Report on Aquatic Nuisance Control Activities in Vermont

Transcription

1 Report on Aquatic Nuisance Control Activities in Vermont Prepared for the Vermont House Committee on Fish, Wildlife, and Water Resources and Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy Prepared by the Agency of Natural Resources 103 South Main Street Waterbury VT January 2010

2 Cover photos: top, Pelots Bay, Lake Champlain volunteers offload harvested Eurasian watermilfoil spoils; bottom, The Pelots Bay Restoration Association harvester, The Turtle I in action (James Brabham) The VT Department of Environmental Conservation is an equal opportunity agency and offers all persons the benefits of participating in each of its programs and competing in all areas of employment regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, sexual preference, or other non-merit factors. This document is available upon request in large print, Braille or audiocassette. VT Relay Service for the Hearing Impaired TDD>Voice Voice>TDD i

3 Contents Purpose... 1 Overview... 1 Existing Funding Sources for Aquatic Nuisance Control Activities... 2 Demand for Aquatic Nuisance Control Activities and Funds to Support Them... 5 The Importance of Spread Prevention... 9 Recommended Financial Mechanisms to Fund the Demand for Aquatic Nuisance Control Conclusions References List of Figures Figure 1. Types of aquatic nuisance species management projects awarded funds by the Grant-in-Aid Program, project years 1994 through Figure 2. Spread of some aquatic invasive species in Vermont lakes... 6 Figure 3. Sources of Grant-in-Aid funds, project years 1994 through Figure 4. Estimated eligible project costs vs. Grant-in-Aid grants awarded, project years 1994 through Figure 5. Final project costs of projects funded by the Grant-in-Aid Program in project year ii

4 iii

5 Purpose Act 46 of the 2009 adjourned session of the Vermont Legislature directs the Agency of Natural Resources to report on the status of funds for aquatic nuisance control activities throughout the state. Act 46 states: On or before January 15, 2010, the agency of natural resources shall report to the house committee on fish, wildlife and water resources and the senate committee on natural resources and energy regarding the funding of aquatic nuisance control activities in the state. The report shall include: (1) a summary of the existing funding available for aquatic nuisance control activities in the state; (2) a summary of the demand for aquatic nuisance control activities and the demand for funds to finance such activities; (3) recommended user fees, permit fees, or other financial mechanisms that could be utilized to fund the demand for aquatic nuisance control activities in the state. This report was prepared in response to the legislative directive given above. Overview While management efforts are underway in Vermont targeting both nuisance native and non-native aquatic species, the majority represent efforts focusing on non-native invasive species. At least 49 non-native aquatic species are known from Vermont. Fortunately, most of these species have not become invasive. Those that have - Eurasian watermilfoil, water chestnut, purple loosestrife, zebra mussels - have had significant negative economic and ecological impacts. Many of the state's waters, especially lakes, have a history of impacts related to these invasions. These efforts run the gamut from managing an incipient or established infestation to preventing the introduction of one. Only a few efforts are state run. The majority of nonnative aquatic invasive species management projects in Vermont are initiated and implemented on the local level. Dense monotypic Eurasian watermilfoil growth breaking the surface of Fairfield Pond (VTDEC, 2008) 1

6 Existing Funding Sources for Aquatic Nuisance Control Activities The primary source of non-local funds supporting non-native aquatic invasive species management in Vermont is the Vermont Aquatic Nuisance Control Grant-in-Aid Program. The Grant-in-Aid Program was initiated in July 1978 with the passage of 10 V.S.A The Program provides financial assistance to municipalities and agencies of the state for aquatic nuisance species (both native and non-native) management programs and is administered by the Department of Environmental Conservation. Projects are eligible for up to 75% of the total project cost. Municipalities are the primary recipients of funding by statute from the Grant-in-Aid Program. However, most municipalities pass the funds they receive to local water body associations, primarily associated with lakes, which in fact actually oversee or operate the control/spread prevention programs. Some municipalities provide limited cost-share funds or administrative oversight, but more often it is local associations or individuals who find the funds to pay for the remainder of the costs of these programs, dedicate significant volunteer hours and services, or provide both. Twenty-five percent of the revenue from Vermont motorboat registrations 1 and all the revenue from a motorboat registration surcharge initiated in fiscal year is the primary source of annual funding for Grant-in-Aid grants. The Department of Environmental Conservation receives these revenues from the Department of Motor Vehicles at the end of the state fiscal year in which they are generated. Grant-in-Aid grants are awarded annually at the beginning of the fiscal year, prior to the receipt of motorboat registration revenues, and therefore the total amount of grant funds awarded each year is based on a conservative estimate of anticipated receipts for the year. Lake Champlain Eurasian watermilfoil beds, Bridport (VTDEC, 2009) Additional sources of state funds have supplemented the Grant-in-Aid funds over the years. In fiscal year 2001, onetime funds of $100,000 were available to support project year 2000 programs. In fiscal year 2004, aquatic nuisance species general funds of $31,154 were available to support project year 2004 programs. In 2005, an amendment to 10 V.S.A. 924 created a voluntary aquatic nuisance control sticker. Although sales of the sticker were expected to generate additional revenue for Grant-in-Aid grants, only $3,897 in revenues have been generated, an amount that does not cover 1 The Department of Fish and Wildlife receives 50% of the motorboat registration revenue for boat access areas; the Department of Public Safety receives 15% for boater safety education and boating law enforcement; and the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets receives 10% for mosquito control. 2 At the time that the motorboat registration surcharge was initiated, the Department of Environmental Conservation also began to support two aquatic invasive species program full-time staff positions, in some years, using base motorboat registration revenue. 2

7 the cost expended by the Department of Environmental Conservation on sticker development and printing. The Department of Environmental Conservation is aware of only a handful of other funding sources currently supporting aquatic nuisance species management in Vermont. These sources are described below. All of the sources listed have funded projects geared towards the management of non-native aquatic invasive species. Army Corps of Engineers, Aquatic Plant Control Funds Federal aquatic plant control program funding has been available to the state in some years from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Under a general design memorandum between the State of Vermont and the Corps, these cost-shared funds when available can support water chestnut control in Lake Champlain (a control project managed by the Department of Environmental Conservation) and supplement the state Grant-in-Aid Program funds for non-chemical aquatic nuisance control and spread prevention projects on waters located in the Lake Champlain Basin. Projects outside of the Basin or chemical control programs are not eligible for Corps funds. In project year 2000, after three years of no federal funds from the Corps, federal funds were again available due to an annual appropriation secured by Vermont s Senator Leahy. Funds on some level have been available annually since then; in 2008 $157,831 of Corps funds were available to support the Aquatic Nuisance Control Grant-in-Aid grants. Local Implementation Grants, Lake Champlain Basin Program Local Implementation Grants represent an annual awards program administered with federal funds by the Lake Champlain Basin Program (LCBP). Local Implementation Grants award funds in four categories, one addresses pollution prevention and aquatic invasive species spread prevention. In 2008, up to $10,000 per grant was available to support technical projects in the pollution prevention and aquatic invasive species spread prevention category within the Lake Champlain basin in New York and Vermont. Requests from this category totaled $235,370 and the total awarded was $81,000. The LCBP received 10 applications related to aquatic invasives; six projects were funded, three represented Vermont projects: Intervale Conservation Nursery; Lewis Creek Association European Frogbit Removal; and Friends of the Mad River United against AIS. State General Funds, Department of Environmental Conservation The Department of Environmental Conservation has used general funds to support contracted water chestnut management in Lake Champlain and other infested waters. Over $2.8 million in Department general fund dollars have been expended since USFWS Aquatic Nuisance Species Plan Funding Cost-sharing grants through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are available to support aquatic nuisance species management plans under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act as amended by the National Invasive Species Act of In 2000, an aquatic nuisance species management plan was developed for the Lake Champlain Basin. The Lake Champlain Basin ANS Management Plan, revised in 2005, facilitates the coordination of aquatic nuisance species management efforts throughout the Lake Champlain Basin and implements a key section of Opportunities For Action: An Evolving Plan for the Future of the Lake Champlain Basin, originally completed and signed by the Governors of Vermont and New York and representatives of the Environmental 3

8 Protection Agency in 1996 and revised in Both the original and revised Opportunities for Action plans identify the development and implementation of a comprehensive management program for nuisance non-native aquatic species as one of the highest priority actions required to address the long-term health of the Lake Champlain Basin. Under the Plan, USFWS funds have been applied for and received annually since Amounts received do not typically reflect amounts requested. In 2008, the states of Vermont and New York requested $99,158 in cost share funds to implement priority action items identified under the Plan. Awarded funds, $43,134, partially supported a full-time regional aquatic nuisance species coordinator who works out of the Lake Champlain Basin Program office. USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program: The USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, established in 1987 provides costshare funds to landowners to restore and protect streamside and wetland habitat, particularly in agricultural areas. In Vermont, the Program is administered by the Lake Champlain Resources Office. In 2008, $10,000 in Partnership funding was awarded to the Department of Environmental Conservation to control water chestnut by hand in Lake Champlain and its tributaries, and a few other water bodies within the Lake Champlain Basin. Water chestnut, south Lake Champlain (VTDEC) Vermont Watershed Grants Vermont Watershed Grants represent an annual awards program created in Awarded funds are derived from half the proceeds from the sale of the Vermont Conservation License Plate. Grants are available for water-related projects that protect and restore watersheds. Municipalities, local or regional governmental agencies, nonprofit organizations, and citizen groups are eligible to receive Watershed Grants for work on public or private lands. The program is administered jointly by the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. In 2008, the Watersheds Grants Office had the resources to only fund 33% of applicants. Of the applications received, four related to non-native aquatic invasive species projects and only two of these were awarded funds: City of Newport, $3,360 for Lake Memphremagog public boat access monitor program and Echo Lake (Charleston), $3,000 for Echo Lake Milfoil Prevention project. Demand for Aquatic Nuisance Control Activities and Funds to Support Them Requests for funds to support aquatic nuisance species projects thru the Grant-in-Aid Program have included the control of Eurasian watermilfoil, purple loosestrife, curly-leaf pondweed, didymo and nuisance native aquatic plants, and aquatic invasive species spread prevention programs (Figure 1). Management methods for these projects include the use of mechanical harvesters, hydrorakes, diveroperated suction harvesters, benthic barriers, and chemicals (herbicides); physical removal by hand; 4

9 surveys; volunteer watch programs; public access area greeter programs; boat wash stations; searches for non-native aquatic nuisance species in a water body; and education and outreach initiatives. Mechanical harvesting of native aquatic plants has also been supported by the Program. # of Projects Grant-in-Aid Funded Management Projects purple loosestrife dydimo native plants spread prevention 26 watermilfoil Project Year Figure 1. Types of aquatic nuisance species management projects awarded funds by the Grant-in-Aid Program, project years 1994 through Funds spent annually managing aquatic nuisance species support management efforts on only a fraction of the non-native invasive species infested waters statewide. In project year 2008, 24 of the 41 projects awarded Grant-in-Aid grants, 59%, were for the management of Eurasian watermilfoil (one of these included an element to also remove curly-leaf pondweed). Of these 24, all were for the management of watermilfoil in a lake or pond with the exception of one where management occurred in a river. Yet as of October 2008, Eurasian watermilfoil was confirmed in at least 65 lakes or ponds and 25 other waters (e.g., wetlands, rivers, streams) in Vermont. None of the project year 2008-funded projects were for water chestnut or zebra mussel management, yet as of October 2008, water chestnut was confirmed in 21 Vermont waters and zebra mussels were confirmed in 2 Vermont lakes (see Figure 2). One 2008-funded project was for purple loosestrife management, and two were for spread prevention and education specifically related to didymo. Purple loosestrife has now been identified in over 175 towns in Vermont and didymo in 4 rivers. Of the remaining 14 projects awarded grants in project year 2008, 12 were projects aimed at preventing the spread of non-native aquatic invasive species (on lakes where none are currently known) and 2 were for nuisance native plant management. 5

10 Spread of Some AIS in Vermont # of Lakes Eurasian watermilfoil water chestnut zebra mussels Figure 2. Spread of some non-native aquatic invasive species (AIS) in Vermont lakes. The Department of Environmental Conservation is aware of only six other locally run non-native aquatic invasive species management programs in Vermont operating without assistance from the Grant-in-Aid Program. They include Friends of the Mad River didymo education and outreach; Lewis Creek Association European frogbit removal by hand from the mouth of Thorpe Brook; Lake Champlain Restoration Association Eurasian watermilfoil mechanical harvesting in South Lake Champlain and three programs preventing the introduction or spread of non-native aquatic invasive species in Lake Memphremagog, in Harveys Lake and thru the horticultural trade. Funds available to support Grant-in-Aid grants only represent a fraction of the cost of annual management. In project year 2009, requests for over $1.08 million to support 40 programs were received by the Grant-in-Aid Program. Estimated available funds totaled only $320,981: $244,986 from base motorboat registrations, the registration surcharge, and estimated boat registration funds remaining from state fiscal year 2009; and $76,035 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Due to the limited available funds, grant awards fell far short of the 75% authorized by statute. The maximum grant award was approximately 40% of the estimated project cost, with the majority of 6

11 awards at only 30%. 3 In order for the Program to have funded all projects at the full 75% authorized level, an additional amount of approximately $765,350 was needed. (Final financial information for project year 2009 Grant-in-Aid projects will not be available until possibly March 2010.) Despite funding shortfalls, the Grant-in-Aid Program has provided at least some funding to all eligible projects each year. No eligible project has been denied funding to date. This policy has, however, lowered the overall percentage of funds awarded to each project and resulted in the elimination of key project elements, an increased burden on volunteers to make up shortfalls or a significant reduction in the project duration. In project year 2008, over 59% of the final project costs of 41 Grant-in-Aid funded projects were borne by local resources, the majority of which represent donated personnel or services. The burden placed on volunteers to sustain effective and successful aquatic nuisance species management programs is significant. A number of programs in Vermont have failed or been discontinued due to a loss of volunteers and a lack of adequate funds to cover the loss. Sources of funds available to the Grant-in-Aid Program for grants awarded in project year 1994 through 2008 are shown in Figure 3. MBR funds include revenue from both base motorboat registrations and the registration surcharge initiated in fiscal year In project year 2000, the receipt of one-time funds ($100,000) and final project costs that came in below estimated project costs enabled the Grant-in-Aid Program to ultimately award full 75% grants to all programs. MBR funds saved in project year 2000 were used in project year 2001 to increase the grant awards that year. Revenues from the motorboat registration surcharge were first available to support programs in project year A volunteer provides surface support to scuba divers below operating a suction harvester for Eurasian watermilfoil control in Tinmouth Pond (Tinmouth Pond Assoc., 2003) 3 Projects are prioritized each year in accordance with 10 V.S.A. 922 (c). First priority is given to projects to manage incipient infestations of aquatic nuisances, second priority is given to projects to prevent or control the further spread of aquatic nuisances, and third priority is given to recurring maintenance projects. In establishing priorities for individual projects, the following are also considered: public accessibility and recreational uses; the importance to commercial, agricultural or other interests; the degree of local interest, as manifested by municipal or other contributions to the project; local efforts to control aquatic nuisances; other considerations affecting feasibility, probability of achieving long-term control, and necessity or advantage of the proposed work; and the extent to which the control project is a developmental rather than a maintenance program. 7

12 Sources of Grant-in-Aid Funds $600,000 $550,000 $500,000 $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 Other Corps MBR Project Year Figure 3. Sources of funds available to the Grant-in-Aid program, project years The Grant-in-Aid Program has not had the resources to adequately meet the continued rise in the number of projects and project costs, nor have they enabled full 75% grants to be awarded to all eligible projects (Figure 4). Grant-in-Aid Grants 1,250,000 1,000, , , ,000 ** 75% of Estimated Project Cost Dollars Granted Dollars Initially Granted * 2009 Project Year * For project year 2009, a figure for total dollars granted is not provided as grants have not been closed out. ** In project year 2004, requests for Grant-in-Aid funds increased due to herbicide treatments on six watermilfoil- infested lakes. Figure 4. Estimated eligible project costs vs. Grant-in-Aid grants awarded, project years 1994 through

13 Requests for financial assistance as well as the cost of conducting aquatic nuisance species management programs are expected to continue to increase in the future. Predicting increases in the density or aerial coverage of non-native aquatic invasive species populations in infested water bodies from one year to the next is difficult; yet such increases could significantly increase the future cost of management programs. Predicting new future infestations that may result in the need for additional management programs is also difficult and could influence funding projections. In addition, unpredictable changes in management methods, increased use of herbicides for instance (see project year 2004 in Figure 4), or future interest in spread prevention programs, could also significantly influence funding needs. The amount of funds available for Grant-in-Aid grants is expected to stay approximately the same, or decrease significantly if federal funds are reduced or unavailable. In the past, the only significant increase in MBR revenues occurred when MBR fees were raised or when the surcharge was added. Federal funds are the result of an annual appropriation secured by Vermont Senator Leahy; there is no guarantee that they will be available at all in the future. Federal funds available to Vermont in project year 2009 were half that received in project year In order for the Grant-in-Aid Program to provide full 75% grants to all eligible projects, funds in addition to motorboat registration revenues and federal dollars are needed. The Importance of Spread Prevention Seymour Lake public access greeters (Seymour Lake Assoc., 2008) Preventing new non-native aquatic invasive species from being introduced into and becoming established in Vermont is extremely critical, not only to hold down the future cost of managing non-native aquatic invasive species but also to protect the integrity of Vermont s aquatic ecosystems. Numerous non-native aquatic invasive species proven to be extremely invasive in other regions of the country are a real threat to waters here. In 2008, a relative of Eurasian watermilfoil was confirmed for the first time in a Vermont water body although populations were known from surrounding states for years prior to this discovery. Programs aimed at preventing the spread or introduction of non-native aquatic invasive species into Vermont water bodies are the best and least costly means of protection available. Although the Grant-in-Aid Program funded 12 such programs on lakes in project year 2008, these programs represent only a fraction of the state waters in need of protection. There are 150 Department of Fish and Wildlife accesses with boat access (not all with ramps) and another 21 that provide shore fishing access only. The Department of Forest Parks and Recreation has approximately 30 boat launch accesses. There are also a number of municipal and federal boat 9

14 access sites in the state. Ideally, all public accesses on Vermont water bodies should support some kind of non-native aquatic invasive species spread prevention program. Of the 65 lakes and ponds and 30 other infested waterbodies in the state with known populations of Eurasian watermilfoil, water chestnut, didymo, zebra mussels or a combination of these species, only 30 of these 95 infestations, 32%, have some level of management currently underway. Every Vermont waterbody infested by a non-native aquatic invasive species should be supported by some type of management, if only to educate waterbody users about the presence of an aquatic invasive and why preventing the further spread of aquatic invasive species to other waters is so critical. One need only compare the cost of managing Eurasian watermilfoil in Vermont to the cost of preventing its introduction to realize the truth of the well-known cliché, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In project year 2008, Eurasian watermilfoil management program costs on individual waterbodies ranged from approximately $4,000 to $130,000. Comparatively in the same year, the cost of programs aimed at preventing an introduction of Eurasian watermilfoil or another aquatic invasive species into individual waterbodies ranged from approximately $2,700 to $52,000. Total project costs for Eurasian watermilfoil projects funded by the Grantin-Aid Program exceeded $1 million. Total project costs for programs aimed at preventing the introduction of an aquatic nuisance species were $218,738 (Figure 5). Eurasian w atermilfoil, $1,080,796 Other, $27,337 Figure 5. Final project costs of projects funded by the Grant-in-Aid Program in project year ANS spread prevention, $218,738 The ability to detect and quickly initiate a response to contain and control a new aquatic invasive species introduction is also critical to reduce future management costs and protect the integrity of Vermont s aquatic ecosystems. In project year 2009, The Department of Environmental Conservation set aside $25,000 of anticipated Grant-in-Aid Program funds to support Department rapid response efforts to Vermont s first occurrence of variable-leaved watermilfoil in Vermont, a relative of Eurasian watermilfoil and also non-native. No other funding source was available for this rapid response. While only approximately $1,000 of the $25,000 was ultimately needed, the funds available to award through the Grant-in-Aid Program in project year 2009 were reduced by the full $25,000 in anticipation of needing these funds for the rapid response. 10

15 Recommended Financial Mechanisms to Fund the Demand for Aquatic Nuisance Control A number of potential funding sources for the Aquatic Nuisance Control Grant-in-Aid Program have been considered by the Department of Environmental Conservation, by individual legislative committees and others over the years. To date, any practical and politically feasible source identified has been tapped. Suggestions presented by various groups to generate needed revenues include the following: Create a Mandatory Sticker Program. Requiring aquatic invasive species stickers on non-motorized vessels and on motorboats registered outside Vermont establishes a long-term funding source for critical spread prevention programs and equalizes the aquatic nuisance species management funding burden that has previously been borne solely by Vermont-registered motorboat owners, who currently pay an aquatic nuisance species surcharge for their boat registration as well as having a percentage of the registration itself dedicated to aquatic nuisance species program activities. All users of Vermont s waters benefit when new invasive species are prevented from becoming established in the state. In addition, although nonmotorized boats are less likely than motorized ones to spread invasive species, it is still possible, particularly with microscopic invasive species transported through the movement of water (e.g. didymo, zebra mussel veligers, and VHS). The voluntary aquatic nuisance sticker program created by the Legislature in 2005 did not generate the revenues expected; in fact, revenues did not cover the cost of sticker development and the printing of 10,000 stickers. Persuading the public to voluntarily purchase stickers requires a strong, effective and continuous marketing program; no funds were appropriated by the legislature when it created this voluntary program. Volunteer-based water chestnut removal project, Bennington (VTDEC, 2005) Testimony from the Vermont Outdoor Guides Association in 2009 before the House Committee on Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources and surveys as part of greeter programs at public access areas suggest a willingness by this group of boaters to contribute to invasive species management and spread prevention. Increase motorboat registration fees, the surcharge or both. Motorboat registration fees are the primary, long-term funding source for Grant-in-Aid grants. An increase in the motorboat registration fees, the surcharge or both would provide additional funds for aquatic nuisance control grants, which have been funded at such record low percentages in recent years such that the viability of local control programs has been threatened. Currently, depending on 11

16 the class of boat, the cost of registering a motor boat in Vermont ranges from $ per registration plus a $5-10 surcharge 4. Increase the percentage of motorboat registration receipts the Department of Environmental Conservation receives annually. The Department of Fish and Wildlife receives 50% of the motorboat registration revenue for boat access areas; the Department of Environmental Conservation receives 25% for Grant-in-Aid grants and, if needed, to support two full-time aquatic invasive species positions; the Department of Public Safety receives 15% for boater safety education and boating law enforcement; and the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets receives 10% for mosquito control. Total Motorboat registration receipts for state fiscal year 2009 were over $783,000; the Department of Environmental Conservation s 25% share equated to approximately $196,000. Establish a long-term funding source, an Aquatic Nuisance Control Fund, supported by state general funds. There is no long-term funding source available to support critical spread prevention and rapid response programs, or to sustain control programs over the long-term to ensure success. An Aquatic Species Control Fund would ensure support of these programs without diverting resources from the Grant-in- Aid Program. Pursue a long-term agreement with the Corps of Engineers or other federal funding sources to increase the amount available and its reliability. Although Grant-in-Aid grants have been funded at record low percentages in recent years, a loss of the federal contribution to this grant program would be devastating. These federal funds are the result of an annual appropriation secured by Vermont Senator Leahy; there is no guarantee that they will be available at all in the future. Federal funds available to Vermont in project year 2009 were half that received in project year Vermont s newest non-native aquatic invasive species, variableleaved watermilfoil (VTDEC, 2009) 4 Motorboat registration fees are $22.00 and a surcharge of $5.00 for a motorboat in class A; $33.00 and a surcharge of $10.00 for a motorboat in class 1; $60.00 and a surcharge of $10.00 for a motorboat in class 2; and $ and a surcharge of $10.00 for a motorboat in class 3. The four motorboat classes are Class A, less than 16 feet in length; Class 1, 16 feet or over and less than 26 feet in length; Class 2, 26 feet or over and less than 40 feet in length; and Class 3, 40 feet or over. 12

17 Conclusions The primary source of funds available for the management of aquatic nuisance species control and spread prevention in Vermont (primarily non-native invasive species) is the Aquatic Nuisance Control Grant-in-Aid Program. Of 46 locally-run programs targeting non-native aquatic invasive species in Vermont in 2009, 40 applied for and received funds through the Grant-in-Aid Program. A handful of other sources (state and federal) are available to support similar projects, but are not limited to supporting aquatic nuisance species projects alone. Financial resources available through the Grant-in-Aid Program have not met the demand for funds; current funding falls far below the authorized 75% level. The Grant-in-Aid Program has not been able to fund at the 75% level since In project year 2009, in order for the Grant-in-Aid Program to meet requests and fund at the full 75% level, an additional $765,350 was needed. Volunteers ready benthic mats to control Eurasian watermilfoil in Fairfield Pond (Fairfield Pond Assoc., 2004) Grant awards of between approximately 40% and 11% of estimated total project costs were made, with the majority of awards at 30%. A reliable long-term funding source is needed if full 75% funding is to be provided to eligible aquatic nuisance control Grant-in-Aid projects annually. To ensure that local non-native aquatic invasive species management programs continue to operate in Vermont and to support critically-needed spread prevention programs statewide, the Grant-in- Aid Program needs to provide full 75% funding to eligible projects. Non-native aquatic invasive species management programs for either control of an existing species or to prevent an introduction of one currently underway in Vermont only represent a portion of infested waters statewide and a small percentage of those in need of protection. Only approximately 32% of infested waters have some level of management currently underway to control a non-native aquatic invasive species. At least 12 public access greeter programs were active in project year 2009, yet there are over 200 public access sites (boat launching or shore fishing) in the state. 13

18 Additional one-time funds could change the current funding cycle of the Grant-in-Aid Program so that revenues received one fiscal year are awarded the next fiscal year. Two years of funding in one year would be needed to accomplish this. The current funding cycle does not allow the Department of Environmental Conservation to make awards based on actual funds available. Instead, conservative predictions of anticipated motorboat registration revenues are made to ensure that grants awarded at the beginning of the fiscal year prior to the receipt of revenues do not exceed actual revenues received at the end of the fiscal year. Funds could allow the Grant-in-Aid Program to get one year ahead, so that revenues received one fiscal year are awarded during the next fiscal year. Zebra mussel encrusted wood, Burlington Bay, Lake Champlain (VTDEC) Aquatic nuisance species management programs in Vermont need to rely less on local volunteers and donated services. Control programs need adequate funds to support paid personnel to oversee and implement local programs. Aquatic nuisance species management in Vermont, especially the management of Eurasian watermilfoil, is borne at the local level municipalities, lake associations, concerned citizens, individuals. Adequate resources do not exist on the local level to effectively manage aquatic invasive species. Volunteers fill gaps by donating time and services, but burnout is high and donated personnel and services cannot adequately cover or sustain all project elements. Grant-in-Aid grants have been funded at record low percentages in recent years, creating economic hardship for local groups working hard to control aquatic nuisances in Vermont. It is doubtful that many of these groups will be able to continue their programs for much longer without additional state assistance. Loss of these local efforts undoubtedly will result in an expansion of invasive species populations well beyond their current infestation level and range. Adequate funds are needed to support projects that raise public awareness and prevent the introduction of aquatic invasive species. Aquatic invasive species spread prevention programs are critical to Vermont s economic and ecological health. Currently most Grant-in-Aid funds support programs to manage the very visible impacts of existing infestations. More funding must be made available to support spread prevention programs if Vermont is going to successfully manage aquatic nuisance species over the long term. 14

19 To maximize the effectiveness of the Aquatic Nuisance Control Program, adequate financial resources should be available at all times to enable a rapid response to new occurrences of an aquatic nuisance species. One growing season, or even a few months, can make the difference between eradicating a new infestation and having to continuously manage it over the long-term. Currently the Grant-in-Aid program spends all anticipated revenues at the beginning of each fiscal year, leaving no funds available to address a newly-discovered infestation later in the year. Sufficient funds are needed to establish an emergency reserve that can be quickly granted to a program to rapidly respond when a new infestation is discovered. 15

20 References J. Ellen Marsden and M. Hauser, Exotic Species in Lake Champlain. Journal of Great Lakes Research 35 (2009) Lake Champlain Basin Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan, revised pp. Lake Champlain Basin Rapid Response Action Plan for Aquatic Invasive Species, December pp. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Vermont s Purple Loosestrife Biological Control Program 2006 Annual Report. 39 pp. 16