Protecting Lake Water Quality & Aquatic Habitat from Effects of Lakeshore Development

1. Protecting Lake Water Quality & Aquatic Habitat from Effects of Lakeshore Development Kellie Merrell Lakes & Ponds Management & Protection Section VT Agency of Natural Resources

2. Changes to VT Lakeshores • Conversion of camps to large suburban residences & vacation homes Not unique to Vermont, but other states have statewide setbacks and buffer protections

3. No Statewide Buffer Protection • Unlike other states, VT leaves to town zoning • Only 8% (n=20) of towns (n=255) in Vermont have any kind of vegetative buffer on lakeshore regulation • What town regulation there is, is highly variable

12. In Vermont, Developed Shallows Have Less Woody Debris In Vermont, Developed Shores have: 69% Less Large Woody Debris 87% Less Medium Woody Debris 61% Less Fine Woody Debris Than Undeveloped Shores

13. In Vermont, Development Increases Aquatic Plant Growth VT DEC Measured a 4.5 fold increase in plants at developed sites This was measured in submersed vegetation at oligotrophic lakes, where plant densities do not get to nuisance levels. Jennings et al (2003), found less emergent and floating leaved plants at developed sites

14. Aesthetics • People prefer lake scenes with more shoreline vegetation and less shoreline alteration. • a survey of lakeshore residents and college students conducted in Wisconsin(Macbeth, 1991) • People perceive lakes with higher levels of development as having worse water quality than lightly developed lakes (Stedman and Hammer, 2006)

15. Water Quality Affects Property Prices • A proportion of property prices are attributable to water clarity. • People will pay more, all other characteristics being equal, for a property on a lake with high water quality than they would for one on a lake with low water quality. • Water clarity significantly affected property prices around Maine lakes (Michael et al, 1996)

16. Possible Solutions • Statewide law • Revegetation with lakeshore owners • Current use approach • Conserve land • Leave to town control • Other as developed by Mediated Modeling Approach and this class

17. Stakeholders Millie Archer Vermont League of Cities and Towns Karen Bates Watershed Coordinator, VTANR Rich Greenough Sure Strike Charters Britt Haselton UVM Graduate Student Stephan Syz The River Conservancy Susan Warren Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Joanna Wright Federation of VT Lakes and Ponds VT State Legislator (TBD) Realtor (TBD)

18. Joes Pond, Danville, VT 75% of the shoreline is developed • If this were one property owner: • They would have to treat the stormwater by reducing the phosphorus by 40% and the total suspended solids by 80%2. • They would need to hire an engineer during construction or reconstruction. The engineer would design appropriate erosion control measures3. • They would need an Act 250 permit to do this level of development and it would be recommended that a 100’ buffer be left between the development and the lake But it’s multiple landowners, so there’s: No shoreline buffer protections No stormwater management No pollution abatement or prevention

19. Loggers can’t do this, but lakeshore owners can In VT, you can’t log the canopy within 25’ of a lakeshore. “A protective strip shall be left along streams and other bodies of water in which only light thinning or selection harvesting can occur so that breaks made in the canopy are minimal and a continuous cover is maintained. Log transport machinery must remain outside a 25’ margin along the stream or water body.” Acceptable Management Practices for Maintaining Water Quality on Logging Jobs in Vermont, VT Forest Parks and Recreation, 1987.

20. VT Water Quality Standards Numeric Biological Indices (Section 3-01 D) The Secretary may determine whether there is full support of aquatic biota and aquatic habitat uses through other appropriate methods of evaluation, including habitat assessments. Water Quality Criteria for Class A(1) Ecological Waters (Section 3-01 B) Aquatic Biota, Wildlife, and Aquatic Habitat: Change from the natural condition limited to minimal impacts from human activity. Measures of biological integrity for aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish assemblages are within the range of the natural condition. Uses related to either the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the aquatic habitat or the composition or life cycle functions of aquatic biota or wildlife are fully supported. All life cycle functions, including overwintering and reproductive requirements are maintained and protected. Water Quality Criteria for Class A(2) Public Water Supplies (Section 3-03 B) Aquatic Biota, Wildlife and Aquatic Habitat: Biological integrity is maintained, no change from the reference condition that would prevent the full support of aquatic biota, wildlife or aquatic habitat uses…..All life cycle functions, including overwintering and reproductive requirements are maintained and protected. Changes in the aquatic habitat shall not exceed moderate differences from the reference condition consistent with the full support of all aquatic biota and wildlife uses. Water Quality Criteria for Class B waters (Section 3-04 B) Aquatic Biota, Wildlife and Aquatic Habitat: No change from the reference condition that would prevent the full support of aquatic biota, wildlife, or aquatic habitat uses….All life-cycle functions, including overwintering and reproductive requirements are maintained and protected. In addition, the following criteria shall be achieved: In Water Management Type One waters:….Changes in the aquatic habitat shall be limited to minimal differences from the reference condition consistent with the full support of all aquatic biota and wildlife uses. In Water Management Type Two waters…..Changes in the aquatic habitat shall be limited to minor differences from the reference condition consistent with the full support of all aquatic biota and wildlife uses. In Water Management Type Three waters….. Changes in the aquatic habitat shall be limited to moderate differences from the reference condition consistent with the full support of all aquatic biota and wildlife uses. When such habitat changes are a result of hydrological modification or water level fluctuation, compliance may be determined on the basis of aquatic habitat studies. In all other Class B waters: No change from reference conditions that would have an undue adverse effect on the composition of the aquatic biota, the physical or chemical nature of the substrate or the species composition or propagation of fishes.