clean up Lake Champlain and to Action Plan. FIGURE 2 | THE PRESSURE-STATE-RESPONSE MODEL, USING URBAN encourage a healthy regional economy. In addition, the LCBP collaborates RUNOFF AS AN EXAMPLE Each jurisdiction has developed its own through a Memorandum of Under- implementation approach to protect and standing with nine US federal agencies restore the Lake. committed to Lake Champlain’s cleanup Vermont established the Clean and through the implementation of OFA. Clear program in 2003 and subsequently THE LAKE CHAMPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN The US Environmental Protection developed the Center for Clean and Agency (USEPA), Natural Resource Opportunities for Action (2003) is a manage- Clear which features a strong partner- Conservation Service (NRCS), US ment plan endorsed by the governments ship between the Agency of Natural Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), of New York, Vermont and Québec and by Resources (VTANR) and the Agency of US Geological Survey (USGS), and Agriculture. The Center’s initiative is to the US Environmental Protection Agency National Oceanic and Atmospheric reduce phosphorus loads in the Vermont to implement a vision for a clean lake and Administration (NOAA) all work to sector of the Basin, as a means of imple- a strong economy. The plan, developed implement the phosphorus pollution menting the bi-state Lake Champlain actions in OFA. Similarly, Lake Cham- by the Lake Champlain Basin Program Phosphorus TMDL. In New York, the plain Sea Grant, US Fish and Wildlife (LCBP) partners after years of public Department of Environmental Con- Service (USFWS), National Park input, envisions a Lake Champlain that servation (NYSDEC) works with the Service and the US Forest Service bring supports multiple uses—including a healthy ecosystem and drinking water supply, Department of Agriculture and Markets unique research, stewardship and imple- wildlife habitat, recreation, and commerce. These diverse uses must be balanced and the State Soil and Water Conser- mentation skills to the partnership. to minimize stresses on any part of the Lake system. The LCBP recognizes that vation Districts to reduce phosphorus Public meetings and the Citizen Ad- maintaining a vital economy which values the preservation of the agricultural loads, and brings funds from the New visory Committees (CACs) from each sector is an integral part of the balanced management of the Lake Champlain York Environmental Bond Act to bear jurisdiction provide public input into Basin. Implementing a comprehensive management plan will ensure that the Lake on infrastructure improvements. The LCBP programs. Québec Ministry of Sustainable Devel- and its Basin will be protected, restored and maintained so that future genera- opment, Environment and Parks (QC tions will enjoy its full beneﬁ ts. The plan can be read online at www.lcbp.org. MDDEP) works with other agencies, the Corporation Bassin Versant Baie Missis-

2008 STATE OF THE LAKE & ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS 3 MISSISQUOI BAY // STATE INDICATORS // µg/l = micrograms/liter Target = 25 (µg/l) 60 ISLE LA MOTTE*

Phosphorus & Algae 20 Target = 14 (µg/l) QUÉBEC 40 15 20 10

0 ARE PHOSPHORUS LEVELS TOO 5 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 0 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 60 ST. ALBANS BAY HIGH IN THE LAKE? *average of two stations Target = 17 (µg/l) 40 CUMBERLAND BAY 20 Target = 14 (µg/l) 20 15 0 Yes, phosphorus levels are still 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 10 too high in most parts of Lake NORTHEAST ARM 5 µ 20 Target = 14 ( g/l) Champlain. Missisquoi Bay, 0 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 15

South Lake and the Northeast 10 20 MAIN LAKE Target = 10 (µg/l) 5 Arm continue to exceed the 15 0 established targets. However, the 10 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 20 5 MALLETTS BAY Main Lake and Malletts Bay are at 15 Target = 10 (µg/l) 0 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 or near targets. 10 PORT HENRY 5 20 Target = 14 (µg/l) 0 he target phosphorus levels in 15 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06

Lake Champlain are speciﬁ ed in 10 LCBP PHOTOS LCBP 20 BURLINGTON BAY µ water quality standards agreed 5 Target = 14 ( g/l) T 15 0 to by New York, Vermont and Québec 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 10 and incorporated in a Total Maximum 5 SOUTH LAKE A 60 µ 0 Daily Load (TMDL) plan. The plan was Target = 25 ( g/l) 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 40 developed by Vermont and New York 20 SHELBURNE BAY* Target = 14 (µg/l) in 2002 to meet the requirements of 20 15

the USEPA and the Clean Water Act. 0 10 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 Phosphorus is an essential nutrient that, 5 SOUTH LAKE B when in excess, negatively impacts wa- Target = 54 (µg/l) 0 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 ter quality by promoting too much plant 60 *not monitored from 92-00 20 OTTER CREEK* and algae growth. When this occurs, 40 Target = 14 (µg/l) 15 other aquatic organisms are impacted by 20 10 the reduced sunlight and the lower oxy- 0 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 5 NY VT gen levels that develop as the organic 0 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 material decomposes. Dense plant mats *not monitored from 92-00 and algae blooms also interfere with the EXCESSIVE PHOSPHORUS promotes the growth recreational use and enjoyment of the STATUS TREND of algae and aquatic plants in the Lake. Lake (see sidebar). Improving: phosphorus GOOD Met target at least 4 times in the past 5 years The LCBP has funded long-term is decreasing monitoring of phosphorus and other No trend: neither improving FAIR Met target 1-3 times in the past 5 years water quality indicators since 1992. nor deteriorating Deteriorating: phosphorus POOR Never met target in the past 5 years FIGURE 3 | PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS IN LAKE is increasing

CHAMPLAIN, STATUS AND TRENDS NOTE: The trend data is based on a long-term statistical analysis of the years 1990-2007. DATA SOURCE: LCBP/Vermont ANR Lake Champlain Long-Term Monitoring Program. 4 LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM Monitoring data identify phosphorus Phosphorus from the surrounding FIGURE 4 | PHOSPHORUS LOADS TO LAKE FROM NONPOINT SOURCES levels and trends in the Lake over time. landscape is carried to the Lake primar- AND WASTEWATER PLANTS (WWTPs) IN METRIC TONS/YEAR In Figure 3, segments that have failed ily by rivers and smaller tributaries. NONPOINT WWTPs TOTAL Reduction to meet targets in the last fi ve years Figure 4 shows the phosphorus load to LAKE SEGMENT are shown in red, segments that almost each of the lake segments in 2007 from WATERSHED Load Target Load Target Load Target Needed* always meet targets are blue, and those wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) Main Lake (VT) 138.9 51.3 9.5 25.3 148.4 76.6 71.8 in yellow sometimes meet targets but and the average phosphorus load Main Lake (NY) 66.7 29.5 2.8 4.2 69.5 33.7 35.8 Otter Creek (VT) 123.3 44.1 3.8 12.0 127.1 56.1 71.0 are not consistent. Long-term trends between 2000 and 2006 from nonpoint Isle La Motte (NY) 32.7 18.9 2.2 3.4 34.9 22.3 12.6 show how phosphorus concentrations sources (based on monitored tributary Isle La Motte (VT) 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 have changed since monitoring began in data). WWTP loads have steadily de- Shelburne Bay (VT) 9.5 10.0 0.6 2.0 10.0 12.0 0 1991. Those segments that are deterio- creased since 1990. Although some fa- Burlington Bay (VT) 1.4 2.8 4.4 5.8 rating over time because of increasing cilities are not yet meeting individual al- Port Henry (VT) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 phosphorus levels are shown with a location goals, almost all lake segments Port Henry (NY) 2.5 1.7 0.9 3.4 minus sign. Most segments have no sta- meet TMDL targets for discharges. One Cumberland Bay (NY) 19.9 8.1 14.8 17.1 34.7 25.2 9.5 tistically signifi cant trend, as shown by exception, the Port Henry (NY) water- MAIN LAKE TOTALS 391.0 166.0 38.1 69.5 424.6 235.5 189.1 the tilde and no segments are improv- shed, is expected to meet targets soon, ing. While long-term trends are impor- since a new treatment plant was built MISSISQUOI BAY TOTALS* 198.7 93.0 2.6 4.2 202.3 97.2 105.1 tant because they smooth out the effects in 2007. Trends for WWTP loads are South Lake B (NY/VT) 91.1 41.2 1.9 3.5 93.0 44.7 48.3 of short-term variations, data over the improving (shown by a plus sign) both South Lake A (NY) 3.3 5.6 7.9 11.2 past few years suggests recent short-term lake-wide (fi gure 8, page 9) and in each South Lake A (VT) 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.6 improvements in phosphorus concentra- of the fi ve major lake segments. Non- SOUTH LAKE TOTALS 91.1 44.9 7.6 11.6 93.0 56.5 36.5 tions in a few segments and increasing point source loads signifi cantly exceed concentrations in others. targets in at least four of the fi ve major MALLETTS BAY TOTALS 54.8 25.4 2.0 3.2 56.8 28.6 28.2

Northeast Arm (VT) 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 St. Albans Bay (VT) 5.2 0.9 2.8 8.0 NORTHEAST ARM TOTALS 6.4 0.9 2.8 9.2 THE LINK BETWEEN PHOSPHORUS AND VTDEC BLUE-GREEN ALGAE NONPOINT STATUS WWTPs STATUS

Blue-green algae or cyanobacteria are part of the phyto- GOOD Average load met TMDL target GOOD Load met TMDL target plankton community in Lake Champlain (the microscopic FAIR Average load exceeded target by FAIR Load exceeded target by less plant portion of the food web). While cyanobacteria obtain less than 25% than 10% energy through photosynthesis like green plants, it is other- POOR Average load exceeded TMDL target by POOR Load exceeded TMDL target by wise a very primitive organism that has existed for billions greater than 25% greater than 10% CYANOBACTERIA of years. Despite the fact that they occur worldwide, the fac- Data not available (No tributaries monitored in segment tors that drive nuisance cyanobacteria blooms are not fully understood. Weather during 2000-2006, or less than 75% of area monitored.) patterns (including wind and cloud cover), water temperature, and changes to NOTES: Nonpoint loads are averaged over water years 2000-2006; wastewater loads are for calendar year 2007. Nonpoint load estimates include the food web from invasive species may all play a part. However, an important extrapolations for unmonitored portions of lake segment watersheds. South Lake B (VT/NY) and Missisquoi Bay (VT/QC) segments were combined because of shared tributaries. The Missisquoi Bay WWTP load and target are for VT only. The reduction needed is an approximation. component in fueling blooms is nutrients. Both phosphorus and nitrogen, and DATA SOURCE: Longterm monitoring program (LCBP, VTANR, NYSDEC). possibly the ratio between the two, appear to create favorable conditions for blooms. More research is needed to clarify the role of both nitrogen and phosphorus in cyanobacteria blooms. Managing sources of phosphorus and other nutrients in the Basin will help to reduce the frequency of cyanobacteria blooms. See pages 12-15 for information about human health concerns and cyanobacteria.

2008 STATE OF THE LAKE & ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS 5 lake segments. No data is available for rus load. Three tributaries are improv- targets, it is important to note that the Northeast Arm because no tribu- ing: the Winooski River, LaPlatte River in-Lake concentrations (ﬁ gure 3) have

Phosphorus & Algae taries are currently monitored in that and Otter Creek, and two are deteriorat- not increased by the same proportion. watershed. Funding for a new stream ing: Lewis Creek and Putnam Creek. This is partially due to the fact that dur- gauge for a St. Albans Bay tributary was This refl ects the combined effects of ing high fl ow years the Lake volume is recently provided by the LCBP, so data nonpoint and WWTP loads to tributar- expanded, providing increased capacity will be available in the future. ies. Data was not available for the same to assimilate more phosphorus load. Nonpoint source loads are directly time period in Québec, but the fl ow-ad- associated with greater amounts of justed phosphorus contribution from the precipitation and runoff during the last Pike River was decreasing as of 2004. several years (fi gure 5). This is an impor- Other factors that contribute to tant factor when considering phospho- higher nonpoint source loads include rus loading trends. If natural variations the conversion of agricultural and for- in stream fl ow caused by precipitation est land to developed land, inadequate are considered in a long-term statisti- implementation of Best Management cal analysis (1990-2006), twelve of the Practices (BMPs) on farms and in urban eighteen monitored tributaries have no areas, and stream erosion (see Wet- signifi cant trend (neither improving nor lands and Rivers, page 11). Although deteriorating) in fl ow-adjusted phospho- nonpoint loads greatly exceed TMDL

FIGURE 5 | TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD TO LAKE SPRING FLOODING where sediment-laden Dead Creek joins Otter Creek in April 2008. CHAMPLAIN COMPARED TO RIVER FLOW

1,400 12,000

1,200 10,000

1,000 /yr) 3 m 8,000 6 800

600 6,000

400 (10 RIVER FLOW

PHOSPHORUS LOAD (MT/YR) LOAD PHOSPHORUS 4,000 200

0 2,000 1991 1993- 1995- 1997- 1999- 2001- 2003- 2005- 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Wastewater Load Gaged River Inflows Nonpoint Source Load TMDL Target Level

DATA SOURCE: LCBP/Vermont ANR Lake Champlain Long-Term Monitoring Program. LCBP 6 LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM FIGURE 6 | ESTIMATED NONPOINT SOURCE PHOSPHORUS LOADING // PRESSURE INDICATORS // BY LAND USE TYPE

WHAT CONTRIBUTES PHOSPHORUS TO THE LAKE AND ITS TRIBUTARIES?

QUÉBEC MISSISQUOI BAY (VT, QC) Point sources, mainly wastewater ISLE LA MOTTE (NY, VT) 24.1% of Total P Load 5.5% of Total P Load treatment plants, and nonpoint ST. ALBANS BAY source runoff from the landscape 1.3% of Total P Load NORTHEAST ARM contribute phosphorus to the 1.6% of Total P Load Lake. Runoff includes fertilizers, manure, sediments, and human MALLETTS BAY 9.1% of Total P Load and pet waste. CUMBERLAND BAY 5.0% of Total P Load oint sources, such as industrial discharges and sewage treatment MAIN LAKE (VT) 14.3% of Total P Load FRIENDS OF THE WINOOSKI THE OF FRIENDS plants have been dramatically MAIN LAKE (NY) P 7.2% of Total P Load reduced and now contribute less than 10% of the total phosphorus load to the

Lake. However, even though wastewater BURLINGTON BAY PORT HENRY 0.4% of Total P Load treatment permits restrict the amount 1.2% of Total P Load of phosphorus that can be discharged, SHELBURNE BAY OTTER CREEK (NY, VT) 1.9% of Total P Load a number of large plants are currently 14.8% of Total P Load discharging below their permitted capacity and loads may increase as new SOUTH LAKE A (NY, VT) development occurs. Runoff from non- 3.9% of Total P Load point sources contributes the remaining 90% of the total phosphorus load. This includes runoff from impervious surfaces SOUTH LAKE B (NY, VT) such as roads, rooftops and other devel- 9.7% of Total P Load opments, storm drains, fertilized lawns, eroding riverbanks, manure and other NEW YORK VERMONT VOLUNTEERS FROM THE FRIENDS OF THE farm agricultural runoff. WINOOSKI planting trees along the river to LAND USE TYPES reduce the ﬂ ow of phosphorus to the Lake. A 2007 study funded by the VTANR estimated phosphorus loads from three DEVELOPED AGRICULTURE FORESTED different types of land use in the Basin. All roads, cities, Crop and Areas covered On an acre for acre basis, developed suburbs, lawns livestock primarily with land contributes up to four times more and large-lot production. trees. buildings. phosphorus than agricultural land and

seven times more than forests. As popu- NOTE: The land use data is from 2001 satellite imagery— the most recent comprehensive and complete data for this region. DATA SOURCE: Updating the Lake Champlain Basin Land Use Data to Improve Prediction of Phosphorus Loading. LCBP Technical Report #54. lation increases and other land use types May 2007. Page 45, Table 2-11.

2008 STATE OF THE LAKE & ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS 7 LCBP are converted to development, phos- practices in urban, suburban and farm phorus loads will continue to rise unless settings can increase phosphorus runoff

Phosphorus & Algae effective management action is taken to to the Lake. As part of nutrient manage- mitigate the increased runoff. ment planning on farms, soil samples The study estimated that in 2001, should be taken on fi elds to determine developed land contributed about 46% the level of soil phosphorus, which has of the phosphorus runoff basin-wide to the potential make its way into the Lake Lake Champlain and agricultural lands when it rains. Soil tests also track the contributed about 38%. These propor- buildup of phosphorus over time. Figure tions, however, vary greatly among the 7 shows that while some farm fi elds have various sub-watersheds. For example, acceptable phosphorus levels (medium developed land is the largest contribu- in Vermont and medium or high in New tor to phosphorus in Burlington Bay York), approximately 5% in Vermont, (99%) and Cumberland Bay (69%), but 8% in New York, and 9% in Québec agricultural land contributes the major- are considered too high. Agricultural ity of the phosphorus load to Missisquoi management practices for water quality Bay (over 70%). Figure 6 shows the are aimed at reducing the percent of estimated loads by land use in each lake fi elds in some of the high and all of the segment. The relative size of the pie too high categories. chart is proportional to the overall load

entering the Lake. LCBP Some homeowners use fertilizer to promote healthy lawns. Farmers also apply manure and other fertilizers to ﬁ elds to promote crop growth. These

FIGURE 7 | PHOSPHORUS LEVELS IN AGRICULTURAL SOILS IN THE CHAMPLAIN BASIN

VERMONT NEW YORK QUÉBEC

TOO HIGH TOO HIGH TOO HIGH ROOFS, ROADS AND PARKING 5% 8% 9% LOTS speed up the ﬂ ow of rain, which washes pollutants into waterways and HIGH stormdrains. 10% HIGH LOW 23% LOW HIGH 10% 23% 37% LOW 25%

MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM 49% 30% 71%

NOTES: For VT, 2,873 samples were collected from the Otter Creek, Winooski, Champlain direct, Lamoille, and Missisquoi watersheds from 2003-07 and analyzed with the Modified Morgan test (phosphorus PPM). For NY, 2,614 samples were collected from Essex, Clinton and Washington Counties from 2002-06 (some land outside Basin) using Morgan extraction test (phosphorus lbs/acre). For QC, 2,863 samples were taken from Missisquoi Bay area municipalities (some land outside Basin) using a mean soil P test (Mehlich-3) for 1995-2001 (phosphorus kgs/ha).SOURCES: VT Agency of Agriculture, Cornell Nutrient Analysis Laboratory, Québec Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and IRDA.

8 LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM USGS slow thefl ow of rain andtrap pollutants. this oneonEnglesby Brook inSouthBurlington STORMWATER RETENTIONPONDS, suchas // RESPONSEINDICATORS // PHOSPHORUS WHAT ISBEING DONE TO FROM ALL SOURCES? FROM ALL citizens andlandowners. ofinformedefforts andcaring are andrely voluntary onthe are required by law, whileothers phosphorus runoff. SomeBMPs and agriculturallandstoreduce are usedonforested, developed Management PracticesorBMPs treatment plantupgrades, Best In addition towastewater S surfaces. Programsexist tohelpcommu- tion mitigate runofffrom impervious retention ponds andditchremedia- land, urbanBMPs suchasstormwater segments. lake major met TMDLrequirements ineachofthe As of2007,these sources(inaggregate) from WWTPsintheBasinsince 1990. Figure 8showsreductionsand trends in thepreliminaryengineering stages. three upgradesarecompleteand twoare ments tofi veaeratedlagoon plants; extended phosphorusremoval require- Vermont, theLakeChamplainTMDL Henry andLakePlacid,New York. In have beenmadeinWestport, Port River watershed.Since2005, upgrades three newtreatmentplantsinthePike Québec committedover$9millionfor For nonpointsources fromdeveloped improvements. Inearly2008, have beengainedfromWWTP ignifi cantphosphorusreductions REDUCE

of animalsandtheamountwaste These farmsaredeﬁ nedbythenumber tions” inVermont musthavepermits. all “MediumandLargeFarmOpera- tions” (CAFO)farmsinNewYork and “Concentrated AnimalFeedingOpera- ton, Vermont. utility intheBasinisSouthBurling- system. Currently, theonlystormwater improve astormwatermanagement revenue fromuserfeestomaintainand create astormwaterutility, whichuses approach tourbanwaterqualityis permits intheseareas.Arelativelynew construction sitesandtoupdateexpired are inplacetorequirepermitsfornew mont andseveninNewYork. Programs stormwater, includingtwelveinVer- have beenfederallylistedasimpairedby streams andbuffers.Severalwatersheds zoning regulations,suchassetbacksfrom address waterqualityprotectionthrough ties intheBasinhavetownplansthat land onwaterquality. Somemunicipali- nities reducetheimpactsofdeveloped PLANTS TRENDS, For agriculturalnonpointsources,all WASTEWATER PHOSPHORUS LOAD FROM TREATMENT FIGURE 8| 1990-2007

PHOSPHORUS LOAD (MT/YR) 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 0 '0 9 '4 9 '8 0 '2'04 '02 '00 '98 '96 '94 '92 '90 NOTES:The Qu Missisquoi Bay. DATA SOURCE: NYSDEC, VTDEC AND QCMDDEP. TREND (1990-2007) 2008 STATE OF THE LAKE &ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS Improving: phosphorusisdecreasing VERMONT (60 WWTPs é bec targetisanestimate basedonthe VT/QC agreement for in 2007) www.lawntolake.org. announcements.service Learnmore on featured the “Don’t P”sloganinitspublic also The Vermontof Agriculture Agency committed tosellingzero-P products. stations. More than30localstores have covered by newspapers andtelevision and garden shows; andthecampaign was distributed; displays were postedatlawn 5,500 brochures were ﬁ rst summer, more than lawn fertilizer. Inthe zero-phosphorus (P) lawn andswitch to residents totesttheir to encouragelocal several organizations began working with In 2007, theLCBP YOUR LAWN ON “P” DON’T NEW YORK (29 WWTPs in 2007) (12 WWTPs QUEBEC '6'08 '06 in 2007) 9 QC NY VT

TARGET TMDL TMDL LCBP they generate. For example, Vermont in the Pike River watershed in Québec INCENTIVES TO REDUCE POLLUTION FROM regulations apply to farm operations showed that BMPs such as cover crops, AGRICULTURAL SOURCES

Phosphorus & Algae with over 200 mature dairy cows. The runoff control structures, buffers and permits require farms to develop nutri- incorporating manure into soil on ﬁ elds Many Best Management Practices (BMPs) are aimed at reducing phosphorus ent management plans (NMPs) and results in a drop in phosphorus load pollution from farms. Because larger farms are regulated, some programs target prevent pollution discharge into water- from agricultural areas. small unregulated operations while others cover farms of all types and sizes. ways by installing BMPs such as manure Federal funds from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) help pits, milk house runoff treatment and share the cost of these programs and both states supply matching funds. New stream buffers. In Québec, virtually all York and Vermont also provide incentive grants to develop NMPs, manure stor- farms must have a nutrient manage- age pits and other structures, and additional pollution reduction practices. ment plan. Figure 9 shows the total farm acreage and the amount of acreage that In Québec, federal funds were awarded in 2008 to establish contiguous nine- is required to have NMPs for each lake meter agricultural buffers in the Pike River watershed and local agroenviron- segment watershed. In addition, many mental clubs provide nutrient management plans to farmers. The Champlain small farms voluntarily have NMPs in Watershed Improvement Coalition of New York (CWICNY) recently received place (see sidebar). Studies by IRDA over $1 million from the USEPA’s Targeted Watershed Grant program to com- bat nonpoint source pollution, some of which will be used for agricultural BMPs. In Vermont, the Farmers’ Watershed Alliance in the Missisquoi Bay area provides farmer-to-farmer education and technical assistance. The LCBP has funded a University of Vermont Extension project to work with farmers to write their FIGURE 9 | FARM ACREAGE REQUIRING NUTRIENT own water quality plans and also is funding a project to develop voluntary MANAGEMENT PLANS (NMPs) NMPs on small farms in the Missisquoi watershed with International Joint Com- 200,000 mission funds. 180,000 Farm acreage that requires NMPs1

160,000 LCBP Farm acreage that 140,000 does not require NMPs2 120,000

100,000 MANY FARM BMPs, such as this aerator that was purchased by the Farmers’ Watershed 80,000 Alliance and fencing cows away from streams, can reduce phosphorus runoff. 60,000 LCBP

ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AGRICULTURAL OF ACRES 40,000

20,000

Main Lake (VT) Main Lake (NY) South Lake (NY) Missisquoi (VT) South LakeMissisquoi (VT) (QC) Isle LaMotte (NY) Otter CreekMalletts (VT) Bay (VT) Northeast Arm (VT) Cumberland Bay (NY) NOTES: 1) In NY, NMPs are required on medium and large sized “CAFO” farms. In VT, NMPs are required on medium and large farm operations (MFOs and LFOs) as of March 2008. All farms in Québec are required to have NMPs. 2) Voluntary NMPs may be in place (see sidebar). DATA SOURCES: NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets, VT Agency of Agriculture and Québec Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

10 LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM LCBP

CLIMATE CHANGE & THE STATE OF THE LAKE Lake Champlain is affected by many factors from outside the Basin and often beyond local control. Global climate change is expected to have a signifi cant impact on Lake Champlain; however, the full range of potential effects is not well understood. Changes in precipitation patterns in the Northeastern US, with more and heavier rain in the late winter and spring, would increase nonpoint source runoff, carrying more WETLANDS AND RIVERS nutrients, toxins and sediment to the Lake. etlands and stable river- and identify funding sources to perma- banks not only provide nently protect these areas. In 2006, the Since the last century, the number Wimportant habitat for many VTANR developed a more detailed list of days of ice cover on Lake species, they also slow runoff, retain and of Vermont wetlands prioritized for res- Champlain has decreased signifi - fi lter sediments, and naturally absorb toration in the Lake Champlain Basin. cantly. Ice cover provides protec- phosphorus and other pollutants. Riv- The MDDEP and their partners tion for some species and also ers are dynamic systems that need to in Québec have protected over 2,200 helps to moderate Lake water be connected to their fl oodplains and acres on 15 sites in the Missisquoi Bay watershed since 2002. Local watershed temperature. Milder winters can adjacent wetlands in order to reduce and sportsmen groups are also important impact a wide variety of organ- pollution and provide critical habitat. Streambank erosion and sediment partners, developing working relation- isms. Some sensitive species may transport from channelized rivers, how- ships with wetland and streambank not be able to adapt to tempera- ever, can negatively impact water qual- landowners interested in reducing ture changes, while for others, ity by sending nutrient laden sediment erosion and improving wildlife habitat. thermal stress may increase downstream to Lake Champlain—a These groups also provide volunteers vulnerability to pests and disease. signifi cant source of phosphorus load- to complete streambank plantings M. KLONICK M. Climate change also threatens ing. Furthermore, poor land-use prac- and bank stabilization projects. The biodiversity by changing the distribution of plant and animal habitats and may al- tices such as deforestation and wetland Vermont River Management Program low some invasive species to expand their range, further altering the ecosystem. draining that occurred decades or even addresses the planning, protection centuries ago has increased sediments and restoration of riverbanks to ensure As global pressure mounts to fi nd renewable energy sources, the demand for stored in fl oodplains. Erosion and scour- natural fl oodplain processes that encour- corn for ethanol has increased. If corn crop production is maximized, water ing of stream banks delivers these “old” age river stability. The Vermont Rapid quality may suffer from the consequences of increased fi eld cultivation and sediments to the Lake. Research on Geomorphic Assessment protocol is a drainage, reduction of riparian buffers and increased fertilizer use. these soils is ongoing at the University national model that is being adopted by of Vermont. local watershed groups in Vermont and The Nature Conservancy continues New York. to partner with the LCBP, the states of Vermont and New York, the USFWS and others to identify valuable wetlands

2008 STATE OF THE LAKE & ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS 11 3 2 4 FIGURE 10 | DAYS OF PUBLIC BEACH CLOSURES 5 // STATE INDICATORS // DUE TO COLIFORM BACTERIA 1 Human Health & Toxins MISSISQUOI BAY 2006 2007 BACTERIA TESTING 1 Plage Miller S 0 no testing 6 2 Plage Champlain S 0 no testing IS IT SAFE TO SWIM IN 3 Plage Kirkland S 0 1-4 times/season bo 4 Plage Venise S 0 no testing LAKE CHAMPLAIN? 5 Plage Missisquoi S 0 no testing 7 8 NORTHEAST ARM 2006 2007 co bk 9 6 North Hero State Park 1 3 1 time/week The Lake’s water quality is usually safe for swimming and pathogens 7 St. Albans Town Beach S 3 1 time/week cqcp are often not high enough to warrant closing public beaches. bl 8 Kill Kare State Park 1 3 1 time/week 9 Burton Island State Park 0 0 1 time/week Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) blooms, however, periodically pose 10 Knight Point State Park 2 1 1 time/week a risk in some areas. People using unmonitored areas, especially bm 11 Grand Isle State Park 0 0 1 time/week near river mouths and stormwater discharges are advised to avoid 12 Sand Bar State Park 2 3 1 time/week cr swimming after rainstorms. bn MALLETTS BAY 2006 2007 13 Bayside Beach 0 7 2 times/week bpbq he most widespread human Although New York, Vermont and cs br MAIN LAKE 2006 2007 bs health risk for swimming Québec use different standards for clos- bt 14 Alburg Dunes State Park 0 2 2 times/week worldwide is pathogen contami- ing beaches, Figure 10 shows that in 15 Leddy Beach 0 0 2 times/week T nation. Pathogens are disease-causing 2007 there were relatively few public ct ck 16 North Beach 0 0 2 times/week 17 Blanchard Beach 0 2 times/week agents, such as bacteria, viruses and beach closures due to pathogens and all cl 18 Cove Beach 0 0 2 times/week parasites that can create gastrointestinal segments were scored either good or fair. illness when ingested. Public beaches on Surveys of Lake users determined that cm 19 Red Rocks Park Beach 2 1 2 times/week dk cn 20 Shelburne Town Beach 4 1 2 times/week Lake Champlain are tested for coliform more than seven days of closures on av- 21 Charlotte Town Beach 0 0 1 time/week bacteria because it is an indicator that erage is unacceptable, and this criterion dl 22 Kingsland Bay State Park NA 1 1 time/week human or animal waste is in the water. was used to determine the poor ranking. dm 23 Ferrisburgh Town Beach 0 0 no testing 24 Point Au Roche State Park 0 0 1 time/week 25 Cumberland Bay State Park 1 2 1 time/week 26 Plattsburgh Municipal Beach 1 1 2 times/month LCBP dn SOUTH LAKE 27 Ausable Point State Beach 0 0 1 time/season do (no public beaches) 28 Port Douglas Beach 0 0 1 time/month 29 Noblewood Park Beach 0 1 times/season 30 Essex Town Beach (not open) 31 Westport Beach (not open) LAKE SEGMENT 32 Ballard Park Beach 0 0 1 time/season STATUS FOR 2007 33 Port Henry Municipal Beach 0 0 1 time/season 34 Bulwagga Bay Beach 0 0 1 time/season Any beach in the GOOD segment is closed NOTES: Public beach closure data was collected for the summer season, June through Labor Day. S = In 2006, all Missisquoi Bay beaches were closed all season and St. Albans Town Beach was closed between 0-2 days twice due to blue-green algae (cyanobacteria). = Beach was not ofﬁ cially open or was closed for reasons other than bacteria and blue-green algae for the entire season. NA = No data available. FAIR Any beach in the segment is closed between 3-7 days LAKE SEGMENT TREND Any beach in the POOR segment is closed No trend data is available ALBURG DUNES 8 days or more STATE PARK

12 LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM QCMDDEP FIGURE 11 | WEEKS OF CYANOBACTERIA (BLUE-GREEN ALGAE) BLOOMS AT ALERT LEVELS

MISSISQUOI BAY NORTHEAST ARM

6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2005-07 average for alert 1 = 1.3 weeks 2005-07 average for alert 1 = 4.7 weeks 2005-07 average for alert 2 = 2.7 weeks 2005-07 average for alert 2 = 0 weeks

MAIN LAKE MALLETTS BAY

6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2005-07 average for alert 1 = 1.3 weeks 2005-07 average for alert 1 = 0.3 weeks A DENSE CYANOBACTERIA bloom on Missisquoi Bay. 2005-07 average for alert 2 = 0.3 weeks 2005-07 average for alert 2 = 0 weeks SOUTH LAKE ALERT LEVEL 1 6 Cyanobacteria bloom was apparent, but toxin The survey also determined that users symptoms. Blooms have occurred most 5 levels were low; caution was advised in areas were negatively impacted by three or 4 of dense scums. frequently in Missisquoi Bay, St. Albans 3 more days of closure, which determined Bay and several smaller northeastern 2 ALERT LEVEL 2 the split between good and fair rankings. bays. Most of the Lake, however, has 1 Cyanobacteria bloom was apparent and toxin 0 levels exceeded VT DOH recreational When beaches do close it is often after never had dense blooms or high levels 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 standard (6 ug/L for microcystin); recreational a heavy rain, when pollutants from the 2005-07 average for alert 1 = 0.7 weeks use was discouraged and some public of toxins. 2005-07 average for alert 2 = 0 weeks landscape wash into rivers and the Lake. Figure 11 shows the number of weeks beaches were closed. Therefore, it is suggested that swim- of algae blooms by lake segment from LAKE SEGMENT STATUS* mers avoid areas near river mouths and 2003-2007 for June through September. stormwater outfalls after rainstorms. Although cyanobacteria blooms forced GOOD The segment averaged less than one week at alert levels 1 or 2. Cyanobacteria, commonly known Québec beaches to close all season in as blue-green algae, are a normal part of 2006, closures or dense blooms did not FAIR The segment averaged more than one week at alert level 1 and less than one week at alert level 2. Lake Champlain biology. High densi- occur there in 2007 until September. ties of blue green algae, called blooms When ranked for the average number POOR The segment averaged more than one week at alert level 2. or scums have increased worldwide in of alerts for the past three years (2005- * Averages were calculated for 2005-07 for the months of June - September. recent years and nuisance blooms were 2007), however, Missisquoi Bay receives recognized as a problem in the Lake a poor status. All other segments are LAKE SEGMENT TREND in the late 1990s. When blue-green either fair or good. No trend data is available algae densities are high, the algae can produce toxins that cause gastrointesti- NOTE: Missisquoi Bay data is for locations in Vermont only. DATA SOURCE: UVM Rubenstein Ecosystem Science Laboratory cyanobacteria monitoring and evaluation nal problems, skin irritation, and other program and LCBP Technical Report #s 51,52,53,and 55.

2008 STATE OF THE LAKE & ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS 13 // PRESSURE INDICATORS // Human Health & Toxins

WHAT CAUSES PATHOGEN AND CYANOBACTERIA PROBLEMS? (4 sites)

Coliform bacteria can come QUE VT from both developed and Plattsburgh agricultural land, and are produced by both people and wildlife. Cyanobacteria blooms are infl uenced by many factors— especially excess nutrients. Burlington ombined sewer overfl ows, storm drains and failing septic Csystems contribute bacteria to waterways in both urban and rural areas. However, information on where and how often these problems occur throughout the Basin is diffi cult to acquire. Wildlife and pet waste are also sources of contamination. Livestock that have access to waterways, and manure spread on farm fi elds before a MONITORING LOCATIONS rainstorm, can send pathogens down- & PROGRAMS stream to the Lake as well. Volunteer Shoreline Levels of nutrients such as phospho- U. of Vermont On-Water rus and nitrogen are important causes Long-Term Monitoring Program

LCBP of cyanobacteria blooms. Sources are On-Water the same as those described earlier in STORMWATER RUNOFF CONTROLS along Québec On-Water Englesby Brook allowed Burlington to reopen the phosphorus chapter (see page 5). Blanchard Beach in 2007. Cyanobacteria blooms also are affected Québec Shoreline by competition from other organisms, FIGURE 12 | water temperature, wind, sunlight, and LOCATIONS MONITORED other factors that are difﬁ cult, if not im- FOR CYANOBACTERIA possible, to control. In fact strong winds (BLUE-GREEN ALGAE) IN 2007 can blow surface scums around on the surface of the Lake, making it difﬁ cult to predict where problems may occur for lake users, or to identify their origins. DATA SOURCE: U. of Vermont and Québec Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks.

14 LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM LCBP

// RESPONSE INDICATORS //

WHAT’S BEING DONE TO REDUCE BEACH CLOSURES AND ALERT THE PUBLIC?

State parks and municipal public beaches are monitored for pathogens and warnings are posted when needed. For cyanobacteria, an alert system was developed in 2001 in Québec QCMDDEP and 2002 in Vermont and New York to warn the public about the location of blooms and the presence of harmful toxins.

lthough public beaches are BAYSIDE BEACH in Colchester had more closures than usual due to pathogens in 2007, yet had zero monitored for potential patho- closures in 2006. Agens, individual towns have different protocols. Some monitor once in all areas around the Lake, homeown- and provincial agencies, the University a week, whereas others monitor more ers must have a properly functioning of Vermont and Lake Champlain Com- or less frequently (ﬁ gure 10, page 12). septic system, although problems are mittee volunteers. In all cases, the states and the province often discovered only when properties Only a few traces (well below health have set similar standards for closures are bought and sold. In Québec, most guidelines) of the cyanobacteria toxin based on risk to the public. municipalities in the Missisquoi Bay microcystin have been found in treated Several management practices can watershed survey landowners to assess drinking water. In reponse, the State be used to reduce pathogens enter- compliance with local regulations. of Vermont and the Lake Champlain ing the Lake. These include fencing Cyanobacteria have been monitored Coalition of Water Suppliers have livestock out of water bodies, proper in Lake Champlain since 2000 and a developed a process for testing and disposal of pet waste, repair of failing tiered alert system is implemented by managing algae toxins in the water septic systems, and stormwater manage- the University of Vermont and funded supply system in Vermont. Québec has ment in urban areas. in part by the LCBP. This information developed a protocol for drinking water CYANOBACTERIA have been monitored in Programs exist to share the cost of is used by the Vermont Department of as well. Camps and homes that draw Lake Champlain since 2000. some of these practices. For example, Health to warn the public about blooms untreated water directly from the Lake state, federal and provincial funding and toxins. The MDDEP in Québec also must be vigilant in watching for blooms exists for farmers to fence livestock tests for toxins regularly and its health to reduce their risk of illness. No one away from streams and provide alter- department issues advisories and closes should drink untreated Lake water. nate water sources for farm animals. beaches. As shown in ﬁ gure 12, 49 on- Some municipalities have ordinances water and shoreline sites were moni- to encourage picking up pet waste. And tored in 2007 by a combination of state

2008 STATE OF THE LAKE & ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS 15 MISSISQUOI NORTHEAST 2008 ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS BAY ARM

INDICATORS SCORECARD by LAKE SEGMENT STATUS TREND STATUS TREND

Phosphorus in Lake (p. 4) he 2008 Ecosystem Indicators Scorecard assesses the PHOSPHORUS Nonpoint source loading to Lake (p. 5-6) health of Lake Champlain by its fi ve major lake seg- & ALGAE Tments: Missisquoi Bay, Northeast Arm, Malletts Bay, Wastewater plant loading to Lake (p. 5&9) Main Lake, and South Lake. These segments have been used by * NPS trends were only * There are no monitored scientists since the 1970s to describe the major regions of the available for the Missisquoi tributaries in the NE Arm. Lake. All segments have different physical characteristics and River, which showed no trend. See page 6 for Pike land uses in their surrounding watersheds that infl uence the River information. health of the segment. Beach closures from bacteria (p. 12) For this report, the status of nine ecosystem indicators are HUMAN scored as either good, fair, or poor for each major lake segment. HEALTH Blue-green algae blooms (p. 13) Two issues, sea lamprey wounds and aquatic nuisance species & TOXINS Fish advisories for toxins (p. 18) arrivals, are scored for the entire Lake, since data was not available by segment. To learn more about each indicator and the criteria used to determine the scores, please refer to the page numbers noted after each issue. In fi ve issue areas, trends are also presented. As new data is complied over time, future editions of the scorecard will include BIODIVERSITY Sea lamprey wounds+ (p. 25) & AQUATIC trends for additional indicators. Aquatic nuisance species arrivals+ (p. 27) As more indicators are developed and as data is collected by INVASIVE the many agencies working on Lake Champlain and evaluated SPECIES Water chestnut infestations (p. 30) by the LCBP, they will be included in future editions. A long- term goal for the scorecard is to track and score pressures to the Lake’s ecosystem and management responses. For more information about the science behind developing indicators please refer to LCBP Technical Report #46, Ecosystem Indicators and + These indicators are lake-wide, therefore, scores are the same an Environmental Scorecard for the Lake Champlain Basin Program across all lake segments. (available on www.lcbp.org).

STATUS TREND

GOOD IMPROVING & LCBP PHOTOS NYSDEC

NO TREND (neither improving FAIR nor deteriorating)

POOR DETERIORATING MISSISQUOI BAY is shallow, with a maximum THE NORTHEAST ARM or “Inland Sea” has depth of about 15 ft (5m), and warm water. It extensive agricultural land and urban growth that NO STATUS DATA NO TREND DATA exceeds phosphorus targets and has had blue- results in nonpoint source phosphorus concerns IS AVAILABLE IS AVAILABLE green algae blooms in some summers. Agricultural and periodic blue-green algae blooms. The waters land in sub-basin is a major source of phosphorus. are an important bass ﬁ shery.

16 LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM Richelieu River MALLETTS MAIN SOUTH BAY LAKE LAKE INDICATORS

STATUS TREND STATUS TREND STATUS TREND by LAKE SEGMENT MISSISQUOI BAY Phosphorus in Lake (p. 4) PHOSPHORUS Nonpoint source loading to Lake (p. 5-6) & ALGAE Wastewater plant loading to Lake (p. 5&9) St. Albans Bay * The Lamoille River has no * The Winooski R. , Laplatte * Putnam Creek is deterio- trend for NPS load. R. and Otter Creek have rating while the Poultney Cumberland NORTHEAST Bay improved, Lewis Creek has and Mettawee Rivers have ARM deteriorated and 8 tributar- no trend for NPS load to ies have no NPS load trend. the Lake.

Beach closures from bacteria (p. 12) HUMAN MALLETTS Blue-green algae blooms (p. 13) HEALTH BAY & TOXINS Fish advisories for toxins (p. 18) MAIN Burlington LAKE Bay S Cumberland Bay, NY has * The South Lake has no an additional ﬁ sh advisory monitored public beaches. due to PCBs, which gives it a Shelburne Willsboro Bay poor ranking. Bay

Sea lamprey wounds+ (p. 25) BIODIVERSITY & AQUATIC Aquatic nuisance species arrivals+ (p. 27) Lake INVASIVE Champlain Water chestnut infestations (p. 30) SPECIES * Water chestnuts are hand- pulled between Little Otter Creek and Crown Point; the rest of the Main Lake has no infestation. NORTH + These indicators are lake-wide, therefore, scores are the same Crown across all Lake segments. Point

SOUTH LAKE LCBP PHOTOS

MALLETTS BAY has deep cold water (up to THE MAIN LAKE contains 81% of the Lake’s THE SOUTH LAKE includes all the waters south South Bay 100 ft / 32m). Although its phosphorus target water including the deepest, coldest water (up to of the Crown Point Bridge. The segment is shallow is low, increased runoff from developed land is 400 ft /129m). Population growth and mixed land and narrow, and phosphorus levels are high. Water Champlain Canal a concern. The bay is popular for boating and use dominate the Vermont side and urban runoff is chestnut and Eurasian watermilfoil interfere with ﬁ shing activities. a concern. The New York side is more forested. recreation. The segment is popular for bass ﬁ shing.

2008 STATE OF THE LAKE & ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS 17 LCBP

FISHING is a year-round activity on // STATE INDICATORS // Lake Champlain. Human Health & Toxins

CAN I EAT THE FISH FROM LAKE CHAMPLAIN?

Yes, but fi sh consumption birth defects, cancer or other illnesses advisories have been issued by in humans. Elevated concentrations of Vermont, New York and Québec these contaminants in the environment FISH ADVISORY STATUS also can affect aquatic animals. Fish due to concentrations of consumption advisories due to mercury The fi sh advisories are used to score mercury and PCBs in fi sh. These contamination are posted for most how the lake is doing with regard advisories should be followed northeastern waterbodies, including to toxins in fi sh for each major lake segment. If there were no advisory for when eating fi sh from the Lake. Lake Champlain. Advisories for fi sh consumption due a segment, it would be ranked good. If ercury and polychlorinated to mercury have been issued by all three there was only a lakewide contaminate biphenols (PCBs) are toxins jurisdictions. PCBs in fi sh have lead advisory that affected the segment, that persist in the environ- to advisories for yellow perch, brown it was ranked fair. If there was an M additional advisory specifi c to the ment and bioaccumulate in fi sh and bullhead, and American eel in Cumber- other wildlife over time. Consuming fi sh land Bay, NY, and for large lake trout segment or area in the segment, as well USFWS containing high concentrations of mer- lakewide (see fi gure 13). The Vermont as the lakewide advisory, it was ranked BROWN BULLHEAD sampled and New York fi sh advisories include poor. See pages 16-17 for scores. from Cumberland Bay after the cury, PCBs or other toxins may cause PCB cleanup showed signifi cant reductions in toxin levels. The VERMONT NEW YORK QUEBEC* advisory remains in place, however. FISH SPECIES Women/ChildA All Others Women/ChildB All Others Women/Child All Others Brown Bullhead 5 no advisory 0 in Cumberland Bay: 0* 8 8 Pumpkinseed 5 no advisory 0 4 no advisory no advisory Walleye 0 1 0 > 19” (48cm): 1* 8 < 20” / 4 > 20” (50cm) 8 < 20” / 4 > 20” (50cm) Lake Trout 1 3 0 4 no advisory no advisory Lake Trout >25” (63cm) 0 (incl. child <15)* 1* 0 1* no advisory no advisory Trout: Brook/Brown/Rainbow 3-4 no advisory 0 4 no advisory no advisory Chain Pickerel 1 3 0 4 no advisory no advisory American Eel 1 3 0 in Cumberland Bay: 1* no advisory no advisory Largemouth Bass 2604 8 8 FIGURE 13 | Smallmouth Bass 1304 8 8 LAKE CHAMPLAIN FISH Northern Pike 2604 8 8 CONSUMPTION ADVISORIES Yellow Perch <10” (25cm) 3-4 no advisory 0 in Cumberland Bay: 1* 8 8 in number of meals per month Yellow Perch >10” (25cm) 2-3 6 0 in Cumberland Bay: 1* 8 8 (1 meal = 8 oz. or 230 grams of fi sh) White Perch no advisory no advisory no advisory no advisory 8 8 White Sucker no advisory no advisory no advisory no advisory 8 8 Redhorse Sucker no advisory no advisory no advisory no advisory 8 < 14” / 4 > 16” (40cm) 8 < 14” / 4 > 16” (40cm) All Other Fish Species 2-3 9 0 4 no advisory no advisory * = Advisory specifi c to Lake Champlain. All other advisories are state-wide in NY and VT. The QC advisories are all specifi c to Missisquoi Bay. A = The VT advisory applies to women of childbearing age, particularly pregnant women, women planning to get pregnant and breast feeding mothers, and children age six or younger. B = The NY advisory applies to women of childbearing age, infants and children under the age of 15. SOURCES: NYS Department of Health, 2007-2008; VT Department of Health, 2007, QC Department of Health, April 2006.

18 LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM LCBP

contain lower mercury levels. A level both state-wide and local advisories // PRESSURE INDICATORS // specifi c to Lake Champlain, whereas of 0.3 ppm is the criterion set by the the Québec advisory is specifi c to the USEPA for mercury in fi sh tissue. Québec waters of Missisquoi Bay. Spe- The PCB-related advisories are the cial advisories are issued for women of result of high PCB concentrations in WHAT ARE THE childbearing age and children. Fetuses sediments near Wilcox Dock in Cum- are sensitive to the toxins consumed by berland Bay, an area remediated by the SOURCES OF the mother, and children are at high risk NYSDEC in 2001. Subsequent monitor- MERCURY? due to their developing systems. ing has indicated a signifi cant decline in Mercury and PCBs are monitored PCBs in both sediment and water. They and managed in the Basin. VTANR, also have declined in the fi sh, although Mercury is a naturally occurring NYSDEC and the QC MDDEP moni- a specifi c fi sh advisory for PCBs remains element, but human activities in effect for Cumberland Bay. tor toxin concentrations in various fi sh have greatly increased the species to develop fi sh advisories. Figure 14 shows mercury in parts per million amount released into the in fi sh tissue for fi ve fi sh species in Lake environment. Champlain. Walleye and lake trout have the highest mercury concentrations be- ercury is the most widespread cause they are long-lived large predator contaminant of concern in fi sh. In general, younger and smaller fi sh MLake Champlain. Atmo- spheric deposition of mercury, to both A CORE OF SEDIMENT from the Lake bottom is the Lake and its surrounding watershed, taken to test for mercury and other toxins. is a major source of this contamination. This mercury originates largely The remaining 1% is from wastewater FIGURE 14 | MERCURY IN LAKE CHAMPLAIN FISH BY INDICATOR SPECIES from coal-fi red power plants and waste treatment effl uent that is discharged incinerators outside the Basin. Other directly to the Lake. sources include wastewater treatment In the environment, mercury moves 1 effl uent and losses from landfi lls con- freely between air, water and soil. It can LAKE WALLEYESMALLMOUTH YELLOW WHITE PERCH taining improperly disposed of mercury be converted from its inorganic elemen- 0.9 TROUT BASS PERCH bearing products. Products containing tal form to a more toxic organic form 0.8 mercury include gauges, thermometers, called methylmercury. Methylmercury 0.7 thermostats, batteries, and fl uorescent bioaccumulates through the aquatic USEPA FISH TISSUE light bulbs. food chain and is the main form of mer- 0.6 CRITERION FOR MERCURY A 2006 assessment by the Eco- cury found in fi sh. 0.5 systems Research Group of Norwich, 0.4 VT, Dartmouth College, USGS and

MERCURY (PPM) MERCURY VTANR indicated that most of the 0.3 mercury (59%) enters the Lake from the 0.2 surrounding watershed. Sources of this 0.1 mercury include atmospheric deposition 0 that is then washed down to the Lake, leachate from landfi lls, and wastewater <1997 <1997 <1997 <1997 <1997 treatment effl uent discharged to tribu- 1998-20022003-2007 1998-20022003-2007 1998-20022003-2007 1998-20022003-2007 1998-20022003-2007 taries. Atmospheric deposition directly YEARS to the Lake’s surface accounts for 40% of NOTE: The values are mean mercury concentrations, normalized to the average length of the fish. Bars show standard errors. the mercury entering Lake Champlain. DATA SOURCE: Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. 2008 STATE OF THE LAKE & ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS 19 // RESPONSE INDICATORS // dditional regulations have been ing products, including thermometers, enacted to prevent mercury thermostats and dairy manometers, also Human Health & Toxins Afrom being released into the have been successful in eliminating lo- environment, such as consumer prod- cal sources. uct labeling laws and requirements for Reducing atmospheric sources WHAT IS BEING DONE TO REDUCE recycling of amalgam and mercury-con- of mercury is being pursued through taminated dental wastes in Vermont and the regional mercury TMDL for the MERCURY POLLUTION? New York. Both states have banned the northeast states, which was approved sale of many mercury-added products by the USEPA in 2007. The goal of the Hazardous waste and recycling including novelties and thermometers. TMDL is to reduce mercury emissions Hazardous waste collection pro- both in and beyond the region to reduce programs are in place to grams in both Vermont and New York the deposition of atmospheric mercury. encourage the proper disposal encourage proper disposal and recycling According to the TMDL, a 98% reduc- of mercury-bearing products. to prevent the release of additional mer- tion in human-generated atmospheric In 2007, a regional mercury cury into the environment. In Vermont, deposition is required to reduce mercury Total Maximum Daily Load municipal solid waste districts and other levels in fi sh to acceptable levels. local programs in the Basin collect Over the long-term, the speed of (TMDL) was approved to reduce hazardous waste, including mercury ecosystem recovery that is anticipated contamination in the Northeast. bearing products. Over 3,000 pounds of based on current regional and national mercury-bearing products, 17 pounds mercury emission controls may be of elemental mercury and 2.3 pounds of reduced by the ever-increasing “global LCBP mercury from fl uorescent bulbs were col- pool” of mercury. The global pool of lected in 2006 (fi gure 15). New York’s atmospheric mercury continues to grow Clean Sweep program and county solid due to increasing emissions from China, waste departments provide environ- India, and other developing nations mentally safe collection and disposal of with large fossil fuel reserves. hazardous wastes, including mercury. Exchange programs for mercury-bear-

FIGURE 15 | MUNICIPAL MERCURY COLLECTION IN LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN TOWNS IN VERMONT, 2006 ISTOCK PHOTOS 3,103 17 2.3

Pounds of products and trash Pounds of elemental Pounds of mercury from collected containing mercury.* mercury collected. fluorescent lamps collected.+

THE ROVER, a free service of the Chittenden Solid Waste District, collects all household hazardous NOTES: *Includes the weight of mercury and non-mercury containing components. +Estimated. waste. Of the paint collected, 70% is recycled into “Local Color” brand house paints. DATA SOURCE: Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, MercVT Program.

20 LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM S.PARREN/VTFWD

ARE THERE OTHER TOXINS OF CONCERN? LAKE CHAMPLAIN New chemicals are constantly being produced for domestic, agricultural and industrial purposes, and more sophisticated measurement techniques BIODIVERSITY allow these potentially harmful substances to be detected in the environment. These “new generation contaminants” include pesticides, pharmaceu- ake Champlain is a large fresh- tical products, detergents, fi re retardants, and cosmetics. Road salt is also a water ecosystem with a rich concern, as concentrations in Lake Champlain are increasing. Ldiversity of native plants, fi sh, birds and other wildlife. Preliminary A 2006 study by the USGS indicated many information from the soon-to-be-re- new generation contaminants are present in leased Vermont Breeding Bird Atlas low levels in Lake Champlain Basin water- indicates changing patterns. Since 1981, ways. The study sampled for contaminants 17 more species of breeding birds have SPINY SOFTSHELL TURTLE ISTOCK PHOTO ISTOCK in wastewater treatment plants, combined been discovered in Vermont, including sewer overfl ows, streams, and the Lake. bald eagles, great egrets, and sandhill Over 70 different chemicals were detected, cranes. A record number of bald eagles tion. Threats identifi ed include poorly including fi re retardants, plasticizers, pesti- (84) were observed on Lake Champ- planned development, loss of stream cides, fragrances, stimulants, and detergents, lain during a 2008 survey by New York buffers, dams, undersized culverts, inva- but few were detected in the samples taken biologists; evidence of progress in the sive species and climate change. These restoration efforts by federal and state directly from the Lake. pressures have led to habitat fragmen- agencies. At the same time, several birds tation or degradation, which nega- These new generation chemicals are typi- are in decline, such as the eastern mead- tively affects biodiversity. Smart growth, cally found at very low concentrations and in owlark, common nighthawk, and several riparian buffer protection, eco-friendly complex mixtures. More research is needed species of northern warblers. culverts, and invasive species spread pre- to understand the extent of the potential Other rare, threatened and endan- vention can help address these threats. gered species are still in peril contamination and to develop methods for measuring and monitoring Several cooperative initiatives and around the Basin. Species cost-share programs support biodiver- the environmental impacts of these contaminants. such as the pink heel sity protection in the Basin. Federal, The LCBP Toxics Management Workgroup is currently develop- splitter (a native state and provincial agencies, as well ing a comprehensive toxic substance management strategy. mussel), common as nonprofi t organizations and research Toxic substances of concern have been identifi ed and the tern, lake sturgeon, cooperatives coordinate their efforts and spiny softshell appropriate preventative measures to reduce threats to the through the Lake Champlain Ecosystem turtle are all part of Team. The USFWS Partners for Fish ecosystem and human health are being determined. the complex web and Wildlife Program, Vermont and of life. While the New York Landowner Incentive Pro- number of species in gram (LIP), and NRCS Wildlife Habitat the Lake ecosystem is Incentives Program (WHIP) and Envi- increasing, some of this ronmental Quality Incentives Program increase is from invasive (EQIP) are available to help private COMMON species that can harm native landowners improve wildlife habitat and TERN plants and animals (see page 27). stabilize streambanks. The Nature Conservancy published a report on Lake Champlain’s biodiversity in 2006 and established a program

PHOTO BY THERMOS BY PHOTO to coordinate biodiversity protec-

2008 STATE OF THE LAKE & ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS 21 // STATE INDICATORS // Lake Champlain’s food web to change, which may in turn affect links all its inhabitants, from forage fi sh. Biodiversity & Aquatic Invasive Species microscopic plankton to fi sh, Aquatic plant communities have changed, particularly in the South Lake, birds and other wildlife. Its as a result of invasive plants such as WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE LAKE’S structure and function affects water chestnut and Eurasian watermil- LOWER FOOD WEB OF PLANKTON? water quality, human health, foil. These invaders out-compete native toxins, and habitat diversity. plants and now dominate some habitats. While invasive plants provide habitat he food web shows the complex for some species, they have replaced feeding relationships among native plants. Research suggests these Tspecies in Lake Champlain. In invaders change the character of the fi gure 16, each species is connected to Lake ecosystem signifi cantly and are those they consume and the arrows indi- disruptive to the food web relied upon cate the transfer of energy among by waterfowl and other wildlife. species. At the base of the Invasive zebra mussels web, sometimes called were fi rst discovered in the “lower food web,” Lake Champlain in are the most numerous 1993. They now are humans largemouth bass & northern pike and simplest organisms, found in every Lake cormorant primarily phytoplank- segment and have ton and zooplankton. changed the Lake’s Complex predator-prey food web. As fi lter feed- sea lamprey relationships lead to the ers, they consume large top of the food web—pred- quantities of plankton, walleye, ator fi sh such as largemouth which has lead to an increase lake trout & Atlantic bass, northern pike, lake trout, in lake water clarity in shallow salmon water. While the clearer water may be pumpkin seed & and salmon—and people who fi sh for yellow perch these species and others. Forage fi sh, appreciated by swimmers, it allows more alewife & rainbow smelt such as smelt and smaller perch, link the sunlight to penetrate deep waters, thus plankton community and the predator promoting aquatic plant growth. Zebra insects, fi sh. Most fi sh, including predatory fi sh, mussels also have caused a decline in worms & native mussel populations by growing snails feed directly on the plankton commu- zebra zooplankton amphibians nity when they are young. on their shells, which suffocates them, mussels Recent changes in the phytoplank- and competing with them for food. Like ton community have been observed invasive aquatic plants, zebra mussels with the increasing dominance of are not an ideal food source, although native mussels cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) in some fi sh eat them.

algae & parts of the Lake. Both the speciﬁ c phytoplankton lake sturgeon protozoans & bacteria cause and the impact of this change are PHOTO: F. GELLER-GRIMM currently unknown. However, a change Food energy moves in the direction of the arrows. in the lower food web can trigger ripple effects up to the top, since all levels are connected. For instance, changes in THE ZOOPLANKTON DAPHNIA FIGURE 16 | LAKE CHAMPLAIN FOOD WEB phytoplankton may cause zooplankton (above) are an important food source in the Lake.

22 LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM // PRESSURE & RESPONSE INDICATORS // survey increased in 2007. In the winter The full impacts of alewives on Lake and spring of 2008, widespread alewife Champlain are yet to be realized. Ale- die-offs occurred in the Lake, confi rm- wives compete with native fi sh for food, ing that large numbers are now present. consume native fi sh eggs and larvae, and HOW ARE ALEWIVES AND Although alewives typically undergo alter the plankton population as they se- periodic mass mortality events in all lectively feed on large zooplankton. An OTHER INVASIVE FISH freshwater systems, the specifi c cause of alewife-dominated diet also would cause the mass die-offs remain unclear. Poten- reproductive problems for lake trout CHANGING THE FOOD WEB? tial causes include food limitation, low and Atlantic salmon due to vitamin water temperature, or rapid temperature defi ciency. Invasive species, including alewives fl uctuations. and white perch, are changing the diversity of the Lake’s fi sh. These USFWS M. WATZIN M. changes impact both the upper food web of sport fi sh such as trout and salmon and the lower food web of plankton.

ver 80 fi sh species live in Lake Champlain, including 15 non- Onative species. Although not ALEWIFE all of these fi sh are problematic, alewife and white perch, two invasive forage WHITE PERCH shown with the daphnia, a fi sh, are signifi cant threats to native zooplankton, that it consumed. fi sh and biodiversity. While the impact WHAT IS BEING DONE TO UNDERSTAND of these invasive species develops over time, evidence suggests they already are THE CHANGES TO THE FOOD WEB? changing the Lake ecosystem. NYSDEC White perch, which entered the Some fi sh populations in Lake South Lake in 1984, have slowly expanded north, and are now found lake- Champlain are monitored to wide. As opportunistic feeders, white inform management actions. perch limit the availability of food for other species, including native yellow lankton are monitored through source for salmonids (lake trout and perch. White perch also prey on eggs the long term monitoring pro- Atlantic salmon) and are also part of an of other fi sh species, which reduces the Pgram conducted by New York important winter recreational fi shery. populations of their competitors. These and Vermont and funded by the LCBP. The hydro-acoustic survey will improve A DIE-OFF OF ALEWIVES on the New York impacts affect the lower food web and The VTFWD and the USFWS moni- the ability to determine salmonid stock- shoreline from April 2008. may lead to an increase in algal growth. tor forage fi sh in open waters through a ing rates based on the availability of Alewives were discovered in Lake yearly trawl survey of fi ve locations in forage fi sh. Monitoring also will help Champlain in 2003. They were ob- the lake and a more comprehensive hy- researchers learn more about population served in a yearly forage fi sh trawl dro-acoustic, or fi sh fi nder, survey. These trends for both smelt and alewife. survey by Vermont Fish and Wildlife populations are monitored because Department (VTFWD) and USFWS smelt, currently the main open water in 2006. The number caught in the forage fi sh species, are an important food

2008 STATE OF THE LAKE & ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS 23 // STATE INDICATORS // it does not appear to be the only reason tions are not actively assessed or stocked the ﬁ sh are not surviving to adulthood. like Atlantic salmon and trout.

Biodiversity & Aquatic Invasive Species An angler catch diary program Lake whitefi sh once supported a and fi shing tournaments also provide thriving commercial fi shery in Lake information on fi sheries trends. Recent Champlain. Commercial fi shing records WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE HEALTH angler catches of Atlantic salmon have in Missisquoi Bay through the early been dominated by smaller, young fi sh. 2000s indicate a steady decline in catch OF THE LAKE’S SPORT FISH? Sea lamprey predation seems the most since the mid 1970s. Research on lake likely cause for the reduced catch of whitefi sh indicates this species is not Many efforts are underway larger, older salmon (see page 25). reproducing in their historic spawning Bass are another important recre- areas in the South Lake and Missisquoi to maintain healthy sport fi sh ational fi shery in the Lake, which is Bay. However, adults and larvae recently populations that support the often called one of the top ten bass fi sh- have been found near Grand Isle. Lake’s recreational fi sheries. eries in the United States. Bass popula- A healthy fi shery can provide tremendous social, economic and environmental benefi ts.

ake Champlain ﬁ sheries management is coordinated by the Lake LChamplain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative, a partnership

LAKE CHAMPLAIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. LAKE CHAMPLAIN INTERNATIONAL, of the NYSDEC, VTFWD and the US- FISHERIES BIOLOGISTS from Québec showing FWS. Activities include assessing land- educators how to seine for fi sh on Missisquoi Bay. locked Atlantic salmon, lake trout and brown trout, walleye and northern pike LCBP populations. Several fi sh species also are evaluated for sea lamprey wounds. As part of these assessments, the Winooski River and Boquet River fi sh passageways are monitored. Fish lifts on these rivers enable migrating salmon and trout to access spawning and nursery habitats FISHING DERBIES are important to the above the dams. The data are used to economy of many lakeside communities. evaluate the fi sh movements and stocking programs. The great majority of the salmonids in the Lake have been cultivated and released in annual stocking programs. Researchers from the University of Ver- mont have determined that lake trout naturally spawn at multiple sites, but their young do not survive to contribute to the population. Several native fi sh prey heavily on juvenile lake trout, but

24 LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM USFWS // PRESSURE INDICATORS //

HOW ARE SEA LAMPREY HARMING THE LAKE’S SPORT FISH?

ATLANTIC SALMON Sea lamprey are parasitic fi sh that The status of the problems caused by prey heavily on the Lake’s sport sea lamprey is determined by the aver- fi sh. They are managed to reduce age number of wounds per 100 fi sh on FIGURE 17 | SEA LAMPREY WOUNDING RATES ON LAKE TROUT lake trout and Atlantic salmon (fi gure AND ATLANTIC SALMON IN LAKE CHAMPLAIN their population size and their 17) in the Main Lake and on walleye impacts on other fi sh. in four tributaries. Wounding rates of 100 25 wounds per 100 lake trout and 15 lthough many factors may be wounds per 100 salmon have been set 90 impacting the fi sh in Lake as targets. Wounding rates presently 80 AChamplain, including habi- greatly exceed targets, though in 2007 LAKE TROUT 70 tat changes and the effects of climate an improvement in wounding rates was change, one well-known threat is the observed. Lake trout had an average of 60 parasitic sea lamprey. Although believed 46 wounds per 100 fi sh and salmon had 50 to be a native species, sea lamprey and average of 71 wounds per 100 fi sh. ATLANTIC SALMON 40 populations are currently excessive and This data and reports from other surveys problematic. Sea lamprey weaken and and anglers indicate that sea lamprey 30 LAKE TROUT kill other fi sh by feeding on their body TARGET (25)

greatly impact Lake Champlain fi sheries PER 100 FISH SAMPLED WOUNDS 20 fl uids. They are monitored through SALMON and the recreational fi shing economy. TARGET (15) fi sh wound sampling programs, angler 10 surveys and larval sampling. 0 1985-92 1993-98 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 average average STATUS

SEA LAMPREY attach to ﬁ sh ECHO LEAHYCENTER using their mouth, which acts like a suction cup. LAKE WIDE STATUS BY YEAR Meets target for lake trout (25 wounds per 100 fish sampled) and salmon (15 GOOD wounds per 100 fish sampled)

FAIR Within 50% of meeting target for lake trout and salmon

POOR Exceeds target by more than 50% for lake trout and salmon

LAKEWIDE TREND No trend: neither improving nor deteriorating from 2002-2007

NOTES: Lake trout were 533-633mm (21-25 in) in length. Salmon were 432-533 mm (17-21in) in length. 1982-92 was pre-control and experimental control was during 1993-98. DATA SOURCE: Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative.

2008 STATE OF THE LAKE & ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS 25 // RESPONSE INDICATORS // CORMORANTS AND WATER BIRDS

Since 1981, when double-crested USFWS Biodiversity & Aquatic Invasive Species cormorants were fi rst spotted on Lake Champlain, the population has grown WHAT IS BEING DONE TO SUPPORT to over four thousand nesting pairs. FISHERIES AND CONTROL SEA LAMPREY? While cormorants are protected by the Federal Migratory Species Act, many people consider them a nuisance Stocking programs have been cides target young lamprey populations to fi sh and other birds. The majority established with the long-term in the streams before they mature and nest in a few locations, including Young goal of restoring salmonid move to the Lake. Alternative (non- Island, Four Brothers Islands, and the chemical) treatments include trapping Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge. populations in Lake Champlain lamprey and building physical barriers and management efforts are that prohibit adults from passing up- Research has shown that cormorants consume about a pound of fi sh daily. conducted to control lamprey. stream to spawn. A sea lamprey barrier Although they can temporarily disrupt local fi shing in their feeding grounds, is scheduled for construction on the they do not commonly eat salmon, trout, bass and other popular sport fi sh he natural populations of lake Morpion River in Québec in 2008. in the Lake. A 2001 Lake Champlain Sea Grant study found that most of a trout and salmon collapsed Efforts are underway to enhance the cormorant’s diet consists of yellow perch, rainbow smelt and sunfi sh. Tprior to the 1900s. VTFWD, Lake’s walleye population. The VTFWD NYSDEC and USFWS have devel- works with the Lake Champlain In 2003, the USFWS ruled that cormorant management in Lake Champlain was oped extensive fi sh culture and stock- Walleye Association annually to stock allowed in areas where they damage fi sh, vegetation, and other birds. Methods ing programs to reestablish spawning walleye by collecting eggs and rearing used to reduce cormorants and protect other nesting birds include egg oiling, populations in Lake Champlain and to them to eventually be released as fry. destruction of eggs and nests, lethal control of adults, harassment, and grid net- maintain a healthy recreational fi shery. The USFWS and NYSDEC also work ting island areas to deter nesting. Populations on the islands fl uctuate with the The programs stock rainbow, lake and with the Walleye Association in the intensity of management efforts. brown trout, and Atlantic salmon. How- South Bay. ever, this fi shery has not been develop- Fisheries management also includes Cormorants impact other birds by occupying nesting areas, and their drop- ing as well as expected, probably due to regulating the harvest of fi sh. The Lake pings have defoliated island vegetation, altering the habitat for birds such as the sea lamprey parasitism. Champlain fi sheries management goal is common tern, black crowned night heron, cattle egret, and great blue heron. Following an 8-year experimental to protect fi sh as a resource for recre- Management is helping, however. Caspian tern nesting pairs have risen from one program that showed promising results, ational fi shing, as well as to protect and in 2001 to 50 in 2007 and the common tern has also benefi ted. a long-term sea lamprey control program restore natural fi sh populations that are was initiated in 2002 due to the severity vital components of the ecosystem. of lamprey impacts on the fi sheries and ecosystem. The control program goal is to achieve the target wounding rates shown in fi gure 17 (page 25). Sea lamprey spawn in 31 streams and four deltas of Lake Champlain. As of 2007, the populations in 18 streams and two deltas are being controlled by several methods. Additional streams are scheduled for control in the next few years. Control programs using lampri- YELLOW PERCH (left) and a CORMORANT (above). USFWS 26 LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM // STATE INDICATORS // quatic invasive species are Aquatic invasive species frequently nonnative plants, animals, and out-compete native species for food Apathogens that cause economic and habitat, and they can affect the and environmental harm. The number Lake’s food web by imposing pressures of invasive species introduced into Lake from both the top down and the bottom HOW MANY AQUATIC INVASIVE Champlain has increased dramatically up. In parts of the watershed, invasive in recent decades. From the 1920s to plants such as water chestnut and Eur- SPECIES LIVE IN THE LAKE? 1980s, roughly three new species en- asian watermilfoil choke waterways and tered the Lake each decade. During the limit recreational use, displace native In spring 2008, there were 48 1990s, however, twelve invasive species species, and lower water oxygen levels were discovered (see fi gure 18). Since during decomposition. Invasive zebra known aquatic invasive species 2000, six new invasive species (tench, mussels clog water intake pipes for in-

SEA GRANT in Lake Champlain. The main largemouth bass virus, slender-leaved dustrial and domestic water supplies, cut pathways of introduction included naiad, Chinese mystery snail, lympho- the feet of swimmers and encrust boat unauthorized ﬁ sh stocking, bait sarcoma disease that affects muskelluge motors, dock equipment and historic ﬁ sh release, and passage through and northern pike, and alewife) have shipwrecks. entered the Lake. While alewives were the canals. illegally introduced in Lake St. Cath- erine in 1997, they were not found in Lake Champlain until 2003.

FIGURE 18 | AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES ARRIVALS TO M. MALCHOFF LAKE CHAMPLAIN

14 Zebra Mussel 1993 12 STATUS OF AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES ARRIVALS 10 The arrival of new species in Lake Champlain is one indicator of its health. The Lake Champlain Basin Aquatic Nuisance Species ZEBRA MUSSELS (left) were found Management Plan identiﬁ es invasive species that have not yet 8 in Lake Champlain in 1993 and tench Water Alewife arrived according to their potential economic and environmental (above) was reported in 2002. Chestnut 2003 impacts. Using the plan’s ranking, the indicator evaluates both 1940 6 the number of introductions and the degree of their invasiveness Purple Eurasian

TOTAL NUMBER OF NEW SPECIES TOTAL Loosestrife Watermilfoil over the past three years. 1929 1962 4 While there was a dramatic increase in invasions over the past No new arrivals several decades, no new species have been introduced to Lake Champlain within the last three years, which results in a good 2 ranking. If an invasive species that is not of high priority arrives within three years, a fair ranking would be given (see information on high priority species on page 28). The state of invasive species ‘20s ‘30s ‘40s ‘50s ‘60s ‘70s ‘80s ‘90s would be poor if more than one species arrived, or if any high <1920 ‘00-04 ‘05-07 unknown priority species arrived within a three year period. NOTE: The data includes the arrival decade or first reported sighting of the species. DATA SOURCE: Ellen Marsden, U. of Vermont.

2008 STATE OF THE LAKE & ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS 27 // PRESSURE INDICATORS // The numbers show the total To Atlantic Ocean invasive species known as of 2007. St. Lawrence Richelieu Biodiversity & Aquatic Invasive Species For example, the Great Lakes River River have 184 total, which is 136 “additional” species that could infest Lake Champlain via these ST LAWRENCE: 87 Lake WHICH AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES connected waterways. Champlain

THREATEN THE LAKE? CHAMPLAIN: 48 Lake Huron Champlain While it is not possible to predict GREAT LAKES: 184 Lake Ontario Canal which species will next invade Welland Canal Erie Canal Lake Champlain, there are many Mohawk River “waiting on the doorstep” in the HUDSON RIVER: 91 Finger Lakes Lake Erie Great Lakes and the Hudson Hudson River watersheds. River To Atlantic ake Champlain has fewer Ocean invasive species than adjacent Lwaterbodies. Currently there are DATA SOURCE: Updated from Mark Malchoff, Lake Champlain Sea Grant; Ellen Marsden, U. of Vermont. 48 known aquatic invasive species in FIGURE 19 | AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES THREATS TO LAKE Lake Champlain, while there are 184 in CHAMPLAIN FROM CONNECTED WATERWAYS the Great Lakes, 87 in the St. Lawrence River, and 91 in the Hudson River (fi gure 19). Lake Champlain’s proximity period would rank the state of aquatic Hydrilla is a popular aquarium plant and connectivity to these infested wa- invasions as poor. that is often misidentifi ed as a native terways is a concern. Human activities Round goby are a small bottom- species. It can spread rapidly, and if it are also a cause of intentional or unin- dwelling fi sh that have spread rapidly enters Lake Champlain, dense mats tentional invasive species introductions. through ballast water, bait buckets, and would displace many native species, clog These activities include private fi sh natural expansion. They are a signifi cant water intakes, and impede recreation. stocking, accidental and bait bucket re- threat because they are aggressive eaters, Hydrilla could enter on a boat or trailer. lease, canal passage, aquarium dumping, consuming the eggs of native species It is illegal to possess or release it in ballast water exchange, and transport of such as lake trout. They also tend to Vermont. plants and animals on boats, trailers and displace native species. Fish pathogens, including Viral other recreational equipment. Quagga mussels have impacts similar Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS) that Several species that are not yet to zebra mussels, but have a higher has spread through the Great Lakes, also here are of special concern because their tolerance for cold, deep water and could are of concern because they could signif- impacts could be widespread and severe, inhabit more Lake habitat. They could icantly impact native fi sh populations. both economically and ecologically. The enter by “hitch-hiking” a ride on a boat They can be transferred by infected fi sh Lake Champlain Basin Aquatic Nuisance traveling through canals or on trailers and by water around the fi sh. Species Management Plan lists hydrilla, and recreational equipment. round goby, Eurasian ruffe, quagga mus- ROUND GOBY, QUAGGA MUSSEL AND sel, spiny waterfl ea, and fi shhook water- HYDRILLA threaten the Lake (top to bottom). fl ea as high priority species. The arrival

of one of these species with a three-year PHOTOS: ERIC ENGBRETSON/USFWS, USGS, L. MERHOFF/U. OF CONNECTICUT

28 LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM // RESPONSE INDICATORS // Both states have volunteer monitoring programs to identify and report sightings YOU CAN HELP THE LAKE! of new species. Detecting new invasions quickly and The state of the Lake depends on our WHAT IS BEING DONE TO PREVENT AND rapidly responding to them to contain individual actions. Here are a few things the spread is more cost effective than you can do: managing or eradicating an established MANAGE NEW INVASIONS? species. A rapid response management DON’T “P” ON YOUR LAWN: Only plan is being developed by the LCBP use phosphorus-free (P-free) fertilizers Once invasive species are present to establish the process for Vermont, and have your soil tested. New York, and Québec to address new they are very diffi cult and costly invasions. The LCBP and partners also MAKE A DISH-WASH SWITCH: Most or even impossible to remove. developed the Lake Champlain Basin automatic dishwashing detergents still Management relies on early Aquatic Nuisance Species Management contain phosphorus. Switch to a phos- detection and rapid response, Plan approved by the National Aquatic phate-free version. spread prevention, and public Nuisance Species Task Force in 2000 and updated in 2005. LCBP committees LOOK FOR LEAKS: Leaking oil, anti- education. plan invasive species spread prevention, freeze and gas can pollute the Lake— develop rapid response strategies and keep your engines tuned and recycle eople who use Lake Champlain provide education programs. can reduce the spread of invasive your oil. In response to the threat of fi sh species by taking prevention P pathogens entering the Lake, both LEAVE IT ON THE LAWN: Let your measures, such as checking, cleaning, Vermont and New York have enacted mowed grass clippings serve as mulch and drying boats and recreational equip- new baitfi sh regulations. The regulations on your lawn. This adds nutrients and ment, and properly disposing bait. The restrict the use of baitfi sh to certain decreases the need for watering. LCBP, in cooperation with partners, has water bodies and prohibit the transport initiated a steward program to provide of fi sh from one water body to another. CHECK THE SEPTIC: If not properly education about aquatic invasive species Both wild and hatchery raised fi sh are maintained, your septic system may spread prevention at boat launches. also tested for fi sh pathogens. pollute the Lake with harmful E. coli bacteria.

INSPECT YOUR BOAT: Remove all mud, plants and animals from your boat LCBP and trailer between launches to keep invasive species from spreading.

SCOOP THE POOP: Pick up pet waste and throw it in the trash or toilet to keep it from washing into the Lake. LCBP GET INVOLVED: Volunteer with a local AN LCBP LAKE STEWARD discusses invasive watershed group and attend public species with a local boater. meetings about water issues—turn your love of the Lake into action! VTDEC staff search the Missisquoi NWR for water chestnuts.

2008 STATE OF THE LAKE & ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS 29 // STATE & RESPONSE INDICATORS // recreational use, and crowds out native plants. It is also found in lower densities

Biodiversity & Aquatic Invasive Species in the Main Lake (fi gure 20). Fortunate- FIGURE 20 | STATUS OF WATER CHESTNUT ly, aggressive management in Vermont, INFESTATIONS ON LAKE CHAMPLAIN New York and Québec has signifi cantly IS WATER CHESTNUT STILL limited its local range. A PROBLEM? In 2006, water chestnut was found MISSISQUOI BAY in the USFWS Missisquoi National In 2007, about 267 rosettes Wildlife Refuge in Swanton, VT. All in the Pike River and about three jurisdictions worked together 6,000 in the Missisquoi he invasive water chestnut NWR were hand-pulled. has displaced native aquatic quickly to survey the area and remove plants and is of little food value about 12,000 plants by hand. In 2007, NORTHEAST ARM T only 6,000 plants were found and they to wildlife. It was fi rst documented in No water chestnut present. southern Lake Champlain in the 1940s were removed. This recent infestation and it is believed to have been intro- demonstrates the important of early de- MALLETTS BAY tection and rapid response actions and No water chestnut present. duced by vessels traveling up the Champlain Canal from effective management.

Kimball LCBP Little Otter the Hudson River. Brook Creek In the South Lake MAIN LAKE segment, water chest- Hand-pulling coordinated by Fields Bay, VTDEC and The Nature nut forms dense mats, Ferrisburg Conservancy is needed limits boat traffi c and between Little Otter Creek Crown in Ferrisburgh and Crown Crown Point. No water chestnut is Point Point present in the rest of the Chipman segment. WHAT IS BEING DONE TO Point Benson Landing SOUTH LAKE MANAGE IT? Water chestnut is present in WATER the entire segment and is Dresden CHESTNUT mechnically harvested by ince water chestnut produces and many volunteers. Figure 20 shows VTDEC and NYSDEC in 1999 2004 2007 some areas south of Benson seeds that remain viable for up to progress made since 1999. In 2007 Landing. Stwelve years, it must be con- mechanical harvesting was only needed trolled before the seeds drop to the Lake south of Benson Landing for the fi rst STATUS TREND bottom. Both mechanical harvesting time in 27 years. The remaining parts Improving: water and hand pulling has been used since of the South Lake and Main Lake up GOOD No water chestnut present and no management needed chestnut is decreasing the 1960s for control. The local range of to Little Otter Creek in Ferrisburgh Water chestnut present with the plant has fl uctuated in close corre- requires hand harvesting of localized FAIR No trend: neither less than 25% coverage improving nor spondence with funding levels over the mats and scattered plants. The Qué- (typically managed by deteriorating past few decades. Aggressive manage- bec Ministry of Natural Resources and hand-pulling) Wildlife supports control efforts in the Deteriorating: water ment of water chestnut began in 1998. Water chestnut present with chestnut is increasing Nearly $500,000 has been spent every Missisquoi Bay watershed, including the POOR greater than 25% coverage (typically managed by year since to successfully control it. Pike River. No trend data is mechanical harvesting) in an available The management program is sup- area covering greater than ported by the USACE, USEPA and 10% of the segment LCBP and is implemented by Vermont, DATA SOURCES: VTDEC, NYSDEC, QC MDDEP. New York, The Nature Conservancy,

30 LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM Scenic byways in New THE FIRST-EVER bi-state and York and Vermont link international stamp cancelation

was coordinated by the LCBP LCBP PHOTO recreation and historic to kick off the Champlain Local Connections sites in shoreline com- Quadricentennial. munities. The array CULTURAL HERITAGE, RECREATION of resources in the Basin—including ing to thematically AND THE STATE OF THE LAKE Fort Ticonderoga’s enhance, or “quad- exceptional his- ricize” local events, ver the past 15 years, the torical interpretation, festivals, and recre- LCBP has worked with its Shelburne Museum’s ational programs. This partners to promote the Basin world-class folk art year, the LCBP will offer O collection, and the dozens $50,000 in special grants as a sustainable tourism destination and LCMM build a greater stewardship ethic among of historical society museums that support these efforts. recreational users. More recreation that tell their own unique stories—is While the Quadricentennial high- opportunities, such as the reciprocal outstanding. lights the commonalties between US ﬁ shing license, lead to increased com- The year 2009 will mark the 400th and Québec cultures, 2009 is just a start- mitment to Lake stewardship. anniversary of Samuel de Champlain’s ing point. The Champlain Valley Na- One of the many negative impacts arrival to the region. Champlain’s jour- tional Heritage Partnership (CVNHP) of zebra mussels is the destruction of the nals give us the ﬁ rst written description was designated by the US Congress in Lake’s historic shipwrecks. This threat of the Lake, the surrounding landscape 2006, in part, to interpret and promote led to an eight-year underwater survey and its native peoples. The LCBP is the history of the waterways; form stron- of 300 square miles of the Lake by the working closely with quadricentennial ger bonds between the US and Canada; Lake Champlain Maritime Museum commissions in Vermont, New York and and promote the international aspects of (LCMM). More than 75 shipwrecks Québec to develop projects linking the the Champlain Valley. The LCBP will were found, some of which could be two states and the province. This coor- distribute $100,000 in CVNHP grants added as dive sites to the Lake Cham- dination supports citizens who are work- in 2008. plain Underwater Historic Preserves

System. Projects like this enhance the MOTIONLOCAL links between the cultural and natural worlds and lead to a better understanding of Lake issues. The LCBP has provided more than $1 million in grants to cultural heritage, recreation and public access projects since 1992. Efforts like Lake Champlain Bikeways, the Birding Trail, the Lake Champlain Committee Paddlers’ Trail, and the LCBP Wayside Exhibit Program THE MARITIME MUSEUM’S CANAL (with 150 interpretive signs to date) SCHOONER LOIS MCCLURE will travel to enhance recreational experiences, build Québec City in 2008 to help celebrate the anniversary of the city’s 1608 founding and herald the connection between our appre- A BIKE FERRY operated by Lake Champlain’s 2009 Quadricentennial. ciation of and caring for the Lake, and Local Motion provides riders contribute to the regional economy. with a unique opportunity to experience the Lake.

2008 STATE OF THE LAKE & ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS 31 the LCBP-supported LCBP EDUCATION staff teaching Champlain Basin Educa- local students about watersheds and polluted runoff. LCBP PHOTO Local Connections tion Initiative. These teachers will share their knowledge EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND with nearly 10,000 students in the next ance and Québec LOCAL INVOLVEMENT three years alone. agroenvironmental Education partners clubs in the Missis- quoi Basin and the ocal citizens increasingly show a provide on-site Champlain Water- sophisticated understanding of school programs and shed Improvement the Lake’s complicated ecosys- offer many fi eld trips. L Other audiences Coalition of New York tem. Many groups are working aggres- are examples (see page 10). sively to solve local problems, such as include anglers, paddlers, The LCBP Resource Room invasive species infestations and stream municipalities, and farmers. within ECHO at the Leahy Center bank erosion. As these groups share Fishing organizations, including Lake received 100,000 visitors during its fi rst their knowledge and solutions, all are Champlain International and Trout fi ve years, many of whom seek addition- gaining in effectiveness. Unlimited, provide aquatic invasive al information about the Lake and vol- The more than 30 local watershed species information and phosphorus unteer opportunities. The South Lake groups in the Basin are especially effec- reduction outreach, providing access Visitor Center, created by the Poultney tive in fi nding landowners to plant trees to more than 20,000 anglers each year. Trout Unlimited volunteers also assisted Mettowee NRCD provides a new venue JEFF CLARKE/ECHO along tributaries. The Missisquoi River for residents to learn about the ecosys- Basin Association and the Friends of the with the Adopt-A-Salmon program in tem. More than 30,000 visitors stepped Winooski recently reached their 10th an- thirteen Adirondack schools in 2007 Lois McClure niversaries, a testimony to the commit- and provided technical assistance on aboard the LCMM’s canal ment of their many volunteers. Together streambank stabilization projects. boat in 2007 as she traveled 1,000 with conservation districts and land Several organizations assist farmers miles through the Champlain and Erie trusts, these groups continue to conserve with nonpoint source pollution reduc- Canals, sharing regional cultural history prime farmland, protect wildlife habitat tion. The Farmers’ Watershed Alli- and environmental messages. and implement water quality improve- VYCC ECHO LAKE AQUARIUM AND SCIENCE ment projects. CENTER at the Leahy Center for Lake Champlain Many effective outreach efforts is celebrating its 5th anniversary this summer, refl ect changes in human behavior over having welcomed 750,000 guests since opening. time, some of which are now measur- able within the watershed. For example, in two St. Albans neighborhoods, data from Lake Champlain Sea Grant showed that homeowners were willing VISIT WWW.LCBP.ORG TO LEARN to change their landscaping practices LOTS MORE ABOUT THE LAKE AND after an extensive local watershed cam- THE LCBP HAS AWARDED more than $3 million LINK TO OTHER LAKE GROUPS! paign was conducted. This data helped in local grants and funded more than 50 research to inform the “Don’t ‘P’ on Your Lawn” projects since 1992. Work on the Poultney River is shown on the left. Additional support campaign (see page 9). to communities has been provided through the In the past three years, more than Watershed Environmental Assistance Program, 140 educators received training through in cooperation with the US Army Corps of Engineers.

32 LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM The State of the Lake and Ecosystem Indicators report was compiled by the Lake TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Champlain Basin Program staff, with input from the researchers listed on the left Erik Beck, US Environmental Protection Agency New England and LCBP committees. The report is available online at www.lcbp.org/lcstate.htm. Phil Benedict, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets Lake Champlain Basin Program Tom Berry, The Nature Conservancy 54 West Shore Road Pierre Bilodeau, QC Ministry of Natural Resources and Wildlife Grand Isle, VT 05458 Breck Bowden, University of Vermont ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (802) 372-3213 Fred Dunlap, NY State Department of Environmental Conservation (800) 468-5227 (NY & VT) Jon Erickson, University of Vermont www.lcbp.org Doug Facey, St. Michael’s College [email protected] Neil Kamman, VT Agency of Natural Resources John Kanoza, Clinton County (NY) Health Department Robert Kort, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (VT) STAFF SUPPORTING THE PROGRAM Steve Lanthier, NY State Soil and Water Conservation Districts Call (802) 372-3213, unless otherwise noted Richard Lauzier, QC Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Nicole Ballinger - Communications & Publications Coordinator Mark Malchoff, Lake Champlain Sea Grant Erik Beck - LC Coordinator, USEPA New England, (617) 918-1606 Tim Mihuc, Lake Champlain Research Institute at Plattsburgh State Jim Brangan - Cultural Heritage & Recreation Coordinator Martin Mimeault, QC Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks Colleen Hickey - Education & Outreach Coordinator Mario Paula, US Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 Bill Howland - Basin Program Manager Bernie Pientka, VT Fish and Wildlife Department Kathy Jarvis - Administrative Assistant Kip Potter, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (VT) Kris Joppe-Mercure - Technical Associate Vic Putman, Essex County (NY) Planning Department Molly Michaud - Technical Coordinator Jamie Shanley, US Geological Survey Martin Mimeault - Québec MDDEP, (450) 928-7607 Eric Smeltzer, VT Agency of Natural Resources Meg Modley - Aquatic Nuisance Species Coordinator Dan Spada, Adirondack Park Agency Mario Paula - LC Coordinator, USEPA Region 2, (212) 637-3819 Marilyn Stephenson, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NY) Art Stemp - NY Coordinator, NYSDEC, (518) 897-1216 Everett Thomas, Miner Institute Michaela Stickney - VT Coordinator, VTANR/LCBP (802) 241-3619 Mary Watzin, University of Vermont Resource Room Staff: Laura Hollowell, Stephanie Larkin, Cynthia Norman (802) 864-1848 Michael Winslow, Lake Champlain Committee Design: Nicole Ballinger, LCBP Publication Date: June 2008 Printed at Queen City Printers on 30% post-consumer recycled and Forest Stewardship Council SPECIAL THANKS TO: certiﬁ ed paper with vegetable-based inks. Sylvie Blais, QC Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks Produced under US EPA grant #X7-97105501-0. The views expressed in this report do not Ann Bove, VT Agency of Natural Resources necessarily reﬂ ect the positions of the USEPA or NEIWPCC. Chantal d’Auteuil, Corporation Bassin Versant Baie Missisquoi

Barry Gruessner, VT Agency of Natural Resources LCBP Nancy Hayden, University of Vermont Tim Hunt, VT Agency of Natural Resources Paul Marangelo, The Nature Conservancy Ellen Marsden, University of Vermont Don Meals, Ice.Nine Environmental Angela Shambaugh, VT Agency of Natural Resources Pete Stangel, VT Agency of Natural Resources Dave Tilton, US Fish and Wildlife Service …and many others who gave input on indicators.

VISIT WWW.LCBP.ORG/LCSTATE.HTM TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS REPORT AND TO OBTAIN REFERENCES. PRSRTD STD 54 West Shore Road U.S. POSTAGE Grand Isle, VT 05458 PAID PERMIT NO. 179 CHANGE SERVICE BURLINGTON, VT REQUESTED