United States Department of the Interior Lamoille River...Nov 01, 2019 · 1 National Life Drive, Davis 2 Montpelier, VT 05620-3702 802-828-1294

March 10, 2020

Jon Kart, Permit Specialist Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department 1 National Life Drive, Davis 2 Montpelier, VT 05620-3702

Dear Mr. Kart:

The following pages comprise our complete application for a Vermont Endangered & Threatened Species Takings Permit. This application addresses potential effects of our proposed lampricide treatment of the Lamoille River, scheduled for the fall of 2020.

Past applications for lampricide usage have included long histories of information repeated from previous applications and issued permits. This year, we pared our application down and directly addressed the questions asked on the application form. All new, current, relevant, and requested information is included in the application. Our last application for takings associated with a lampricide treatment of the Lamoille River was approved, a permit was issued, is included here as an appendix, and is referenced in our current application.

We included our Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Aquatic Nuisance Control (ANC) permit application as an appendix where we list specific treatment parameters and methods. In coordination with the ANR Secretary’s Legal Counsel, we are working to keep operational methods in one location for both permit applications to ensure one common set is approved for use by both permits. For that reason, methods and techniques only appear in the ANC application, but are open for comment as part of the E&T application review process. The ANR Secretary’s Legal Counsel will coordinate comments on treatment methods and strategies.

To facilitate the review process and eliminate the need for submission of multiple files, we produced this application as a single PDF file. It contains this cover letter, the application form, and 2 appendices. To aid in navigation of the PDF document, we used section bookmarks. To open and view the bookmark pane, first save this file to your computer, then open it with the standalone Adobe Reader or Adobe Acrobat program (opening it directly from the attachment in an Adobe web-browser add-on viewer may cause problems). With the PDF file open in Adobe Reader or Adobe Acrobat, click on the rightward-facing arrow in the left screen margin to open the bookmark pane. Sections of the document are listed there and can be clicked on to navigate back and forth as needed.

Thank you for considering our application,

Bradley A. Young Lake Champlain Sea Lamprey Control Program, Manager

United States Department of the InteriorFISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office 11 Lincoln Street

Essex Junction, Vermont 05452

Agency of Natural Resources 1 National Life Drive, Davis 2 Montpelier, VT 05620-3702

802-828-1294

Application for Endangered & Threatened Species Taking Permits

last updated 11/1/2019

Statutory Authority: 10 VSA §5408 Application Fees $50 for permits issued for scientific, educational and noncommercial cultural or ceremonial purposes, to enhance the propagation or

survival of a threatened or endangered species and for special purposes consistent with the federal Endangered Species Act.

$250 for each listed animal/plant taken up to a maximum of $25,000 for zoological and botanical exhibition purposes, and for incidental take. The Secretary may also require the implementation of mitigation strategies and may collect mitigation funds, in addition to the permit fees, to mitigate the impacts of a taking.

For research and survey projects for listed bats, please download the application form specifically for such projects from our endangered species permits page: https://vtfishandwildlife.com/conserve/conservation-planning/endangered-and-threatened-species/threatened-endangered-species-takings-permit

1. Permittee/Applicant Name: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Institution (if applicable): Lake Champlain Fish & Wildlife Conservation Office Principal Officer (CEO) of Institution: Bradley A. Young Physical Address/Town/St/Zip: 11 Lincoln Street, Essex Junction, VT 05452 Telephone: 802-662-5304 E-Mail: [email protected]

2. Name(s) & affiliation of subpermittee(s)

Staff from U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department 3. Which species, and how many of each, will be collected or impacted?

Common Name Scientific Name # of individuals to be collected/ impacted

% of population to be collected/

impacted Pocketbook mussel Lampsilis ovata Not Expected 0 Pink heelsplitter mussel Potamilus alatus Not Expected 0 Fluted shell mussel Lasmigona costata Not Expected 0 Fragile papershell mussel Leptodea fragilis Not Expected 0 Cylindrical papershell mussel Anodontoides ferussacianus Not Expected 0 Giant floater mussel Pyganodon grandis Not Expected 0 Eastern sand darter Ammocrypta pellucida Not Expected 0

Lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens Very Low or No Expected Mortality <1%

http://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/fullchapter/10/123

https://vtfishandwildlife.com/conserve/conservation-planning/endangered-and-threatened-species/threatened-endangered-species-takings-permit



Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Application for Endangered & Threatened Species Takings Permit p. 2


4. Purposes for which you are applying for a takings permit (must meet one of the following): ___ Scientific Purposes _X_ Enhancing the propagation of a threatened or endangered species ___ Educational Purposes ___ Special purposes consistent w/ the federal Endangered Species Act ___ Zoological Exhibition _X_ Incidental Take

5. Detailed Explanation of Proposed Activities See Appendix A- Project Description: 2020 Lamoille ANC Permit Application; Pages: 7-11 (Treatment Strategy and Methodology)

6. Are survey data available to indicate the size and/or extent of the impacted population for each species listed in section 3? No ___, Yes _X__. Prior to commencing the proposed activities, a survey may be required to determine the extent and number of individuals of T&E species at the project location. The survey requires authorization from the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) and shall be completed by an expert with experience/ qualifications acceptable to ANR.

Mussels Pocketbook Pink heelsplitter Fluted shell Fragile papershell Cylindrical papershell Giant floater

The presence of the six mussel species is discussed in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) page 71 and reports on their conservation status is listed on the of State of Vermont’s Natural Heritage Inventory. The densities and distribution of these mussels in the Lamoille River are not known. Fish

Lake sturgeon The Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department provides an assessment of the status of lake sturgeon in the Lake Champlain Lake Sturgeon Recovery Plan (Mackenzie 2016).

Eastern sand darter The Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department assessed the status and distribution of eastern sand darters in the Channel Darter and Eastern Sand Darter Sampling Using Trawls and Seines T&E Permit ER‐2017‐14 2018 Annual Report (Pientka and Good 2019).

Incidental Take All species will be exposed to a controlled concentration of the lampricide for the purpose of controlling sea lamprey in Lake Champlain as part of a cooperative state and federal partnership to restore and enhance the fisheries of the lake. Enhancing propagation of and endangered species Of the 11 listed species, lake sturgeon will directly benefit as described in the Lake Champlain Lake Sturgeon Recovery Plan (MacKenzie 2016)

https://www.fws.gov/lcfwro/pdf/sea_lamprey/SEIS.pdf




7. Provide a detailed explanation for the basis of the taking/impact. For instance, if the basis is Scientific Purposes, demonstrate how the benefits of the proposed activities outweigh the impact(s) to the individuals and the populations. If the basis is Incidental Take, explain: A) Steps taken to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impact to listed species and/or critical habitat; B) The benefits that would result if a permit is issued; C) Why you believe the taking is necessary; D) Why you believe the taking will not impair the conservation or recovery of T&E species; E) Any alternative actions to the taking that you considered and the reasons that the alternative(s) were not selected.

Provide supporting documentation if applicable.



The information provided to answer question 7 and its sub-parts is either new, additional, or noteworthy relative to information submitted in our 2013 application that addressed each of these same species. That application was approved and issued as 2013 Lamoille T&E Takings Permit #EH-2013-14 (Appendix B). 7A) The proposed treatment concentration has been lowered to 1.3 x the Minimum Lethal Concentration (MLC) for sea lamprey to minimize any potential impact on lake sturgeon and mudpuppies based on their level of sensitivity to lampricides. In the state of New York, and in Vermont streams where no sensitive Endangered and Threatened species are present, sea lamprey control treatments are conducted at concentrations up to 1.5 x MLC to ensure environmental variability in rivers is accounted for and addressed, thereby reducing the risk of exposing the environment to lampricide without achieving the desired result of eliminating sea lamprey. The concentration of 1.3 x MLC carries a degree of risk in that environmental conditions may lead to areas of the river that do not receive an exposure of lampricide that is lethal to sea lamprey. We have accepted that risk to provide additional protection to Vermont listed species sensitive to lampricide. 7B) See Appendix A- Project Description: 2020 Lamoille ANC Permit Application; Page 17 (Public Benefits) 7C) See Appendix A- Project Description: 2020 Lamoille ANC Permit Application; Pages 2-4 (Reasons to Control the Aquatic Nuisance) 7D) Toxicity of lampricides to non-target species is described, for the purposes of the proposed treatment, relative to the Minimum Lethal dose required to kill 99% of sea lamprey (MLC), (Tables 1 & 2 below). Results from toxicity tests are reported as no observed effect concentration (NOEC) and the lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC). Standard operating procedures for acute toxicity testing (ASTM 2007; USEPA 1975) allow 10% mortality in the experimental control exposures to account for random mortalities not due to toxicity. Mortality that exceeds 10% is assumed to be a significant adverse effect. The highest lampricide concentration that exhibits less than 10% mortality is the NOEC. The next highest lampricide concentration that test subjects are exposed to where mortality exceeds 10% is defined as the LOEC.



Mussels The discussion on the toxicity of lampricides to mussels in the FSEIS (pp. 126-130) concludes that mussels suffer little or no mortality during typical lampricide treatments. After 100 stream lampricide treatments in the Champlain Basin, only 33 mussel mortalities have been recorded. No mussel mortalities have been recorded in the past 10 years. Research on mussel susceptibility to lampricide is consistent with the low number of mussel mortalities observed following treatments (Table 1). Table 1. NOEC and LOEC values for selected mussel species are represented as a multiple of sea lamprey 9-hour MLC.

Species TFM TFM/1% Nic.

Data Source NOEC LOEC NOEC LOEC

Cylindrical papershell 2.6 3.2 NT NT NYSDEC and

VTDFW 2007 2.3 2.9 NT NT

Fluted shell 1.6 2.0 1.2 1.5 NYSDEC and

VTDFW 2001 1.6 2.0 1.6 1.9

Pocketbook (adult) 1.5 1.9

1.6 1.9 Neuderfer 2001; NYSDEC and VTDFW 2001

1.6 2.0 ≥2.0 >2.0

Pocketbook (juvenile) 1.5 1.9 NT NT Neuderfer 2001

Fragile papershell 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.9 Boogaard et al. 2004

Giant floater 1.6 2.0 1.6 2.0 Boogaard et al. 2004

Pink heelspliter ≥1.9 >1.9 2.0 2.4 Boogaard et al. 2004

The effects of lampricide on mussel glochidia have long been of interest, but difficulty in culturing them has led to an inability to perform toxicity tests on that life stage until now. Boogaard et al. (2015) published a study that determined the acute toxicity of TFM to selected life stages of the snuffbox mussel (Epioblasma triquetra), a Great Lakes species and candidate for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. TFM toxicity to free-floating glochidia and one-week-old juvenile snuffbox (collected one week after dropping from the infected fish host) life stages was tested for the first time. The study found no significant difference in survival among life stages at concentrations of up to 1.8 times what would be applied during a lampricide treatment. The host species for the glochidia, log perch, are more sensitive than the mussels themselves and would be the greater source of concern. While snuffbox is not a species that occurs in Lake Champlain, it does show for the first time that there is no evidence of additional sensitivity in the glochidia stage. In summary, TFM or TFM/1% Niclosamide treatments are expected to have negligible impacts on mussel populations at concentrations of up to at least 1.5 x MLC. No mortality is the most often observed effect. Thus, the proposed 1.3 x MLC maximum target TFM concentration for the Lamoille River would mitigate the risk to resident mussels, including the listed species.



Fish Lake sturgeon Early life stages of lake sturgeon appear to be among the most sensitive of non-lamprey fishes to TFM and TFM/1% Niclosamide. Boogaard et al. (2003) conducted a series of flow-through TFM and TFM/1% Niclosamide toxicity tests on nine early life stages of lake sturgeon, from sac fry, through age 1+). Young-of-year lake sturgeon up to about 80 mm total length were found to be nearly as sensitive to TFM as sea lamprey, with NOEC’s ranging from 0.4 to 0.8 x MLC, depending on size class. Their tolerance to TFM increased with size. Average NOEC’s of three young-of-year size classes averaging 107, 157, 217 mm TL were equivalent to 1.0 x MLC, 1.0 x MLC, 1.2 x MLC, respectively; average NOEC for an age 1+ group averaging 261mm TL was equivalent to 1.5 x MLC (Table 2). Table 2. Toxicity of TFM and TFM/1% Niclosamide to four early life stages of lake sturgeon and comparison to observed sea lamprey MLC (Boogaard et al. 2003).

Average

Length mm (range)

Test # TFM NOEC

Multiple X Sea Lamprey MLC

TFM/1% Niclosamide NOEC Multiple X Sea

Lamprey MLC

107.4 (85-125)

1 1.0 1.2 2 1.0 1.2 3 1.0 1.2

157.4 (131-181)

1 1.0 1.0 2 1.0 1.0 3 1.0 1.0

217.4 (183-255)

1 1.3 1.2 2 1.2 1.2 3 1.0 1.3

261.0 (219-301)

1 1.5 1.2 2 1.6 1.2 3 1.3 1.3

We will treat the Lamoille River between late September and late November to allow young-of-year sturgeon increased growth potential prior to lampricide exposure. The Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife published its Lake Champlain Sturgeon Recovery Plan in 2016 which lists its highest priority in Sturgeon Recovery as “A. Continue efforts to reduce sea lamprey numbers in Lake Champlain to reduce lamprey predation on sub-adult and adult lake sturgeon” (MacKenzie 2016). The plan reports that 62% of adult sturgeon collected in Vermont between 1998 and 2002 had fresh or healing sea lamprey wounds. The impacts of lamprey on sturgeon whereby they prevent sub-adults from maturing to spawning age and kill spawning age adults is the reason that the state of Vermont considers lamprey control of greater benefit than the cost of potential effects from lampricide. Reducing the effects of lampricide on young-of-the-year sturgeon was priority “E.”

Eastern sand darter Eastern sand darters are relatively tolerant of TFM and TFM/1% Niclosamide exposure at treatment concentrations, with a NOECs of 1.4 and 1.6 x MLC in a laboratory toxicity test, respectively (Neuderfer 2000). Based on these above findings, a treatment concentration of up to 1.3 x MLC should not affect eastern sand darters and thus mitigates the risk to the population.



Severity of toxic effects on species

MLC NOEC ≤10% <LOEC

0 50 100 Percent Mortality (any organism)

10

Chemical Concentration

NOEC (No Observed Effect Concentration) = Concentration at which 10% or less of organisms die LOEC (Lowest Observable Effect Concentration) = Concentration at which more than 10% of organisms die MLC (Minimum Lethal Concentration) = Concentration at which all organisms die

Figure 1. The chromatograph depicts the TFM toxicity tolerances of these species as reported in the text and tables 7, and 8. Green represents the NOEC, Yellow represents the LOEC, and Red represents the MLC for sea lamprey. For all other species red represents 20% more than the LOEC (whose MLC’s are not empirically determined) [Categorical acronyms defined in box above]. Grey highlighted species are Vermont State-threatened. Black highlighted species are Vermont State-endangered. The black vertical line indicates our proposed treatment concentration of 1.3xMLC. *Lake Sturgeon values based on the mean NOEC and LOEC for individuals in the 217mm size class.

Multiple of Sea Lamprey MLC, sustained for a minimum of 9 hours

Toxicity of the Lampricide TFM to Vermont Threatened and Endangered Species of the Lamoille River, Relative to Sea Lamprey

Fluted-Shell

Pocketbook

Fragile Papershell

Giant Floater

Pink Heelsplitter

Eastern Sand Darter

Lake Sturgeon*

Cylindrical Papershell

0 1.0 2.0 2.5 1.5 0.5

Sea Lamprey



7E) See Appendix A- Project Description: 2020 Lamoille ANC Permit Application; Page 12 (There is no reasonable non-chemical alternative available).

Figure 2. The chromatograph depicts the TFM/1% Niclosamide toxicity tolerances of these species as reported in the text. Green represents the NOEC, Yellow represents the LOEC, and Red represents the MLC for sea lamprey or 20% more than the LOEC for the other species (whose MLC’s are not empirically determined) [Categorical acronyms defined in box above]. Grey highlighted species are Vermont State-threatened. Black highlighted species are Vermont State-endangered. The black vertical line indicates our proposed treatment concentration of 1.3xMLC. *Lake Sturgeon values based on the mean NOEC and LOEC for individuals in the 217mm size class.

Multiple of Sea Lamprey MLC, sustained for a minimum of 9 hours

Toxicity of the Lampricide TFM/1% Niclosamide mix to Vermont Threatened and Endangered Species of the Winooski River, Relative to Sea Lamprey

Fluted-Shell

Pocketbook

Fragile Papershell

Giant Floater

Pink Heelsplitter

Eastern Sand Darter

Cylindrical Papershell – Not Tested

Lake Sturgeon*

Sea Lamprey

0 1.0 2.0 2.5 1.5 0.5

Severity of toxic effects on species

MLC NOEC ≤10% <LOEC

0 50 100 Percent Mortality (any organism)

10

Chemical Concentration

NOEC (No Observed Effect Concentration) = Concentration at which 10% or less of organisms die LOEC (Lowest Observable Effect Concentration) = Concentration at which more than 10% of organisms die MLC (Minimum Lethal Concentration) = Concentration at which all organisms die



8. What is the time frame of proposed activities: We seek this permit to become effective in the fall of 2020 and remain effective through the fall of 2024. This would allow the Lamoille River to be treated twice under this permit (2020 and 2024). The span of 2020-2024 would accommodate the potential need for a postponement of the first treatment due to environmental conditions while maintaining our 4-year cyclical schedule. We recognize that a postponement of the second treatment would necessitate submission of a new permit. If issues arise, we understand the permit can be reopened. We understand this does not guarantee permission to conduct two treatments; instead, it allows a second treatment in 2024 if all contingencies and conditions in the permit continue to be fulfilled. The applicant will notify the Agency of Natural Resources at least 6 months prior to a planned second treatment to allow time for any questions or concerns to be raised and addressed.

9. What are the qualifications & experience of person(s) conducting the proposed activities? Professional and technical staff from the two agencies listed in #2 above are licensed pesticide applicators with special training and expertise in conducting lampricide treatments to control sea lamprey larvae while minimizing the effects on non-target species, including the Vermont state-listed endangered and threatened species listed above.

10. Which methods and equipment will you use? If, for example, you seek authorization to translocate/transplant Threatened & Endangered Species, attach a translocation/transplanting plan identifying how specimens will be found and moved, where to, and how you propose to monitor the effectiveness of the translocation/transplanting.

See Appendix A- Project Description: 2020 Lamoille ANC Permit Application; Pages: 7-11 (Treatment Strategy and Methodology)

11. Where is your project location? Be as specific as possible and identify the town(s) and county. If field-based activities are proposed, attach a detailed map of project site(s).

12. What are the possible impacts of the proposed activities on the target species or habitat? Include details about the numbers of plants and/or animals that will be taken/impacted, and/or the extent and nature of habitat alteration or destruction and efforts to minimize impact.

Addressed in Question 7D

13. What is your plan for conservation or mitigation of species or habitat impacted? Addressed in Question 7A

14. Final disposition of the specimens you collect (if any)? All dead fish (excluding lamprey), amphibians, mussels and other large invertebrates encountered will be identified and enumerated, if possible. Organisms not identified in the field will be collected, if possible, and retained for identification. As noted above, dead lamprey larvae will not be counted during the post treatment mortality survey, but the first 30 encountered in each transect will be retained and identified.

Lamoille River in the towns of Milton and Colchester downstream of the Peterson Dam. Detailed map included in Appendix A- Project Description: 2020 Lamoille ANC Permit Application; Page 9 (Treatment Methodology).



15. If your project is proposed for a time of year that is more likely to impact listed species than other times of year, please explain why a permit should be granted during your proposed time period.

16. Impacts to Migratory Birds: Federal authorization is required for activities which might take birds (alive or dead, feathers, eggs and even nests). Federal migratory bird permits are issued by the US Fish & Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Office: 413-253-8643, https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/permits.php. My proposed project will impact migratory birds, feathers, eggs or nests: _X_ No, ____ Yes? If yes: My migratory bird permit # is_________________, it is valid until ____________ (please include a copy with your application) I don’t have a migratory bird permit but will apply for one ____ Yes.

17. Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee (IACUC) Protocol # (if applicable): NA

18. Required attachments *See Below _X*_ Permit fees: Make checks payable to: “VFWD T&E Permit Fund 20345”

$50 for permits for scientific, educational and noncommercial cultural or ceremonial purposes, for enhancing the propagation of a listed species and for special purposes consistent with the federal Endangered Species Act. $250 for each listed animal/plant taken up to $25,000 for zoological exhibition and incidental take.

_X__ Map/Site Plan: For field-based activities attach a map, of appropriate scale, identifying the location where field based activities will occur.

___ Scientific Research: Include a research proposal/description and IACUC review and approval application or report with any T&E permit application for scientific research.

___ Translocation/Transplanting Plan: If you seek authorization to translocate/transplant listed species, attach a plan identifying how specimens will be found and moved, where to and how you propose to monitor the effectiveness of the translocation/transplantation.

___ Importation: For permits authorizing the importation of live specimens of threatened or endangered species a Veterinary Health Inspection report is required certifying the disease-free status of the specimens to be imported.

The range of acceptable dates to perform treatments is set by the State of Vermont, to avoid conflict with the public whose use of the areas proposed for treatment decreases after Labor Day. We believe this date range also happens to be most advantageous for the survival of T&E species.

* The USFWS was informed that application fees for T&E permits would not be required for activities initiated by ANR staff or for agents of ANR working cooperatively or at the direction of ANR staff. This applies in the case of lampricide applications which have been a cooperative endeavor between USFWS and VFWD. Therefore, the USFWS will not be required to pay fees of $50 for permits issued for scientific and education purposes, enhancing the propagation of a species, and special purposes consistent with the federal Endangered Species Act. The $250 fee for each listed animal/plant taken, up to $25,000, will not apply to takings specified in the permit.

https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/permits.php



18. Certification by signature: I hereby affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the information, as well as any exhibits, documentations, and maps, are truthful to the best of my knowledge, that I am not delinquent in any obligation to pay child support or that I am in good standing with respect to any unpaid judgment issued by the judicial bureau or district court for fines and penalties for a civil violation or criminal offense. I also understand that false statements made on this application are punishable pursuant to 10 V.S.A. 4267 of Vermont state law.

Signature: _____________________________ Date: ________March 10, 2020_____________ Submit signed application via email to [email protected] or mail c/o “Permit Specialist” Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department, 1 National Life Drive, Davis 2, Montpelier, VT 05620-3702. Endangered and threatened species taking permits are issued under the authority of 10 VSA §5408. Permits are issued for the purposes of taking (including collecting, disturbing or possessing) individuals (or parts of) of species listed as Endangered or Threatened by the State of Vermont. Collection on lands posted according to 10 VSA §5201 or 13 VSA §3705 is unlawful without landowner permission.



References

ASTM 2007. Standard Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests on Test Materials with Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians. Designation: E729 – 96 In: 2007 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA. 10.1520/E0729-96R07.

Boogaard, M. A., T. D. Bills, and D. A. Johnson. 2003. Acute toxicity of TFM and a TFM/niclosamide mixture to selected species of fish, including lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) and mudpuppies (Necturus maculosus), in laboratory and field exposures. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 29 (Supplement 1):529–541.

Boogaard, M. A., C. S. Kolar, and D. L. Waller. 2004. Acute toxicity of 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol (TFM) and a TFM-1% niclosamide mixture to the giant floater (Pyganodon grandis), fragile papershell (Leptodea fragilis), and the pink heelsplitter (Potamilus alatus) unionid mussels and sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) larvae. Completion report prepared for Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative.

Boogaard, T. D. Hubert, and B.D. Chipman 2013. Acute toxicity of 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol (TFM) and a TFM:1% niclosamide mixture to the juvenile black sandshell mussel (Ligumia recta). For submission to the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative. 5 pp.

Boogaard, M.A., T.J. Newton, T.D. Hubert, C.A. Kaye, and M.C. Barnhart. 2015. Evaluation of the short term 12 hour toxicity of 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol (TFM) to multiple life stages of Venustaconcha ellipsiformis and Epioblasma triquetra and its host fish (Percina caprodes). Environ Toxicol Chem. 34:1634-1641. doi: 10.1002/etc.2959.

MacKenzie, C. 2016. Lake Champlain Sturgeon Recovery Plan. Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. Agency of Natural Resources. 1 National Life Drive, Davis 2, Montpelier, VT 05602.

Neuderfer, G. 2000. Summary of eastern sand darter (Ammocrypta pellucida) laboratory toxicity test results on the Poultney River on September 9, 2000. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Avon, NY.

Neuderfer, G. N. 2001. Toxicity of the lampricide TFM (3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol) to juvenile and adult pocketbook mussels (Lampsilis ovate), black sandshell (Ligumia recta), and the channel darter (Percina copelandi). NYSDEC Administrative Report. Avon, NY. 34 pp.

NYSDEC and VTDFW 2001. Preliminary Results of TFM Toxicity Tests of the Fluted Shell (Lasmigona costata) and Pocketbook (Lampsilis ovata) Mussels. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Avon, NY. 10 pp.

NYSDEC and VTDFW 2007. Summary of TFM Toxicity Tests of the Cylindrical Papershell (Anodontoides ferussacianus) Mussel. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Avon, NY. 4 pp.

Pientka,B., and S. Good. 2019. Channel Darter and Eastern Sand Darter Sampling Using Trawls and Seines T&E Permit ER‐2017‐14. Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, Essex Junction, VT. 38 pp.

USEPA. 1975. Methods for acute toxicity tests with fish, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. EPA-600/3-75-009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR. 61

Appendix A

Proposed Lampricide Treatment of the Lamoille River in 2020 and 2024

Detailed Project Description and Supporting Narrative

March 10, 2020

Appendix A - 2 / 2020 Lamoille ANC Permit Application

Reasons to Control the Aquatic Nuisance Parasitic Sea Lamprey Population of Lake Champlain Programmatic targets of 15 lamprey wounds per 100 Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and 25 lamprey wounds per 100 lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) were set in 1990 (FSEIS, page 4). These targets are based on experience and historic data that indicated these species could withstand and persist at those levels of lamprey wounds. Because these targets are the maximum level of lamprey parasitism believed to be consistent with healthy and sustainable populations of each host species, the FSEIS identifies ideal targets for lamprey wounds as 5 for Atlantic salmon and 10 for lake trout. Our most recent lamprey wounding data (November 2019) are 20 for Atlantic salmon and 57 for lake trout (Figure 1). While lamprey wounds have been reduced substantially since their high mark in 2006, the 2019 data and data from recent years show that we are not meeting our programmatic goals. For this reason, it is important that we continue to control all known sea lamprey populations as we continue to identify sources of sea lamprey production that contribute to the unacceptable levels of parasitism on these and other host species in Lake Champlain.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Lake Trout (21-25 in)Atlantic Salmon (17-21 in)

Lake Champlain Sea Lamprey Wounds per 100 fish

Figure 1. Sea lamprey wounding rates on Atlantic salmon and lake trout in Lake Champlain from 2005-2019.




Larval Sea Lamprey Population of the Lamoille River Sea lamprey larval population assessments conducted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office (Service) are used to identify the distribution and density of larval sea lamprey in Lake Champlain tributaries and their associated deltas. When larval lamprey are located, methods to control those populations are evaluated and implemented based on the characteristics of each tributary. Our survey data span the entire length of the Lamoille River inhabited by larval sea lamprey (Figure 2). We positioned 24 equidistant transects in the Lamoille River from Peterson Dam to the mouth in Mallets Bay. We electrofished 15 m2 of preferred lamprey habitat at each even-numbered transect (12 plots) and 15 m2 of less-preferred habitat at every fourth transect (6 plots) that results in 270 m2 of sampled habitat. Habitat type availability and accessibility can reduce the total area sampled. Larval sea lamprey were not detected in the Lamoille River up to and during the experimental control program (1990-1997). Beginning in 2005, Service quantitative assessment sampling (QAS) surveys showed growing larval production that contributes parasitic sea lamprey to Lake Champlain. Previous larval surveys found 12 in 2005, 3 in each of the surveys done in 2008, 2012, and 2013, 0 in 2015, and 19 in 2019. As seen in Figure 2, the larval population is distributed throughout the length of the Lamoille River, downstream of Peterson Dam. While these numbers may appear relatively low, it is important for context to consider the size of the Lamoille River relative to the fraction (0.025%) of sampled habitat. As explained in the previous section, it is important to control populations of larvae where we can, as we continue to focus our efforts in ways that will reduce the parasitic population of the lake.


Figure 2. Number (N) of sea lamprey collected in preferred (white callout boxes) and less-preferred (gray callout boxes) larval lamprey habitat in the Lamoille River during the 2019 QAS survey. Associated densities reported as larvae per square meter sampled.


Brief History of the Aquatic Nuisance in the Waterbody

The Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative (Cooperative) comprises the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department (VTFWD), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and serves to manage the aquatic resources of Lake Champlain. The Cooperative conducted an experimental program from 1990-1997 to determine the feasibility of controlling sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) in Lake Champlain to support the restoration of native lake trout and Atlantic salmon and promote a sport fishery (Fisheries Technical Committee 1999). A Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS), titled A Long-term Program of Sea Lamprey Control in Lake Champlain (2001) defines purpose and need: pp. 3-10; history of the problem: pp. 27-31; lampricide methodologies: pp. 34-36; and other aspects of the program that have been in place from then

Figure 3. Lake Champlain tributaries included in the sea lamprey control program.

https://www.fws.gov/lcfwro/pdf/sea_lamprey/Comprehensive_Evaluation.pdf






until present. There are currently 24 tributary systems controlled as part of the long-term program: 14 in New York, 8 in Vermont, the border-forming Poultney River, and the Pike River in Quebec (Figure 3). Between the conclusion of the experimental program (1997) and commencement of the long-term program (2002), the sea lamprey wounding rate returned to and exceeded pre-control levels as the population rebounded. With the effects of not maintaining aggressive and continuous control made clear, the Cooperative has committed to suppressing sea lamprey populations in Lake Champlain to enable the protection of existing fishery resources, the restoration of native fishes, and the promotion of recreational sport fisheries. By assessing populations and using multiple techniques, methodologies, and technologies as part of an integrated pest management approach, the Cooperative has succeeded in lessening the effects of sea lamprey parasitism in Lake Champlain and produced measurable benefits to populations of Atlantic salmon, lake trout, lake sturgeon, walleye, and other species. We intend to continue implementing the long-term program of sea lamprey control to maintain the gains achieved thus far while increasing and improving efforts that move us closer to our goals. The Lamoille River received its first TFM (3-Trifluoromethyl-4-Nitrophenol) treatment in October 2009 with 1,555 gallons of formulation (5,255 lbs. active ingredient) applied at a stream discharge of 967 cubic feet per second (cfs), to achieve a target concentration equivalent to 1.2 times the minimum lethal concentration (MLC = 9-hour sea lamprey LC99.9) (Chipman 2010b). The Lamoille River was next treated in 2013 with 1,265 gallons of formulation (4,037 lbs. active ingredient) applied at a stream discharge of 1093 cubic feet per second (cfs), to achieve a target concentration equivalent to 1.1 times the minimum lethal concentration (MLC = 9-hour sea lamprey LC99.9) (Smith 2014). To geographically and temporally align the treatment of the Lamoille River with other rivers in the region, a third treatment was considered for 2016; one year earlier than the regular 4-year cycle. However, when the 2015 larval assessment survey found no larval lamprey present, we did not pursue treatment in 2016.


Treatment Strategy and Methodology Proposed Treatment Strategy Given the potential risks to certain non-target species (discussed below), the specific proposed treatment strategy for the Lamoille River is as follows:

1. The primary lampricide application point (AP) is at Peterson Dam (river mile 6.0). TFM or TFM/1% niclosamide will be applied directly to the intake to the hydro-power turbine. The Lampricide will be quickly mixed into the river as it passes through the turbine.

2. Application rate: TFM or a TFM/1% niclosamide combination (with niclosamide concentration

equivalent to 1% of the TFM concentration) will be applied for 12-14 consecutive hours to achieve a target in-stream treatment concentration of no greater than 1.3 x MLC. The permittee may introduce niclosamide for 2 hours prior to addition of TFM in order to stabilize niclosamide concentrations and ensure a properly balanced mixture with TFM, once added. The early application of niclosamide will not count as part of the 12 or 14 hours of total treatment time.

3. MLC will be determined by the results of an on-site toxicity test and diurnal stream pH and

alkalinity analysis in the days prior to treatment. The MLC may be adjusted during treatment to compensate for shifts in pH or alkalinity that differ from pre-treatment conditions.

4. TFM Bars, adjustable rate pumps, or back-pack sprayers may be used to make supplemental

applications of TFM on up to 3 small tributaries (SAP 1-3 on Figure 4) near their confluences with the Lamoille River, concurrent with passage of the mainstem lampricide block at those points, to block lamprey escapement into untreated water from these streams. Flows on the day of treatment will determine the need for these supplemental applications.

This strategy is designed to provide an effective sea lamprey control treatment, and the largest possible margin of safety for non-target species of concern in the Lamoille River. The Service will coordinate with Green Mountain Power, owner and operator of the hydroelectric dams on the Lamoille River from Lake Champlain to Fairfax Falls, to assure that these facilities are operated to maintain stable flows that will facilitate the lampricide application. There are no maintenance application points proposed for this treatment. Treatment Methodology Treatment planning and execution will be similar to that of previous treatments. All applications of lampricides will be made in accordance with Endangered and Threatened Species Takings permit, companion to this one. Three lampricide products, TFM-HP, TFM Bar, and Niclosamide are proposed for use (Safety Data Sheet = TFM-HP, TFM Bar, and Niclosamide). Lampricides will be applied according to the Standard Operating Procedures (TFM-HP, TFM Bar, and Niclosamide). The MLC will be determined by the results of an on-site toxicity test prior to treatment. The MLC may change during treatment in response to shifts in pH or alkalinity that differ from pre-treatment conditions, target concentration will be adjusted accordingly. The decision on whether to use 1 lampricide (TFM-HP) or 2 lampricides (TFM-HP + Niclosamide) will be made close to the time of treatment and based on water chemistry conditions.

http://www.glfc.org/sop2018/app/e/US%20Lampricide%20Labels/6704-45%20TFM%20HP%20Feb%2010%202011.pdf

http://www.glfc.org/sop2018/app/e/US%20Lampricide%20Labels/6704-86%20TFM%20BAR%20Jan%205%202011.pdf

http://www.glfc.org/sop2018/app/e/US%20Lampricide%20Labels/6704-92%20Bay%2020%20EC%20Jan%204%202011.pdf

http://www.glfc.org/sop2018/app/app%20f%20SDS%20TFM%20Sea%20Lamprey%20Larvicide.pdf

http://www.glfc.org/sop2018/app/app%20f%20SDS%20TFM%20Bar.pdf

http://www.glfc.org/sop2018/app/app%20f%20SDS%20Bayluscide%2020%20percent%20Emulsifiable%20Concentrate.pdf

http://www.glfc.org/sop2018/top/top%20012%20TFM%20Application.pdf

http://www.glfc.org/sop2018/top/top%20015%20Supplemental%20Application%20of%20Bar%20Formulation%20of%20TFM.pdf

http://www.glfc.org/sop2018/top/top%20013A%20Application%20of%20Bayluscide%2020%20Emulsifiable%20Concentrate.pdf

http://www.glfc.org/sop2018/top/top%20010%20On-site%20Toxicity%20Tests.pdf


Lampricide(s) will be applied at concentrations equivalent to a factor of up to 1.3 x MLC for a period of 12 to 14 hours. Amount of chemical applied and application rate is based on measured stream conditions at the time of treatment (i.e. discharge, pH, and alkalinity). The toxicity of lampricides varies depending on stream water pH and total alkalinity levels. The Service estimates that between 650 to 3,400 gallons of TFM-HP formulation will be applied if the TFM only strategy is employed. If the combination treatment strategy is employed, 410 to 2,500 gallons of TFM formulation and 10 to 60 gallons of Niclosamide will be applied to the Lamoille River over a 12 to 14-hour period based on a range of anticipated September-October river discharge rates of less than 1,800 cubic feet per second and anticipated pH and alkalinity values. Pre-treatment and Treatment Water Chemistry Monitoring Pre-treatment: Monitoring the daily fluctuations in stream pH and total alkalinity is necessary to determine corresponding changes in lampricide toxicity. Diurnal pH fluctuations will be monitored for at least 24 hours prior to treatment, and usually for a longer period. Total alkalinity will also be measured periodically over the same time frame as for pH monitoring. The pH and alkalinity data will be considered with the results of the pre-treatment toxicity test to determine the stream MLC (SMLC) which is the instantaneous concentration (mg/L) of TFM needed to achieve 1.0 x MLC for lamprey at any given time or place in the river. This value fluctuates over time and space due to many factors. Water chemistry will be monitored at stations with pH/temperature data recorders, supplemented by periodic hand sampling for lab measurements; total alkalinity will be measured at least at the times of deployment and retrieval of the data recorders at these stations. Based on these data, lampricides may be applied at less than the maximum proposed treatment concentrations (but not lower than 1.0 x MLC) if conditions forewarn that the SMLC may drop (toxicity goes up), downstream of the application. Treatment: Water samples collected at the most upstream sampling station below the AP, to control the application rate, will also undergo water chemistry analysis. Water chemistry will be monitored at least once every 2 hours at downstream stations during the periods that the lampricide block passes through each point, as well as immediately below each supplemental application point, if used. Adjustments will be made to the application rate and target concentration to compensate for unexpected changes in pH and/or total alkalinity at the most upstream sampling station (or at downstream stations if applicable) during the treatment. Water chemistry will be monitored at stations with pH/temperature data recorders, supplemented by periodic hand sampling for lab measurements; total alkalinity will be measured at least at the times of deployment and retrieval of the data recorders at these stations. Lampricide Monitoring Treatment: Lampricide concentrations will be monitored during the treatment to precisely measure the efficacy of the application throughout the treated reach and to regulate the application rate in response. TFM concentrations are measured with accuracy to within 0.1 mg/L (0.1 ppm), niclosamide concentrations, if used, are measured with accuracy to within 3 µg/L (3.0 ppb). Locations of application points and analysis stations are shown in Figure 4, Table 1. Water samples may also be collected at other points on the stream to track progress of the block.

http://www.glfc.org/sop2018/top/top%20001%20Stream%20Discharge%20Measurements.pdf

http://www.glfc.org/sop2018/top/top%20006%20pH%20Measurements.pdf

http://www.glfc.org/sop2018/top/top%20005%20Total%20Alkalinity%20Measurements.pdf


Table 1. Description of the location of each application and analysis site on the Missisquoi River Analysis Station Description of Location

1 Approx. 1,000 feet downstream of Peterson Dam - river mile 5.8 2 Sharp bend - river mile- 4.1 3 U.S. Route 2 bridge – river mile 2.3 4 Near mouth - river mile 0.5

SAP 1 Small tributary entering from the North – river mile 4.5 SAP 2 Small tributary entering from the North – river mile 3.6 SAP 3 Drain of a large oxbow from the South – river mile 3.4

Water samples will be collected and analyzed every ½ hour during application at Station 1 to control the lampricide application rate. Lampricide concentrations will be monitored at least once every 2 hours at Stations 2 through 4 using automatic water samplers to assess concentrations and duration of the lampricide block passing each point. Water samples may also be collected at other points on the river to track progress of the block. Water sampling below supplemental application points using TFM bars is less frequent since the bars release the active ingredient at a constant rate. Once the target concentration is achieved with a TFM Bar application, at least two additional water samples will be collected over the duration of the dissolution period.

Figure 4. Map of Lamoille River showing locations of the proposed primary lampricide application point (AP), supplemental lampricide application points (SAP), and water analysis stations.


Post-Treatment: Low-level lampricide monitoring relating to human health and water use advisories will be done in accordance with Prior Notification, Posting and water supply plan (Smith 2016) and Monitoring Plan for VT Lampricide Treatments in Lake Champlain (Smith 2019).

Target/Non-target Species Mortality Monitoring Post-treatment mortality assessment crews will survey systematically, pre-defined sections of each treated stream reach within 36 hours of the lampricide block passage. All visible river-bottom in each section will be inspected and observations of non-target organism mortalities, except lamprey, will be recorded. Non-target assessment sections comprise about 23% of the treated reaches and are defined based on the locations of sea lamprey larval assessment transects as follows: One section will start immediately below the lampricide application point and proceed downstream to transect 22. Four additional sections will be assessed on each stream reach between transects 3-4, 8-9, 13-14, 18-19. Transect locations and assessment sections are presented in Figure 5. All dead fish (excluding lamprey), amphibians, mussels and other large invertebrates encountered will be identified and enumerated, if possible. Organisms not identified in the field will be collected, if possible, and retained for identification. As noted above, dead lamprey larvae will not be counted during the post treatment mortality survey, but the first 30 encountered in each transect will be retained and identified. Assessment of treatment effects on lamprey populations will instead be accomplished by means of a larval survey completed within one year following the treatment. Larval surveys following treatments provide a more direct and statistically sound means of comparison with pre-treatment population surveys. This approach has been approved in previous permits issued for the treatments of the Winooski, Lamoille, Poultney, Hubbardton, and Missisquoi rivers, and Stone Bridge Brook. Results of non-target mortality surveys will be submitted to the VT DEC by May 1 of the year following the treatment. The post-treatment larval survey results will be submitted by December 31 of the year following the year of treatment.


Figure 5. Lamoille River assessment transects and post-treatment non-target assessment sections


Fulfillment of 10 V.S.A. Chapter 50, § 1455 (d), 5 Statutory Criteria (1) There is no reasonable non-chemical alternative available The Service uses an integrated pest management approach to determine appropriate long-term control strategies on a stream-specific basis (FSEIS pp. 41-47). The most recent and comprehensive review of all sea lamprey control techniques and methods can be found in Chapter 5 of Docker (2019). Additionally, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (Commission) lists over 400 lamprey research publications accessible in their database, underscoring the attention and resources that have been committed to finding ways to better control lamprey. A brief summary and overview of the wide variety of new and emerging non-chemical alternative control techniques that are being investigated and invested in can be found on the Commission’s Future of Sea Lamprey Control website. The Lake Champlain program does not have the resources to engage in the level of research done by the Great Lakes, but we work closely with them and benefit from their findings. A 5-year concerted effort made by the Lake Champlain program to investigate non-chemical alternatives locally is summarized in the Status Report for the Lake Champlain Sea Lamprey Alternatives Workgroup (USFWS 2006) which summarizes nine studies conducted from 2002 through 2006 that assess potential alternatives to lampricide. Since then, projects such as Pheromone-assisted trapping, Microelemental natal stream statolith signatures, and identifying cross-sectional flow patterns in streams to target the trapping of out-migrating transformers have been undertaken. To date, these efforts have not resulted in development of additional, feasible alternative control methods. In addition, recent studies conducted in Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes, focusing on the use of pheromones as attractants to manipulate spawning runs, have not progressed to the point of an applicable management technique. A barrier in Quebec was put into use in 2014 that can be installed and removed annually during lamprey migration season. While this is a creative and innovative technique for blocking sea lamprey from reproducing, it can only work on the smaller streams in the Lake Champlain Basin. Additionally, the project cost over $1.3M on a stream that could have been controlled safely with TFM for $8K once every 4 years. The use of this technology is not only cost-prohibitive in most cases, it also becomes difficult to justify the expense when a safe, chemical alternative is available at a fraction of the cost. Non-chemical alternatives are being used in Vermont tributaries now and more are in development. We use seasonally installed barriers and traps on Pond Brook, Trout Brook, and Sunderland Brook as described in our Vermont ANC permit #2014-S01. We are working on another innovative barrier and trap at Malletts Creek to improve on the ineffective barrier and trap that has been used there for years. Despite the completed and ongoing research on non-chemical control methods, the use of barriers and traps to block and intercept spawning-phase sea lamprey remains the only currently feasible, non-pesticide control alternative in the Lake Champlain Basin. The use of barriers (both seasonal and permanent) is limited to streams where suitable sites are available and where significant adverse impacts of barriers on other aquatic organisms can be mitigated. The only feasible method of control for large tributaries remains chemical lampricide application.


http://www.glfc.org/publication-media-search.php?search=lamprey

http://www.glfc.org/future-control-methods.php


(2) There is acceptable risk to the non-target environment The FSEIS (pp. 104-170; 188-197; and 307-311) and data post-treatment data from the last 30 years of Lake Champlain sea lamprey control efforts provide an extensive record of the successful use of lampricides. Except for silver lamprey and American brook lamprey, non-target species have been protected through the careful application of lampricides at appropriate concentrations that eliminate sea lamprey, yet limit, if not completely avoid, impacts to non-target species. Because TFM and niclosamide are lampricides, they do result in the mortality of other lamprey species. Table 2 presents post-treatment mortality survey data from the previous two Lamoille River treatments in 2009 and 2013. The 2009 survey included the entire length of the river while the 2013 survey used the transect sampling method and covered 23% of the length of the river at equal intervals. There are no federally listed species in the Lake Champlain Basin affected by lampricide treatments. There are 6 mussel species and 2 fish species in the Lamoille River that are listed by the State of Vermont as having an endangered or threatened conservation status. We address these 8 species in detail in our Vermont Endangered and Threatened Species Takings permit application being submitted simultaneously and attached to this application as Appendix C. Mussels

Fragile Papershell (Endangered) Fluted-Shell (Endangered) Pocketbook (Endangered) Pink Heelsplitter (Endangered) Giant Floater (Threatened) Cylindrical Papershell (Threatened)

Fish Lake Sturgeon (Endangered) Eastern Sand Darter (Threatened)

Lamoille 2009 2013

River Miles Treated 6.0 6.0 River Miles Surveyed 6.0 6.0 % of Survey Area Accessible 5 4 % Sea Lamprey Reduction 67 100 % Lamprey Spp. Comp. Sea Lamprey 95.2 88.9 Silver Lamprey 4.8 11.1

FISH (non-lamprey) TOTAL Banded killifish 1 1 Brown bullhead 5 5 Logperch 19 3 21 Longnose gar 1 1 Northern pike 7 7 Rockbass 1 1 Tessellated darter 6 1 7 AMPHIBIANS Eastern Newt 1 1 Mudpuppy 508 508 Unid. Frog adult 3 3 Unid. Frog tadpole 1 1 INVERTEBRATES Eastern lampmussel 2 2

Table 2. History of observed non-target mortalities following lampricide treatments of the Lamoille River.



Two non-listed species of concern (silver lamprey and mudpuppy) in the Lamoille River may be adversely affected by the proposed treatment. Silver lamprey are effectively equal to sea lamprey in their susceptibility to lampricide. We have no expectation that their survival during a treatment would differ from sea lamprey. Research and previous treatment data on mudpuppies show that they are more tolerant of lampricides at the concentrations we apply. Mudpuppy mortality is expected, but we do not expect population level effects.

Silver lamprey

The impacts of TFM on silver lamprey are discussed in pp. 136-140 of the FSEIS. Lampreys of the genus Ichthyomyzon (which includes silver lamprey I. unicuspis and northern brook lamprey I. fossor) are known to be slightly more resistant to TFM than sea lamprey (King and Gabel 1985), but substantial losses of silver lamprey larvae are unavoidable during lampricide treatments. It has been suggested that reductions in larval sea lamprey abundance may benefit silver lamprey because invasive sea lamprey are highly adaptable and have a competitive advantage. When sea lamprey populations are suppressed, that decrease in competition may allow native lamprey species to reestablish their numbers (Schuldt and Goold 1980).

Silver lamprey have persisted in all Lake Champlain lampricide treated tributaries. In the Lamoille River, silver lamprey numbers are currently at their highest sampled densities (Table 3). Although we cannot confidently conclude that sea lamprey control directly results in an increase in silver lamprey numbers, we can confidently conclude that despite lampricide treatments, silver lamprey have persisted in the Lamoille River.

Table 3. Lamoille River Silver Lamprey population estimates Year # (N) Density (N/m2)

2005 31 0.115 2008 0 0

2009 Treatment 2012 2 0.008 2013 22 0.081

2013 Treatment 2019 49 0.173



Mudpuppy

The effects of lampricides on the mudpuppy and other amphibia are discussed in the FSEIS on pp.153-159. Four laboratory studies have been conducted on mudpuppies of different ages to specificallyidentify the effects of lampricides on the species (Table 4).

Table 4. Summary of toxicity test results for TFM and TFM/1% niclosamide tests conducted on mudpuppies. No observed effect concentrations (NOEC) and lowest observed effect concentrations (LOEC) expressed as factors of sea lamprey minimum lethal concentration (MLC).

a Average total length = 304 mm b Total length range = 60-150 mm c Average length = 60 mm d Total length range =32-41mm

Results from the toxicity studies indicate a trend of increasing resistance to lampricides with increasing mudpuppy age (Table 4). This is consistent with reported field observations where Breisch (1996, 2000a, 2000b) reported larger proportions of juvenile than adult mortalities were observed in post-treatment assessments in the Great Chazy River and Ausable River which were treated with TFM at concentrations up to 1.5 x MLC. Weisser et al. (1994) reported that 100% of caged mudpuppies greater than 50 mm Total Length (TL) survived the 1987 TFM treatment of the Grand River, Ohio at TFM concentrations up to 1.3 times MLC, but no caged mudpuppies less than 50 mm survived. There was no mortality of juvenile mudpuppies (86 - 165 mm TL) caged in Lewis Creek, Vermont during a 2002 TFM treatment targeted for an average of 1.3 x MLC, but reached as high as 1.6 x MLC for short periods (Chipman 2003). All of the 29 dead mudpuppies observed following 2004 Winooski River TFM treatment as well as the 19 individuals noted following the 2008 Winooski River treatment were juveniles ranging from 34 to 169 mm TL. Lampricide was targeted at a concentration of 1.0 x MLC for those treatments with small areas exposed to 1.1 x MLC in 2004 and 1.3 x MLC in 2008 due to pH shifts (Chipman 2005 and 2009). Seven mudpuppies were collected in the Poultney River after the 2007 TFM treatment at 1.2-1.3 x MLC (Durfey and Chipman 2008) where five were juveniles ranging from 72 to 87 mm TL (VTDFW unpublished data).

In 2011, the Service’s Marquette Biological Station conducted a cage study with captive, reared mudpuppy juveniles that were approximately 40 mm in length. The study resulted in 3 mortalities among 63 test organisms for an overall mortality rate of 4.8%. The mudpuppies were held at 3 separate locations during a TFM treatment that ranged in concentration from 1.3 x MLC to 1.5 x MLC (Fodale et al. 2012).

Mudpuppies are a species that is notoriously difficult to sample. In the absence of population survey data, much of the species population status in lampricide-treated rivers has been inferred from post-treatment mortality surveys. However, the 30-year record of post-treatment mortality survey data in Lake Champlain tributaries provides ambiguous evidence for the effects of lampricide treatments on

Species TFM TFM-1%Nic.

Data Source NOEC LOEC NOEC LOEC

Mudpuppy (adult)a 1.6 2.0 1.5 1.8 Boogaard et al. 2003

M. Boogaard unpub. data1.6 1.9 1.5 1.8 Mudpuppy (age 1-4)b 1.0 1.3 NT NT Neuderfer et al. 2004 Mudpuppy (1 year-old)c 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.9 Durfey and Neuderfer 2009 Mudpuppy (young of year)d 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.9 Neuderfer et al. 2004



mudpuppies. Using post-treatment mortality survey data, rivers such as Lewis Creek and the Winooski River show a trend of declining mudpuppy numbers collected in those rivers following lampricide treatments. In the Great Chazy and Poultney rivers, post-treatment mortality survey data show no evidence of decline or impact from lampricide treatments over time. Rather than reflecting the response of mudpuppy populations to lampricide treatments over time, these post-treatment mortality data reveal the inherent inability of these type of surveys to provide meaningful information on the species’ population status. Because many variables can contribute to mudpuppy population persistence and abundance and because not every river and lampricide treatment are identical, using post-treatment mortality survey data as indication of any trend or status of the population is untenable and of limited value at best. The best way to assess the impact of a lampricide treatment on a population is to conduct a replicated survey before and after a treatment. This is how we evaluate the effectiveness of treatments on larval sea lamprey populations. The same approach is applicable to the assessment of other species and populations and is defensible and informative in judging the effects of a lampricide treatment on a population.

Despite the challenges associated with collecting mudpuppies, this before and after a lampricide treatment survey approach was conducted in the Lamoille River by the Vermont Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (Chellman and Parrish 2010). They trapped and released 80 mudpuppies from December 2008 through May 2009; 75 of these were tagged. The Lamoille River was treated with lampricide on October 1st, 2009. The post-treatment mortality survey found 508 dead mudpuppies of which juveniles (25-200 mm TL) represented 77% of the collection (VTDFW unpublished data). Following the treatment, with the objective to assess the population-scale impact from the treatment, the trapping effort was repeated from December 2009 through May 2010. This replicated post-treatment survey effort resulted in the collection of 81 mudpuppies. Ten of these mudpuppies were tagged recaptures from the previous effort conducted in the winter of 2009.

Post-treatment mortality survey data show conflicting trends of long-term effects on the numbers of mudpuppies in lampricide-treated rivers and are unreliable as an assessment technique. In the Lamoille River (2009) where localized high mortality occurred during the treatment, a before and after study showed no appreciable effect on mudpuppy numbers. The above evidence and experience in treating rivers with lampricide show that a proposed treatment concentration of 1.3 x MLC may cause young-of-year and yearling mudpuppy mortalities but would have limited impacts on older breeding-age classes.

(3) There is negligible risk to public healthThe risk of human exposure to lampricides and measures to mitigate exposure are discussed on pp. 101-104 and 178-187 in the FSEIS, based on information available in 2001. In regard to public health, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated in its 1999 Reregistration Eligibility Decision that“Human risks from exposures of TFM and niclosamide do not exceed levels of concern for the currentlyregistered uses” (FSEIS). A history of the State of Vermont’s interpretation and guidance on the risk ofTFM exposure to human health can be found throughout the span of ANC permits issued for sea lampreycontrol from 2001 through 2018. In 2019, the Vermont Department of Health participated in developingparameters and later reviewed the findings of a study commissioned to establish a new, better-informedhuman health advisory threshold value for TFM (Murphy and Goodnight 2019). A human healthadvisory value of 100 ppb was empirically derived by the Vermont Department of Health using theresults of the study and in accordance with accepted toxicology practices as detailed in the State’sDrinking Water Guidance document. Page 12 (Attachment 1A) of the Drinking Water Guidancedocument now lists 100 ppb as their established human health advisory value for TFM.


http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/REDs/3082red.pdf


https://www.healthvermont.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/ENV_ECP_GeneralScreeningValues_Water.pdf


The following steps will be taken to protect public health and inform the public on how to avoid exposure to concentrations of lampricides above the advisory threshold.

• Adherence to all requirements printed on the lampricide product label.• Adherence to the Prior Notification, Posting, and Water Supply Plan for Lake Champlain

Lampricide Applications (Smith 2016)• Adherence to the Water Use Advisory Zone Monitoring Plan for Lampricide Treatments in Lake

Champlain (Smith 2019a)• Adherence to the Contingency Plan for Accidental Spillage of Lampricides during Lake

Champlain Sea Lamprey Control Operations (Smith 2019b)• Coordinate with the Federal, Provincial, and Municipal governments in Canada to ensure

awareness and notifications are provided to all parties deemed appropriate by those authorities.

(4) Long-range Management Plan

The entire FSEIS constitutes a long-range management plan for sea lamprey control. When the need arose, an additional EA was written to incorporate the Lamoille River into the control program as well. A commitment to pesticide minimization over time through an integrated pest management approach is detailed in the FSEIS. Lampricide is applied at levels necessary to effectively kill the target organism (sea lamprey), but great care is given to use no more than is necessary thereby limiting the impacts on the non-target environment to the greatest extent possible. Our proposed long-term control strategies include non-chemical control methods in 4 of the 12 Vermont tributaries inhabited by sea lamprey (Figure 3). We will continue to support and participate in research and investigations into new technologies and methodologies that seek to develop ways to reduce the amount of lampricide needed to control sea lamprey effectively.

(5) Public Benefits

Substantial public benefits of sea lamprey control in Lake Champlain were demonstrated during the 8-year experimental program (Fisheries Technical Committee 1999). At the end of the experimental program, fishery benefits and angler satisfaction increased. Responses from surveyed anglers showed that they planned to spend an estimated additional 1.2 million angler days annually fishing Lake Champlain. This additional effort was estimated to generate an additional $42.2 million in fishing-related expenditures if sea lamprey control was fully implemented and its resulting benefits were to accrue and continue. This value increases to an estimated $59.2 million when all water-based recreational activity is considered (Gilbert 1999; Marsden et al. 2003). Further details of public benefits can be found on pp. 198-202 of the FSEIS.

While more recent empiric data are not available, the results of the large, lake-wide fishing derbies, the numbers of participants, increased fishing in Lake Champlain, angler satisfaction, and wide-spread public support of the lamprey control program point to many increased public benefits for the citizens of Vermont.

http://www.glfc.org/sop2018/app/e/CAN%20Lampricide%20Labels/English/TFM%20HP%2029180%2026%20May%202010.pdf


https://www.fws.gov/lcfwro/sealamprey/Final%20EA.pdf




Conclusion

Considering the five Vermont statutory criteria discussed above, the Service requests an Aquatic Nuisance Control Permit to conduct a controlled application of TFM or TFM/1% niclosamide at a concentration of up to 1.3 x MLC to control the population of larval sea lamprey present in the Lamoille River. Proposed permit conditions are presented in Appendix B.

We seek this ANC permit to become effective in the fall of 2020 and remain effective through the fall of 2025. This would allow the Lamoille River to be treated twice under this permit (2020 and 2024). The span of 2020-2025 would accommodate the potential need for a postponement of the first treatment due to environmental conditions while maintaining our 4-year cyclical schedule. We recognize that a postponement of the second treatment would necessitate submission of a new permit. If issues arise, we understand the permit can be reopened. We understand this does not guarantee permission to conduct two treatments; instead, it allows a second treatment in 2024 if all contingencies and conditions in the permit continue to be fulfilled. The applicant will notify the Agency of Natural Resources at least 6 months prior to a planned second treatment to allow time for any questions or concerns to be raised and addressed.


References

Boogaard, M. A., T. D. Bills, and D. A. Johnson. 2003. Acute toxicity of TFM and a TFM/niclosamide mixture to selected species of fish, including lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) and mudpuppies (Necturus maculosus), in laboratory and field exposures. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 29 (Supplement 1):529–541.

Breisch, A.R. 1996. Effects of lampricides on amphibians: Little Ausable and Ausable Rivers and deltas, Lake Champlain, NY (1990 - 1995) [L. Nashett, ed.]. Bureau of Fisheries. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Ray Brook, NY. 23pp.

Breisch, A.R. 2000a. Non-target amphibian mortality associated with the 1999 lampricide treatment. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Administrative Report. Delmar, NY. 6pp.

Breisch, A.R. 2000b. Non-target amphibian mortality associated with the 2000 lampricide treatment. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Administrative Report. Delmar, NY. 2pp.

Chellman, I.C., and D.L. Parrish. 2010. Developing methods for sampling mudpuppies in Vermont tributaries of Lake Champlain. Final Report. State Wildlife Grants Program, Vermont Fish and Wildlife, Waterbury.

Chipman, B. D. 2003. Lake Champlain sea lamprey control program chemical treatment summary: Lewis Creek, Vermont, 2002. Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, Essex Junction, VT. 20 pp.

Chipman, B. D. 2005. Lake Champlain sea lamprey control program, chemical treatment summary: Winooski River, Vermont, 2004. Vermont Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Waterbury, VT. 33 pp.

Chipman, B. D. 2009. Lake Champlain sea lamprey control program chemical treatment summary: Winooski River, Vermont, 2008. Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, Essex Junction, VT. 20 pp.

Docker, M. F. (ed.) 2019. Lampreys: Biology, conservation and control, Volume 2. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer (Fish & Fisheries Series, volume 38). 577 pp.

Durfey, L. E. and B. D. Chipman 2008. Chemical treatment summary: Poultney River and Hubbardton River. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Ray Brook, NY. 27 pp.

Fodale, M., C. Kaye, and J.V. Adams. 2012. In situ determination of mudpuppy mortality from exposure to TFM. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Marquette Biological Station. Marquette MI. pp. 14.

Fisheries Technical Committee. 1999. Comprehensive evaluation of an eight-year program of sea lamprey control in Lake Champlain. Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative. 209 pp. plus appendices.


Gilbert, A. H. 1999. Benefit-cost analysis of an eight-year experimental sea lamprey control program on Lake Champlain. Federal Aid Job Performance Report. Final Report. Revised 2000. F-23-R, Job 5. Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, Waterbury, VT. 40 pp.

King, E. L. Jr., and J. A. Gabel. 1985. Comparative toxicity of the lampricide 3-trifluoromethyl4-nitrophenol to ammocetes of three species of lampreys. Great Lakes Fisheries Commission Technical Report 47. Ann Arbor, MI. 5 pp.

Marsden, J. E., B. D. Chipman, L. J. Nashett, J. K. Anderson, W. Bouffard, L. Durfey, J. E. Gersmehl, W. F. Schoch, N. R. Staats, and A. Zerrenner. 2003. Sea lamprey control in Lake Champlain. Journal of Great Lakes Research 29 (Supplement 1):655-676.

Murphy, C. and S.Y. Goodnight. 2019. Final Report: 4-Nitro-3-(trifluoromethyl)phenol (TFM): 90-Day Oral Toxicity Study Following Administration via Drinking Water to Sprague Dawley Rats with a 28-Day Recovery Period. Study Number 2410-14374. Smithers Avanza Toxicology Services. Gaithersburg, MD.

Neuderfer, G. N., B. D. Chipman and L. Durfey. 2004. Acute toxicity of TFM and a TFM-1% niclosamide mixture to juvenile mudpuppies. Draft report. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Ray Brook, NY. 17 pp.

Sabbayya, S., C. Swanson and A. Vidal. 2008. Missisquoi River and lampricide plume modeling. Great Lakes Fishery Commission Project Completion Report. Applied Science Associates, Narragansett, RI. 85 pp.

Schuldt, R. J., and R. Goold. 1980. Changes in the distribution of native lampreys in Lake Superior tributaries in response to sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus)) control, 1953-77. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:1872-1885.

Smith, S. 2014. Lake Champlain sea lamprey control program, chemical treatment summary: Lamoille River, Vermont, 2013. USFWS Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, Essex Junction, VT. 16 pp.

Smith, S. 2016. Prior Notification, Posting, and Water Supply Plan for Lake Champlain Lampricide Applications. USFWS Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office. Essex Junction, VT. 10 pp. plus attachments.

Smith, S. 2019a. Water use advisory zone monitoring plan for lampricide treatments in Lake Champlain. USFWS Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office. Essex Junction, VT. 34 pp.

Smith, S. 2019b. Contingency plan for accidental spillage of lampricides during Lake Champlain sea lamprey control operations. USFWS Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office. Essex Junction, VT. 12 pp. plus attachments.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Status report for the Lake Champlain Sea Lamprey Alternatives Workgroup. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Essex Junction, VT. 12 p.


Weisser, J. W., G. A. Baldwin, and R. J. Schuldt. 1994. Effect of the lampricide 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol (TFM) on fish, aquatic insects, and an amphibian in the Grand River in Lake County, Ohio, 1987. USFWS Project Completion Report. Marquette, MI. 18 pp.

VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Endangered and Threatened Species Taking Permit

(Authority: 10 V.S.A. Ej 5408)

Permittee: Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife 103 South Main Street Waterbury, Vermont 05671 Principal Officer: Wayne Laroche, Commissioner Tel: 802-241 -3700

Sub-Permittees: Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative Interagency Sea Lamprey Control Team (staffed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife) Contact: Brian Chipman, Vermont Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Tel: 802-879-5697

Listed Species Covered by the Permit:

Endangered Mussels:

pocketbook (Lampsilis ovata)

pink heelsplitter (Potanzilus alatus),

fluted shell (Lasmigona costata)

fragile papershell (LeptodeaJi.agi1i.s)

cylindrical papershell (Anodontoies ferussacianus)

Threatened Mussels:

giant floater (Pyganodon grandis)

Endangered Fish:

lake sturgeon (Acipenserfilvescens)

Threatened Fish:

eastern sand darter (Ammocryptapellucida)

Description and Location of Proposed Activity: Aquatic pesticide application in the Lamoille River in the towns of Milton and Colchester, downstream of the Peterson dam, 4, 1",.,1 "A" l",,,,.,

Appendix B-1 / 2009 Lamoille E&T Issued Permit

Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Lamoille River Lampricjde Treatment

VT Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, Permittcc Page 2 o r 15

Appeal: If you wish to appeal this determination, please contact the Vermont Environmental Court. Appeals to that Court must be filed within 30 days of the date of an appealable decision. The appellant must attach to the Notice of ~ ~ ~ e a l the entry fee of $225.00, payable to the State of Vermont. The Notice of Appeal must specify the parties taking the appeal and the statutory provision under which each party claims party status; must designate the act or decision appealed from; must name the Environmental Court; and must be signed by the appellant or its attorney. The appeal must give the address or location and description of the property, project or facility with which the appeal is concerned and the name of the applicant or any permit involved in the appeal. The appellant must also serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal in accordance with Rule 5(b)(4)(B) of the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings. For more information, see the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings, available online at www.vern~ontiudiciar~.orq . The address for the Court is 241 8 Airport Road, Suite 1, Barre, Vermont 05641 (Tel. 802-828-1 660).

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. The Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife (hereinafter "Applicant") submitted an application dated May 13,2009 to the Agency of Natural Resources (hereinafter "Agency") for an Endangered and Threatened Species Permit to authorize aquatic pesticide application to the Lamoille River to control larval sea lamprey in September or October 2009.

2. The Applicant subsequently submitted a revised application dated May 25,2009 to the Agency, to request two larnpricide treatments, with the first treatment in September or October 2009 and a second treatment no less than four years after the first treatment. The revised application also corrected some typographical errors.

3. Jonathan Wood, Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources, designated Elaine O'Grady as the hearing officer for this permit application. On behalf of the Secretary, the hearing officer sought the advice of the Endangered Species Committee on the permit application pursuant to 10 V.S.A, 5 5408 and provided Sally Laughlin, Chair of the Endangered Species Committee with electronic copies of the initial application and revised application on May 21,2009 and June 4,2009, respectively.

.. Public notice of the Endangered and Threatened Species Permit application and public hearing was published in the legal classified section of the Burlington Free Press on May 15,2009. A public hearing for the Endangered and Threatened Species Permit application was held on July 16, 2009, at 6:30 pm in the ANR Essex Regional Office, Fish and Wildlife Conference Room, 11 1 East Street, Essex Junction, Vermont in conjunction with a public informational meeting for the Aquatic Nuisance Control Permit application. Eight members of the public attended the hearing. All nt.01 finmm~nto rnfin;y,nrl f-nm thn nv.hl;o ~t thn hnor;rrm rrll+.nr\*tnrl tho nrnnr\nnrl


Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Lamoille River Lampricide Treatment

VT Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, Permittee Page 3 of 15

27,2009. The Agency received written comments from Lake Champlain International, Inc., and Vermont Traditions Coalition, which both supported the issuance of the Endangered and Threatened Species Permit to allow the proposed lampricide treatment of the Lamoille River.

5. William Barnard, Vice-chair of the Vermont Endangered Species Committee, attended the public hearing and provided oral comments on behalf of the Committee. In addition, the Committee submitted written comments on July 27,2009.

11. FACTUAL FINDINGS

A. General

6. The Applicant is seeking an Endangered and Threatened Species Taking Permit under 10 V.S.A. 5 5408 to authorize aquatic pesticide application to the Lamoille River to control larval sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus). This is the first proposed lampricide treatment for the Lamoille River.

7. The sea lamprey is a fish that parasitizes other fish, scarring or killing its host. A substantial body of information collected by the Applicant and others indicates that the sea lamprey is depressing coldwater and some warm water fisheries in Lake Champlain. The negative impacts of sea lamprey parasitism have been documented in the Great Lakes where sea lamprey control programs have been in effect for more than 50 years.

8. The proposed lampricide treatment is part a long-term sea lamprey control program for Lake Champlain initiated by the Applicant, along with the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife in 2002. This program was developed in response to an eight-year experimental sea lamprey control program conducted on Lake Champlain between 1990 and 1997. The experimental program illustrated the efficacy of the lampricide TFM in effectively reducing numbers of sea lamprey to levels resulting in significant improvement in salmonid survival and fishing quality in Lake Champlain. A primary goal of the long-term sea lamprey control program is to prevent the economic harm from sea lamprey parasitizing as well as to enhance the maintenance of the salmonid fisheries in Lake Champlain. In 2008, the long-term program was expanded to include the Lamoille River and two other streams.

9. The Lamoille River is one of several Lake Champlain tributaries that are a source of sea lamprey production. Sea lamprey larvae were first documented in the Lamoille River in 2002. Using quantitative assessment sampling (QAS) protocols, U.S. Fish and Wildlife surveys estimated larval sea lamprey populations of 38,719 in 2005 and 6,696 in 2008. According to the Applicant, the discharge of the Lamoille River



VT Dept. of Fish gi. Wildlife, Permittee Page 4 or 15

during the 2008 survey was more than twice the discharge encountered during the 2005 survey, likely reducing sampling efficiency resulting in an underestimate of density.

10. Given the disparity between the 2005 and 2008 larval sea lamprey population estimates, the Endangered Species Committee questioned the need for treatment and the validity of the sampling procedure. The Applicant responded that the QAS protocol has been peer-reviewed by biological and statistical experts in the field. Small sample sizes, deep habitats that cannot be effectively sampled, and other factors that inflate variance estimates all work in concert to yield imprecise population estimates. Nevertheless, the QAS methodology identifies populations of consequence and provides fishery managers with data that can be judged in the context of other rivers in the basin. Experience from the Great Lakes sea lamprey control program has shown the importance of comprehensively controlling all sources of lamprey production in attaining the goal of reduced lamprey impacts on host fish species. According to the Applicant, populations smaller than that of the Lamoille are controlled by trapping and lampricide treatments as part of its comprehensive sea lamprey control strategy.

1 1. The Applicant states that the proposed lampricide treatment is necessary to enhance the propagation and restoration of native lake trout and landlocked Atlantic salmon populations in Lake Champlain and will also benefit other Lake Champlain fish species, including walleye, northern pike and the endangered lake sturgeon.

12. The Applicant also states that the sea lamprey control program, of which the proposed lampricide treatment is part, provides substantial economic and recreational benefits to the Lake Champlain region. According to the Applicant, realization of the full benefits of sea lamprey control is estimated to have an annual economic impact of up to $42 million in fishing-related expenditures and $59 million including all water- based recreation expenditures. Thus, ineffective control or no control of sea lamprey will result in substantial economic losses, particularly in businesses significantly dependent on water-based recreation in the Lake Champlain region.

13. Comments from individuals and groups associated with sport fishing supported the proposed lampricide treatment of the Lamoille River and expressed concern about the sea lamprey's impacts on the health of fish populations, the recreational fishing industry, and related tourism businesses in Vermont.

14. Currently, the only non-pesticide control alternatives in certain situations are construction of barriers to spawning-phase sea lamprey migration and spawning- phase sea lamprey trapping. However, the screening process to determine appropriate long-term control strategies for the Lamoille River resulted in lampricide application as the only technically feasible control method. The Applicant states it will reassess the need for continued periodic lampricide treatments as future improvements in non-




chemical control technologies are made, such as the use of pheromones to manipulate spawning runs.

B. Proposed Lampricide Treatment and Post-Treatment Measures

15. The Applicant is proposing two aquatic pesticide treatments on the Lamoille River at Peterson Dam (river mile 6.0) to control larval sea lamprey. The first treatment is proposed for September or October of 2009 (or the subsequent year if delayed due to unfavorable river conditions or other factors), and the second treatment is proposed for no less than four years after the first treatment treat. No maintenance application points are proposed for this treatment.

16. Two lampricides, 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol (TFM) and niclosamide, are being proposed for potential use in the Lamoille River. The proposed TFM product is TFM-HP (EPA Reg. No. 6704-45), a liquid formulation manufactured by H&S Chemical Co., Inc. The concentration of active ingredient in TFM-HP is equivalent to 33% TFM, and isopropanol, which is used as the solubilizer, is the primary inert ingredient. The proposed niclosamide product is Bayluscide 20% Emulsifiable Concentrate (EC) (EPA Reg. No. 6704-92), which is manufactured by Coating Place, Inc., and has an active ingredient equivalent to 17.1 % niclosamide. Both TFM-HP and Bayluscide 20% EC are aquatic pesticides that are registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to control sea lamprey larvae in tributaries to the Great Lakes, the Finger Lakes, and Lake Champlain.

17. According to the product labels, TFM-HP may be applied by itself or in combination with formulations of Bayluscide. Bayluscide may be applied simultaneously with TFM-HP to reduce the amount of TFM-HP required or as a subsequent addition downstream to enhance TFM-HP larvicidal activity. The applicant is proposing to apply TFM-HP alone or simultaneously with Bayluscide 20% EC at a proposed niclosamide concentration of one percent of the in-stream TFM concentration (expressed as TFM/l% niclosamide). According to the Applicant, the addition of niclosamide in this ratio reduces the required amount of TFM by about 40% to achieve the same level of effectiveness as that of TFM alone.

.8. Both TFM-HP and Bayluscide 20% EC are restricted use pesticides. Persons applying these pesticides are required to follow the "Standard Operating Procedures for Application of Lampricides in the Great Lakes Fishery Commission's Integrated Management of Sea lamprey Control Program" (hereinafter "SOP"). Specific application instructions and formulas for application rates are included in the SOP. The toxicity of lampricides varies depending on stream water pH and total alkalinity. Thus, the amount of lampricide applied and application rate is based on stream conditions at the time of treatment, including discharge and water chemistry.

19. The Applicant is proposing to apply TFM or a TFM/l% niclosamide combination to achieve a target in-stream lampricide concentration at the most upstream sampling




station of no greater than 1.3 times the minimum lethal concentration to sea lamprey (1.3 x MLC) for no longer than 12 consecutive hours. MLC is the concentration of lampricide that produces 99.9% mortality among sea lamprey larvae during a 9-hour exposure for a given water chemistry. The MLC will be determined by the results of an on-site toxicity test and diurnal stream pH and alkalinity analysis in the days prior to treatment. The MLC may be adjusted during treatment to compensate for shifts in PI-I or alkalinity that differ from pre-treatment conditions.

20. Prior to treatment, the Applicant will coordinate with Central Vermont Public Service, Inc., owner of the Lamoille River hydropower facilities from Peterson Dam upstream to Fairfax Falls, to assure that these upstream facilities are operated to maintain stable flows that will facilitate the lampricide application.

2 1. The Applicant will set up four water sampling stations located at: (1) Approximately 1,000 feet downstream of Peterson Dam - river mile 5.8; (2) Sharp bend - river mile 4.1; (3) U.S. Route 2 bridge - river mile 2.3; and (4) Near mouth - river mile 0.5. To monitor lampricide concentrations, water samples will be collected and analyzed every % hour at Station 1 to control the lampricide application rate and at least once every 2 hours at Stations 2 through 4 to assess concentrations and duration of the lampricide block passing each point. Water samples may also be collected at other points on the river to track progress of the block. To monitor water chemistry, water samples will be collected and analyzed at least once every 2 hours at each monitoring station during the periods that the lampricide block passes through each point.

22. To assess target and nontarget mortality post-treatment, the Applicant is proposing that a crew will walk or boat all sections of the treated reach of the Lamoille River within 36 hours of the lampricide block passing each section. The crew will thoroughly inspect all visible river bottom areas and record observations of non-target organism mortalities. All dead fish (excluding lamprey), amphibians, mussels and other large invertebrates encountered will be identified and enumerated, if possible. Other organisms not identified in the field will be collected, if possible, and retained for identification. Lamprey samples will be collected at discrete pre-defined transects to determine species composition. Assessment of treatment effects on Lamoille River lamprey populations will be accomplished by means of a QAS survey as soon as practicable following treatment.

23. The Endangered Species Committee suggested the need for post-treatment stream monitoring that would look at potential long term impacts of repeated lampricide treatments on microfauna populations and stream ecology. The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation has conducted long term monitoring studies on the impacts of lampricides on fish and macroinvertebrates in Lewis Creek. Lewis Creek has been treated with lampricides four times, which is more than any other river in Vermont. These monitoring efforts indicate that the higher trophic levels (fish and . . ,,,,,:,..,&,L,,+,,\ ,L,.., ,, :,,,A, C..,, -..l+:,l, I,,,,. ,. A, +,A,+,,,+, TC.., :+ :,




assumed that the lower orders of biological life that support higher levels must also be functioning acceptably.

C. Risks .to Listed Endangered or Threatened Species and Mitigation Measures

24. There are nine state-listed endangered and threatened species known to inhabit the Lamoille River, including six mussel species, two fish species, and one turtle species. Other non-target species, including the mudpuppy, that are not listed as threatened or endangered are addressed by the Aquatic Nuisance Control Permit required by 10 V.S.A. 4 1263a.

Mussels

25. Six state-listed endangered or threatened mussel species are known to inhabit the Lamoille River reach proposed for lampricide application. These mussel species include the endangered pocketbook (Lampsilis ovata), fluted shell (Lasmigona costata), pink heelsplitter (Potamilus alatus), fragile papershell (Leptodeafiagilis), and cylindrical papershell (Anodontoides ferussacianus); and the threatened giant floater (Pyganodon grandis).

26. TFM toxicity tests conducted on the pocketbook, fluted shell, pink heelsplitter, fragile papershell, cylindrical papershell, and the giant floater mussels indicate that the TFM no observed effect concentration (NOEC) for these species ranges from 1.5 to 2.6 X MLC.

27. Two toxicity tests conducted with TFM/l% Niclosamide on fluted shell mussels found NOEC values of 1.2 and 1.6. The results from the second test may be more representative of the NOEC because the increased level of mortality found in the first test may have been due to the accidental injection of double the intended niclosamide concentration during the first 20 minutes of the test. Other toxicity tests conducted with TFM/l% Niclosamide on fragile paper shell, giant floater and pink heelsplitter mussels indicate that the NOEC for these species ranges from 1.5 to 2.0 X MLC.

28. In-situ cage studies were conducted on mussels in 2002 and 2004. In 2002, nine species of mussels, including pocketbook, fluted shell and fragile papershell, were held in cages during the TFM treatment in Lewis Creek (1.2 x MLC). All individuals survived the treatment in three stream locations, which were exposed to maximum TFM concentrations of 1.3, 1.6 and nearly 1.9 x MLC. During the 2004 Winooski River TFM treatment (1.0 x MLC), pocketbook and eastern lamp mussels were caged at two locations in the treated reach and monitored for five days post treatment, with no mortality or signs of stress. There also were no mussel mortalities observed during post-TFM treatment mortality assessments following the 2004 Winooski River treatment, the 2006 Lewis Creek treatment, and the 2007 Poultney River treatment (1.3 x MLC).



VT Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, Permitkc Page 8 of 15

29. Given these studies, the proposed Lamoille River treatment (1.3 x MLC) is expected to minimize potential risks to resident listed mussel species. Little information is known about the sublethal effects of lampricides on mussels, such as the potential impairment of reproduction following treatment and the long term ability of the mussels to tolerate the stress of TFM treatment. However, no or negligible acute mortality is expected in adult mussels.

30. Two state-listed fish species are known to occur in the reach of the Lamoille River proposed for lampricide application, including the endangered lake sturgeon (Acipenserft~lvescens) and the threatened eastern sand darter (Ammocrypta pellzlcida).

Lake Sturgeon

3 1. Lake Sturgeon are susceptible to TFM at the concentrations being proposed. However, toxicity tests indicate that sturgeon tolerance to lampricides increases with size. The TFM NOEC for young-of-year lake sturgeon up to about 80 rnm total length (TL) ranged from 0.4 to 0.8 x MLC, depending on size class. The average TFM NOEC of three young-of-year size classes averaging 107, 157,2 17 mm TL were equivalent to 1 .O, 1 .O, 1.2 x MLC, respectively; average NOEC for an age 1+ group averaging 261mm TL was equivalent to 1.5 x MLC. The TFM/l% Niclosamide NOEC for the same size classes were 1.2, 1 .O, 1.2, and 1.2 X MLC.

32. Based on these toxicity test results, the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission (GLFC) adopted the Technical Operating Procedure: T0P:Oll. 5A - Interim Protocol for Applications ofLampricides to Streams with Populations of Young-of-Year Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens), for inclusion in the SOP. The sturgeon protocol limits the maximum treatment concentration to 1 .O x MLC if using TFM and 1.2 x MLC if using TFMIl %niclosamide, and requires that such streams be treated after August 1 in a given year, to assure that juvenile lake sturgeon are larger than 100 mrn to minimize the risk to juvenile lake sturgeon. The protocol also provides that the GLFC and its partners may suspend the larnpricide concentration in the sturgeon protocol if populations of sea lampreys in the lakes exceed target levels.

33. Population modeling on Great Lakes lake sturgeon suggests that the risk of ineffective sea lamprey control under the sturgeon protocol may have a greater negative impact on sturgeon population viability due to increased sea lamprey- induced mortality of subadult and adult lake sturgeon, than does limited juvenile lake sturgeon mortality from effective lampricide treatments under the standard treatment protocol.

34. In 2005, the GLFC suspended use of the lampricide concentration limits specified in the sturgeon protocol in lakes where sea lamprey populations are above target levels



VT Dept, of Fish & Wildlife, Permittee Page 9 of 15

and indicated that normal lampricide application should be used on lakes where populations of sea lampreys exceed target levels. Since Lake Champlain sea lamprey wounding rates are above target levels, the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative has also temporarily suspended the lampricide concentration in the sturgeon protocol until Lake Champlain wounding targets are attained.

35. There are records of lake sturgeon spawning activity in the Lamoille River, and drifting larvae have been collected. One dead juvenile lake sturgeon (23 1 mm TL) was observed as a result of two successive mortality assessments following the October 20,2004 Winooski River treatment. The sturgeon was found in a river section where the TFM block passed through overnight at the low end of the pH cycle, resulting in an estimated toxicity of 1.1 x MLC. There was, however, no mortality among 78 juvenile lake sturgeons (average TL = 136 rnm) caged at two locations exposed to the 2004 Winooski River treatment. Further, there were no lake sturgeon mortalities observed in assessments following the 2008 treatments of the Winooski River and Missisquoi River.

36. The proposed treatment date of September or October is expected to mitigate the risk to lake sturgeon. By the fall, young-of-year lake sturgeon in the Lamoille River, if present, should be of such sizes that the proposed lampricide treatment at 1.3 x MLC would be expected to cause limited mortality (0-20%), and Age I+ and older lake sturgeon would not be expected to be affected at these levels.

Eastern Sand Darter

Eastern sand darters are relatively tolerant of lampricide exposure at treatment concentrations, with a NOEC for TFM and the TFM/l% Niclosamide mix of 1.4 and 2.0 x MLC, respectively. Survival of caged eastern sand darters held in two Lewis Creek treatments (1 990 and 1994) and two Poultney River treatments (1 992 and 1996) was 98%. One dead eastern sand darter was recorded during the 2004 Winooski River post-treatment assessment surveys after treatment concentration of up to 1.1 x MLC; this was a rare event based on the available toxicity data. No dead eastern sand darters were observed following the 2007 Poultney River TFM treatment. A treatment concentration of up to 1.3 x MLC is not expected to cause more than negligible mortality of eastern sand darters.

Reptiles

38. The threatened spiny softshell turtle (Apalone spinifera) is also known to inhabit the Lamoille River. This species uses the river for basking, feeding, and overwintering. According to the Endangered Species Committee, the proposed fall application date ensures that the species would be present in the river or its mouth during the lampricide treatment. The Applicant, however, made no reference to this species and the potential impact of TFM to the species in its permit application. In response to



VT Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, Perrnittec Page I0 of 15

comments made by the Endangered Species Committee, the Applicant has clarified that it is not seeking authorization for the taking of any spiny softshell turtles. The available information suggests that turtles are not sensitive to TFM at treatment levels. TFM toxicity studies on turtles show no mortalities when exposed to concentrations up to 10.0 mg/L (3.3 times the 24-hour sea lamprey minimum lethal concentration). Further, there have been no observations of any turtle or other reptile mortality during lampricide treatments of the Great Lakes, Finger Lakes, or Lake Champlain. For these reasons, the Applicant does not anticipate any takings of this species during the proposed lampricide treatment of the Lamoille River.

111. STATUTORY DETERMINATION

10 VSA tj 5403(a) provides: "Except as authorized under this chapter, a person shall not take, possess or transport wildlife or plants that are members of an endangered or threatened species." The term "take" is broadly defined to include "pursuing, shooting, hunting, killing, capturing, trapping, snaring and netting fish, birds and quadrupeds and all lesser acts, such as disturbing, harrying or worrying or wounding or placing, setting, drawing or using any net or other device commonly used to take fish or wild animals, whether they result in the taking or not . . . ." 10 V.S.A. tj 4001(23). See also 10 V.S.A. tj 5401(14).

10 V.S.A. 5 5408 provides: "Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter, after obtaining the advice of the endangered species committee, the secretary may permit, under such terms and conditions as the secretary may prescribe by rule any act otherwise prohibited by this chapter if done for any of the following purposes: scientific purposes; to enhance the propagation or survival of a species; economic hardship; zoological exhibition; educational purposes; or special purposes consistent with the purposes of the federal Endangered Species Act."

The Applicant is proposing to apply aquatic pesticides to the Lamoille River as part a long-term sea lamprey control program for Lake Champlain. See Findings 6-8. The proposed lampricide treatment may result in the incidental take of species listed as endangered or threatened by the State of Vermont. See Finding 24. Therefore, the Applicant is seeking a permit under 10 V.S.A. 5 5408.

The Agency has sought and obtained the advice of the Endangered Species Committee on the permit application at issue. See Findings 3, 5. Based on the findings above, the Agency concludes that the proposed lampricide treatment will be conducted for the following purposes: (1) to enhance the propagation or survival of native lake trout and landlocked Atlantic salmon populations in Lake Champlain; and (2) to prevent economic hardship to businesses, in particular the fishing industry, that are significantly dependent on water-based recreation in the Lake Charnplain region. See Findings 8, 1 1 - 13. Further, the Agency concludes that the maximum treatment concentration of 1.3 x MLC and the timing of the treatment in September or October will mitigate potential



VT Dept. of Fish 8r. Wildlife, Permittee Page 11 of 15

risks to endangered and threatened species. See Findings 24-37. The Agency also concludes that new data, improved procedures, and advances in non-chemical control technologies may inform future decisions regarding lampricide applications and potential effects on threatened and endangered species. See Finding 14. For this reason and because new species may be listed during the proposed time between treatments, the permit conditions, as set forth below, include the authorization for only one treatment in 2009 or 20 1 0.

Thus, pursuant to 10 V.S.A. 8 5408 and only in accordance with the prescribed permit terms and conditions, the Agency is permitting the incidental take of the following state-listed endangered and threatened species: the endangered pocketbook (Lampsilis ovata), pink heelsplitter (Potamilus alatus), fluted shell (Lasmigona costata), fragile papershell (Leptodea fragilis), and cylindrical papershell (Anodontoies ferussacianus) mussels; the threatened giant floater (Pyganodon grandis) mussel; the endangered lake sturgeon (Acipenserfulvescens); and the threatened eastern sand darter (Ammocrypta pellucida). The Applicant did not seek authorization for the threatened spiny softshell turtle (Apalone spinifera). See Finding 38. Therefore, the Agency is not authorizing any taking of the spiny softshell turtle with this permit.

IV. GENERAL PERMIT CONDITIONS

A. The general conditions set out in 10 V.S.A. Chapter 123 are hereby incorporated into this permit. All activities authorized by this permit shall be carried out in accordance with, and for the purposes described in, the application. The continued validity of this permit is subject to the complete and timely compliance with all applicable conditions and the filing of all required information.

B. The validity of this permit is expressly conditioned upon compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, and permits.

C. By acceptance of this permit, the Permittee and its heirs, successors and assigns agree to provide the Agency with unrestricted access, at reasonable times, to the property covered by this permit for the purposes of monitoring and managing the populations of state-listed species, and otherwise ensuring compliance with this permit and with the Endangered and Threatened Species Law.

D. The permit is valid for use by the named Permittee and Subpermittee only. Transfer of the permit shall require prior written authorization of the Secretary.

E. The Agency maintains continuing jurisdiction over this project, and may at any time order the Permittee to undertake remedial measures if necessary to ensure the protection and conservation of endangered or threatened species at the location of the




V. SPECIFIC PERMIT CONDITIONS

A. The Permittee is authorized to treat the Lamoille River with TFM-HP Sea Lamprey Larvicide (EPA Reg. No. 6704-45), alone or in combination with Bayluscide 20% Emulsifiable Concentrate (EPA Reg. No. 6704-92). The treatment shall only occur after Labor Day and prior to December 1 of 2009 or 2010.

B. One primary application point is authorized in the Lamoille River at the Peterson Dam hydroelectric facility.

C. Bayluscide 20% Emulsifiable Concentrate (active ingredient niclosamide), if used, shall only be applied simultaneously with TFM to maintain a target in-stream niclosamide concentration of 1 % by weight of the in-stream TFM concentration.

D. Application of TFM shall occur only when the Lamoille River water temperature at the application point (prior to application) on the morning of the day of treatment is at or above 2" C. Application of the TFM/l% niclosamide combination shall occur only when the Lamoille River water temperature at the application point (prior to application) on the morning of the day of treatment is at or above 3" C.

E. The Permittee shall conduct the treatment to achieve a target in-stream lampricide concentration at the most upstream sampling station of no greater than 1.3 times the minimum lethal concentration to sea lamprey (1.3 x MLC) as determined by an on- site toxicity test conducted on or after September 1 of the year of treatment. Total alkalinity and diurnal pH fluctuations shall be monitored for at least 24 hours prior to treatment. If Bayluscide 20% Emulsifiable Concentrate is to be used in the treatment, the pre-treatment toxicity test shall be conducted using the TFM/l% niclosamide combination. The MLC shall be adjusted for pH and alkalinity at the time of treatment by integrating toxicity testing results with the appropriate predictive charts as referenced in: Standard Operating Procedures for Application ofLampricides in the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission 's Integrated Management ofsea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) Program (Adair and Young 2004, as revised).

F. The Permittee shall not introduce TFM-HP or Bayluscide 20% Emulsifiable Concentrate into the Lamoille River for longer than a total of 12 hours.

G. TFM-HP and Bayluscide 20% Emulsifiable Concentrate shall only be applied by pesticide applicators certified by the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets in Category Five - Aquatics and trained in lampricide application procedures by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or provincial or state fish and wildlife agencies in accordance with Standard Operating Procedures for Application of Lampricides in the Great Lakes Fishery Commission Integrated Management of Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) Control Program (Adair and Young 2004, as revised).




H. The Permittee shall conduct the Lamoille River lampricide treatment in compliance with all of the requirements established in the following documents:

a. Standard Operating Procedures for Application of Lampricides in the Great Lakes Fishery Commission Integrated Management of Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) Control Program (Adair and Young 2004, as revised); and

b. Contingency Plan for Accidental Spillage of Lampricides During Lake Champlain Sea Lamprey Control Operations (Durfey 2009).

I. TFM-HP Sea Lamprey Larvicide must be registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets for use in Vermont at the time of the treatment, and shall be applied in full conformance with all label requirements and state and federal regulations in effect at the time of the treatment.

J. Bayluscide 20% Emulsifiable Concentrate must be registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets for use in Vermont at the time of the treatment, and shall be applied in full conformance with all label requirements and state and federal regulations in effect at the time of the treatment.

K. The Permittee must obtain an Aquatic Nuisance Control Permit under the provisions of 10 V.S.A. 5 1263a prior to treatment and comply with the terms and conditions of such permit.

L. No treatment shall occur unless the measured flow in the Lamoille River at the nearest U.S.G.S flow gauging station, prior to application on the morning of the day of treatment, is less than 1700 cubic feet per second. River flow downstream of Peterson Dam shall be maintained below 1700 cubic feet per second, if feasible, until completion of the post-treatment mortality surveys.

M. The authorized treatment shall only be conducted when the surface elevation of Lake Champlain is at or below 98 feet NGVD as measured at the permanent U.S.G.S. gauging station located at Burlington, Vermont.

N. After application is initiated, the Permittee shall measure and record the feed rate at approximately 30 minute intervals during the treatment.

0. The Permittee shall set up four water sampling stations in the Lamoille River located at: (1) Approximately 1,000 feet downstream of Peterson Dam - river mile 5.8 (hereinafter "Station 1"); (2) Sharp bend - river mile 4.1 (hereinafter "Station 2"); (3) U.S. Route 2 bridge - river mile 2.3 (hereinafter "Station 3"); and (4) Near mouth - river mile 0.5 (hereinafter "Station 4"). Water samples may also be collected at other points on the river.




P. To monitor lampricide concentration, water samples shall be collected and analyzed at least every 1/2 hour at Station 1 during application. Ln addition, water samples shall be collected and analyzed at least once every two hours at Stations 2 through 4 using automatic water samplers to assess concentrations and duration of the lampricide block passing each point.

Q. Except for samples collected for water use advisory purposes, the Permittee shall determine TFM concentrations in the Lamoille River with tests accurate to within 0.1 parts per million, and niclosamide with tests accurate to within 1 part per billion.

R. For the first two scheduled sampling times, the Permittee shall take samples at the most upstream sampling station from one-quarter, one-half and three-quarters of the distance across the channel. If sample analyses demonstrate that TFM and niclosamide (if applicable) concentrations are uniform across the river (the near-shore TFM and niclosamide measurements are within 0.1 parts per million and 2 parts per billion, respectively, of the midstream measurement), the Permittee may collect future samples from a single point at that station. If TFM andlor niclosamide concentrations are not uniform, the Permittee shall take three samples across the river at future scheduled sampling times until the results indicate that the concentrations are uniform, at which time subsequent sampling may be conducted at one location.

S. If, during the treatment, TFM or TFM/l% niclosamide concentrations from a single Lamoille River sample at the most upstream sampling station exceed the authorized target concentration (no greater than 1.3 x MLC) by 0.1 times the minimum lethal concentration for sea lamprey (+ 0.1 x MLC) or more, the Permittee shall adjust the TFM or TFMII % niclosamide feed rates downward until the in-stream concentration no longer exceeds the target concentration.

T. If, during the treatment, niclosamide concentrations from a single Lamoille River sample at the most upstream sampling station exceeds 1.25% of the measured TFM concentration in the same sample, the Permittee shall adjust the niclosamide feed rate downward until the in-stream niclosamide concentration no longer exceeds 1.25% of the measured TFM concentration.

U. To monitor water chemistry, water samples shall be collected at least once every two hours at each monitoring station during the periods that the larnpricide block passes through each point. Adjustments shall be made to the application rate and target concentration to compensate for unexpected variation in pH andlor total alkalinity at Station 1 during the treatment. Water chemistry will be monitored at stations with automatic water samplers using pmtemperature data recorders; total alkalinity will be measured at least at the times of deployment and retrieval of the samplers and data recorders at these stations.




V. The Permittee shall dispose of surplus TFM and Bayluscide container rinseate and empty product containers according to product label requirements and federal and state law and regulations.

W. The Permittee shall conduct a post-treatment sea lamprey survey in the treated reach of the Lamoille River within one year of the treatment date using the standard Quantitative Assessment Sampling (QAS) methodology. The results of this survey shall be submitted to the Agency within six months of completion of the survey.

X. The Permittee shall conduct a post-treatment mortality assessment in the treated reach within 36 hours of the lampricide block passing each section, and thoroughly inspect all visible river bottom areas and record observations of non-target organism mortalities. All dead fish (excluding lamprey), reptiles, amphibians, mussels and other large invertebrates encountered will be identified and enumerated, if possible. Organisms not identified in the field shall be collected, if possible, and retained for identification. The Permittee shall record the exact location of each state-listed mussel mortality. Any state-listed or non-listed mussels, which are observed to exhibit lampricide-induced narcosis following treatment, shall be collected and held in in-stream cages for a minimum of 24 hours to protect them from possible predation. Recovered mussels shall then be returned to the stream close to where they were collected.

Y. The Permittee shall submit a final report on the Lamoille River lampricide treatment to the Agency by May 1 of the year following treatment. The report shall include at a minimum: (1) the TFM-HP batch numbers and quantity used; (2) the Bayluscide 20% Emulsifiable Concentrate batch numbers and quantity used, if any; (3) the results from the on-site toxicity test and MLC determination; (4) the treatment duration; (5) all raw data from pre-, during and post-treatment water chemistry monitoring; (6) river discharge records; (7) non-target, non-lamprey post- treatment mortality counts, transect-based lamprey species mortality counts; and (8) a summary of the day-of- treatment activities.

Expiration Date: This permit shall expire on or six months following the treatment, except that Specific Permit Conditions X and Y above shall not expire until fulfilled or six months following the treatment, whichever is later.

Issued on this --laday of LEPZL~D~ZC, 2009, at Waterbury, Vermont.

By:

7 Vermont Agency of Natural Resources


United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Western New England Complex

Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office

11 Lincoln Street

Essex Junction, Vermont 05452

Julie Moore, Secretary

Agency of Natural Resources

1 National Life Drive, Davis 2

Montpelier, VT 05620-3901

Secretary Moore:

The following responses are provided to address questions related to the Aquatic Nuisance Control

(ANC) permit applications and Endangered and Threatened (E&T) Species permit applications

submitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the control of Sea Lamprey using lampricides in

Vermont tributaries. All questions are related to either nontarget or E&T species. Because many

questions are common to both the ANC and E&T permitting process, we are combining answers to both

in this document.

Many of the questions and comments received this year have been addressed by both the applicant and

the Office of the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources during the permitting process in previous

years. We have provided the most recent Findings and Responses from the Agency or Natural

Resources that previously evaluated nontarget species information to make determinations and

decisions. Three excerpted sections from two issued ANC permits and one ANR response summary

document are appended to the end of this document (pages 6-11). We selected these findings because

all three were written after the frequently referenced mudpuppy mortality seen in the 2009 Lamoille

River lampricide treatment. Other recent nontarget species findings are addressed as well. The U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service has no objection to those previous findings, as written. Because our current

applications do not differ from previous applications in ways that would necessitate the reevaluation of

existing facts, we chose to reference and defer to these existing findings to answer questions addressed

previously. Where new questions have been asked, we provide responses below.

Bradley A. Young

Sea Lamprey Control Program Coordinator

July 09, 2020

1

2020 Responses to questions from the ANC permit review process

The larval surveys in Lamoille River have detected low numbers: 2005 (12), 2008 (3), 2012(3), 2013 (3), 2015 (0), 2019 (19).

How did the 2019 larval sea lamprey survey efforts compare to prior years? Was the same sampling method/effort utilized? The Standardized Quantitative Assessment Sampling (QAS) protocol developed by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission is used to conduct larval sea lamprey surveys in the Lake Champlain Basin. Sampling is standardized, but the total amount of habitat sampled during each survey may vary based on conditions at the time of sampling. Total area sampled during Lamoille River larval lamprey assessments was – 2005 (270 m2), 2008 (210 m2), 2012 (255 m2), 2013 (270 m2), 2015 (217.5 m2), and 2019 (283 m2).

How do these numbers relate to the larval sea lamprey estimates in other Lake Champlain tributaries? QAS estimates have wide confidence intervals, but based on the latest QAS survey, the Lamoille River larval sea lamprey population was second only to the Winooski River population in the Champlain Basin. This was in part due to the fact that we treated many lamprey producing rivers in New York between the Boquet River and the Great Chazy River in the fall of 2018. As explained in our application, larger rivers tend to have lower total numbers of larvae collected as a result of the ratio of sampled area to total river area. Low sample densities in large rivers and high sample densities in small rivers can produce equally-sized population estimates. Total number of lamprey sampled without consideration of the area of habitat available is not directly comparable between tributaries.

What is percent contribution of larval sea lamprey from the Lamoille River for the Lake Champlain basin? While it is not possible to produce a detailed basin-wide larval population estimate, using the latest QAS estimates for each of the 21 rivers that are regularly surveyed, plus the Pike River and Morpion Stream, then the Lamoille River larval population estimate made up over 17% of the known and surveyed larval populations in Champlain tributaries.

Please explain why you believe these numbers and percent contribution justify the risk to non-target species. Principles of integrated pest management, our past experience in Lake Champlain, and decades of experience in the Great Lakes show that leaving sources of production left uncontrolled has consequences. Considering the estimated figure of 17% above, if that population were left uncontrolled, it would not result in 17% increase in the parasitic population. Recruitment from larval to parasitic phase is not a linear relationship, nor independent from other populations and environmental variables. Parasites, by nature, exploit their host populations. We have a level of suppression in place that is currently achieving a substantial reduction (50-70% depending on which years you compare) in parasitism presently. Releasing the full reproductive potential of the Lamoille would result in those larvae recruiting to parasites and exploiting an abundant host population, without competition or density dependent effects acting to limit their recruitment. When a control program actively suppresses nuisance species recruitment to the parasitic phase to promote host survival, allowing new unchecked recruitment in selected areas results in disproportionate, compensatory recruitment and a higher parasitism rate. What this means quantitatively is that 17% of the basin’s larval population (i.e. the Lamoille River) would become more than 17% of the lake’s parasitic population. Maintaining larval suppression from all sources maintains limited recruitment and minimizes resulting parasitism. Our goal as a sea lamprey control program to is bring the lake wide sea lamprey population into balance with the rest of the Lake Champlain ecosystem. We have set goals for wounding rates that show that lamprey numbers need to be reduced. A larval survey conducted in the Lamoille River in 2019 showed that a sizeable larval sea lamprey population was present. To meet management objectives we need to control large larval populations like the one found in the Lamoille River when we find them.

2

Table 2 page 16 presents % sea lamprey reduction from 2009 and 2013 treatments, can the applicant provide actual # density of reduction. Following the 2009 lampricide treatment of the Lamoille River sea lamprey larval density was reduced from 0.014/m2 (3 larvae captured in 2008) to 0.004/m2 (1 larvae captured 2009). Following the 2013 lampricide treatment of the Lamoille River sea lamprey larval density was reduced from 0.012/m2 (3 larvae captured in 2012) to 0.000/m2 (no larvae captured in 2014).

Mudpuppies

Statement: Significant mudpuppy mortality occurred in 2009 (528 counted), which represented a fraction of the treated area. The entire visible treated area of the Lamoille River from Peterson Dam to the mouth was surveyed by boat and shore in 2009.

Comment: The mudpuppy mortality observed in 2009 illustrates that toxicity data provided in Table 4, page 18 is not reflective of toxicity observed in the Lamoille River; if this data were correct there should not have been any adult mudpuppy mortality observed in 2009 treating at 1.2 MLC. Comment presumes that chemical concentration and number of mortalities are independent of other environmental and biological variables that can affect organism responses. Many variables, some known and accounted for and others yet unknown, can affect how organisms respond under different conditions. Real treatment results line up very well with published toxicity values that prove to be consistent and reliable, but anomalies can occur.

What is the applicant doing to ensure that the mudpuppy population in the Lamoille River can sustain continued lampricide treatments? Refer to the three appended excerpts

Comment: Observing continued mudpuppy mortality after each treatment is not assurance that the population can sustain lampricide treatments. Refer to the three appended excerpts

Comment: Prior recommendations included capturing mudpuppies before treatment and moving them upstream to establish population. Please contact Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department for comment on this. These efforts are separate from our application.

What efforts have been taken to establish mudpuppy population upstream of treated area? Please contact Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department for comment on this. These efforts are separate from our application.

What efforts are in place to remove mudpuppies from treated section prior to this treatment? We have no plans in place to capture and remove mudpuppies prior to treatment.

What data is available to show that these levels of mortality can be sustained? We are unclear on what is being asked. We expect the 2020 treatment to be similar to the 2013 (last) treatment when all observations of mortalities were consistent with toxicity data. Please contact Vermont Fish and Wildlife for current mudpuppy sampling information for the Lamoille River.

Comment: Lewis Creek and Winooski River show declining mudpuppy numbers, in fact Lewis Creek mudpuppy population has been either eliminated or reduced to very low levels from lampricide treatments based on post-treatment mortality surveys. Fewer mudpuppy mortalities found following a treatment are an indication of fewer mudpuppies being killed during that lampricide treatment, alone. When mortalities are low or not found, it is possible that fewer or no individuals are present or it is possible that more individuals survived the treatment. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, nor is it proof of survival. Post-treatment assessments are thus not valid population monitoring or estimation tools.

Application (page 17) states mudpuppy mortality is expected, but we do not expect population level effects. What data support this conclusion? Refer to the three appended excerpts

3

Comment: Observations from lampricide treatments reported in this application have indicated entire age classes have been missing after treatment, would this not be a population level effect? Refer to the three appended excerpts

Will pre and post mudpuppy surveys be conducted for this proposed 2020 application? No SEIS notes pH declines during predawn hours may lead to greater nontarget mortality than predicted,

how will this “known” effect be accounted for in the dosing to prevent greater nontarget mortality? Knowledge of this phenomenon has led to diurnal water chemistry monitoring protocols to measure these trends and allow us to prevent those type of events. Water chemistry monitoring takes place in the days leading up to treatment so that pH cycles and toxicity are understood. This information is combined with known time-of-travel data so that we have a time-based expected toxicity factor for each section of the River. This process is undertaken for every lampricide treatment in the Lake Champlain Basin. Treatment application start times and concentrations are adjusted using this knowledge whereby pH cycles are incorporated into treatment planning and strategies that ensure compliance with permits.

Have mudpuppy distribution studies been conducted elsewhere in the state as directed by previous ANR Secretaries? Internal state agreements between Vermont Fish and Wildlife and the Secretary should be discussed with them.

Target/Non-target Species Mortality Monitoring

When will post-treatment mortality assessments begin? It’s identified assessments will be conducted within 36 hours. Please specify how the post treatment assessments will be conducted (e.g., when will they begin, how long will they last, areas to be covered, etc.). This is described in our application in detail, including a map with the location of sections.

4

2020 Responses to questions from the E&T permit review process The questions below were common to both the Missisquoi River and Lamoille River. There were no river-specific questions. Permit Conditions: If a permit is granted, what specific conditions/restrictions do you recommend be included? 1. The post-treatment, non-target mortality survey be conducted at each survey location no later than the next daylight period following the lampricide block passage. Rationale: To provide a more representative picture of non-target fish mortality resulting from a lampricide treatment, observations should be made as soon after treatment as is practical to minimize predation on dead or dying fish. Additionally a shorter period between treatment and survey would reduce the risk of sudden increased flows that would impair or prevent observations. Post-treatment surveys are currently conducted the next morning following lampricide application. The application point is surveyed <14hrs afters the addition of chemical concludes. Downstream sites are sampled in that direction until the tail end of the chemical block is met, meaning that there are fewer hours between block passage and surveys as the survey team moves downstream. The chemical block progression continues to be monitored as it moves downstream and successive sites are sampled once the block has passed, within daylight hours. The only exception to this standing practice would be when high water conditions make surveys unsafe for staff. 2. The lampricide application point shall be located downstream from the Swanton Dam in the area directly below the hard bottom reach. Rationale: The proposed location, immediately above the dam, was selected by the applicant because of the increased mixing of the lampricide in the river provided by the water passing over the dam. Sensitive Stonecats reside in the hard bottom, higher current section directly below the Swanton Dam. Moving the lampricide introduction point downstream will spare the riffle section of lampricide exposure without significantly sacrificing area treated for Sea Lamprey. As stated, the application point was selected to promote mixing of lampricide. This site maximizes mixing which serves to both 1) provide greater protection to nontarget species by eliminating “hot-spots” caused by insufficient mixing and 2) ensures that lamprey larvae that reside in their highest densities near the dam are exposed to a steady and lethal concentration of lampricide. The width of the Missisquoi River, the relatively slow flow downstream of the hard-bottom stretch at the base of the dam, and the channel morphology that includes a bend, would not allow an even mix of lampricide to occur, negating both benefits listed above and potentially rendering the treatment ineffective. 3. The USFWS increase its sampling intensity to provide more precise estimates of larval lamprey populations in rivers that are scheduled for lampricide treatment.

5

Rationale: The purposeful additional of toxic chemicals to a waterbody should be done with a more complete understanding of the populations dynamics of the target organism. Given the data on larval abundance in the Lamoille River, sampling intensity is insufficient to provide needed data on lamprey demography. We believe sampling is sufficient to establish the presence of sea lamprey and the extent of their distribution in the river. A highly precise population estimate is not necessary to justify the need to control sea lamprey. Based on 30 years of experience in surveys and treatments, we do not believe more sampling precision would change or affect decisions on which rivers should be treated. We do not believe producing more precise population estimates is worth the expense of resources that would be required. Concerns and Questions: What concerns or questions do you have about the application or the proposed project that should be noted?

1. See statement above.

Additional information: Is there any other feedback or information that you would like to share about this permit application? We suggest a treatment that would be conducted during the latter part of the period proposed in the application to minimize impact on young-of- the-year Lake Sturgeon. Rationale: As lampricide-sensitive Lake Sturgeon mature during their first year of life, they quickly build resistance to lampricides. Consequently the later in the year the treatment, the lower the risk of mortality from a lampricide treatment. The following statement appears on page 6 of our application: “We will treat the Missisquoi River between Late September and Late November which will allow young-of-year sturgeon increased growth potential prior to Lampricide exposure.” Data presented in the application are consistent with this time providing protection to sturgeon. Because growth rates slow later in the year as temperatures decline, we do not believe an additional 2-4 weeks provides meaningful, additional protection. The distinction in juvenile sturgeon protection based on size is made between treating in the fall rather than in the summer.

6

ANC Permit 2010-C05 State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Aquatic Nuisance Control Permit Program 10 V.S.A. Chapter 50 § 1455 Re: Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife Application No. 2010-C05 103 South Main Street, 10 South District ID #RU09-0230 Waterbury VT 05671-0501 Project: Use of an aquatic pesticide to control sea lamprey ammocoetes (larvae) in the Poultney and Hubbardton Rivers in the Town of West Haven, Lewis Creek in the Towns of Ferrisburgh and Charlotte, the Winooski River in the Cities of Winooski and Burlington and the Town of Colchester and the Lamoille River in the Town of Milton, Vermont.

3. Findings – Acceptable Risk to the Non-target Environment

Unlisted Non-target Organisms -Amphibians While TFM toxicity tests and treatment cage studies conducted on mudpuppies have indicated that at the proposed treatment concentrations no mortality should be expected for this species, mortalities have been recorded following Vermont TFM treatments. Mudpuppy mortality occurred during both the 1990 and 1994 TFM-formulation treatments of Lewis Creek. Following the 1990 treatment (1.0 x MLC), 23 dead mudpuppies were found, with 18 found following the 1994 treatment (~1.1 x MLC). No dead mudpuppies were found following the 2002 (1.1-1.3 x MLC) or 2006 (1.2 x MLC) treatments of Lewis Creek. Eight dead mudpuppies were recorded from the Poultney River after the 2007 TFM treatment conducted at 1.3 x MLC. The 2004 and 2008 TFM treatments of the Winooski River resulted in 17 and 16 mudpuppy mortalities respectively. Two cage studies, one from Lewis Creek in 2002 (n=16) and the other from the Winooski River in 2004 (n=45) showed no mortalities. The 2009 treatment of Lamoille River resulted in over 500 mudpuppy mortalities.

What is known of the distribution of the mudpuppy in Lake Champlain is largely due to observed mortalities from lampricide treatments. Otherwise there are scattered records of occurrence throughout the Lake Champlain valley of Vermont. This secretive, nocturnally active species is very difficult to sample efficiently, which has contributed to a lack of occurrence and density information for this species.

The mudpuppy is not federally or state-listed as endangered or threatened. In a listing decision dated September 6, 2002, the Secretary determined that the March 16, 2002 recommendation by Vermont’s Endangered Species Committee to list the mudpuppy in Vermont as a threatened species was not then supported by the available data. The Secretary chose not to list this species at that time and it remains unlisted.

7

Comments dated March 31, 2006, submitted by the Vermont Endangered Species Committee to Canute Dalmasse, Deputy Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources, regarding an Endangered and Threatened Species Takings Permit application for the proposed Lewis Creek lampricide

treatment, conveyed “much concern about the status of the mudpuppy and its vulnerability to lampricide.” The Committee “strongly recommended” that research be conducted in an effort to develop more information on the mudpuppy’s status. In addition, ANC Permit 2005-C05 authorizing TFM treatment of Lewis Creek included a permit condition requiring that prior to treatment, the Permittee submit to the Department a detailed plan describing how the Permittee would generate mudpuppy population data to clarify the status of this species in Lewis Creek and other Lake Champlain tributaries. As a result, the Permittee submitted a detailed plan describing how the Permittee would generate mudpuppy population data to clarify the status of the species in Lake Champlain tributaries. A study, partially funded by a State Wildlife Grant, was conducted during 2009-2010. This effort evaluated collection techniques and provided age and sex distribution characteristics and population size estimates for mudpuppies in the Lamoille River. The total mudpuppy population estimate for the 1 km reach below Peterson Dam for winter 2008- winter 2009 (prior to the fall 2009 lampricide treatment) was greater than the estimate for the same time period during 2009-2010. However, this finding was not statistically supported. The decline in the population estimate for females was more pronounced than for males and may have indicated an actual decline in numbers following the 2009 lampricide treatment. Small sample sizes and low recapture rates, typical of mudpuppy sampling efforts, widened confidence limits of estimates thereby precluding firm conclusions on abundance for males, and to a lesser extent, females.

The Lamoille River study recommended that further similar efforts be made to monitor the population and to provide additional estimates of population size to more accurately characterize population status.

Mortalities of frogs and tadpoles (usually northern leopard, Rana pipiens) have ranged widely from none in one third of the Vermont’s previously permitted TFM treatments to 549 adults resulting from the 2008 Missisquoi River treatment. The latter number is unusually high, comprising 74% of frog mortalities in all of the Vermont treatments up to that date. The Department finds that the cosmopolitan distribution of this species in Vermont assures its stability in relation to observed mortalities from lampricide treatments. Based on the permit application and other supporting documents on file with the Agency and the above information, the Secretary finds that the proposed treatments of the authorized treatment tributaries with TFM-HP alone or in combination with Bayluscide EC poses an acceptable risk to the non-target environment if it is conducted in accordance with the product label, the application, the conditions of this permit, and the conditions of an Endangered and Threatened Species Takings Permit issued for the authorized treatment tributaries.

8

State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Aquatic Nuisance Control Permit Program 1 NATIONAL LIFE DRIVE, MAIN 2 MONTPELIER, VT 05620-3522 10 V.S.A. Chapter 50 § 1455 Re: Winooski River Lampricide Application - Permit No. 2015-C04 3. FINDINGS 3d. Nontarget Environment – 10 V.S.A. 1455(d)(2). The USFWS states that the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS), and more recent research provides support the conclusion that controlled applications of TFM at a concentration of 1.3 x MLC for no longer than 14 hours will pose an acceptable risk to nontarget species in the Winooski River. While there have been some mortality of nontarget organisms observed during prior treatments; generally, however, the wide distribution of these nontarget amphibians, fish, and some invertebrates in Vermont, and especially in the Lake Champlain, basin assures their population stability. As indicated above, successful lampricide treatments have occurred at lower concentrations in the Winooski River. Therefore, to minimize potential nontarget impacts but ensure sufficient efficacy, the Secretary has authorized 1.2 x MLC for no longer than 12 consecutive hours. Given the USFWS improved the accuracy and precision of treatments over the last 25 years, a carefully executed lampricide treatment at this concentration poses acceptable risk to all nontarget organisms, including mudpuppies, in the Winooski River. An Endangered and Threatened Species Takings Permit (Takings Permit) will be obtained by the USFWS from the VT Agency of Natural Resources prior to any use of lampricide. Generally, mussels suffer little or no mortality during typical TFM treatments. The USFWS reports that after 67 stream lampricide treatments in the Champlain Basin, only 33 mussel mortalities have been recorded. Of those 33, only nine have been recorded in the past 10 years. Research on mussel susceptibility to TFM is consistent with these results. Studies also indicate that mussels do not suffer delayed mortality within at least 10 months post exposure.

While there are scattered records throughout Vermont, what is known of the distribution of the

mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus) within the Lake Champlain Basin is largely due to observed mortalities from lampricide treatments. Mudpuppies are very challenging to scientifically survey, which has contributed to a lack of reliable distribution, frequency of occurrence and density data for this species. The USFWS has attempted to generate population data to clarify the status of this species. However, small sample sizes and low recapture rates, typical of mudpuppy sampling efforts, have widened confidence limits of population estimates thereby precluding definitive population density conclusions – particularly before and after lampricide use. The USFWS’s experience in treating rivers with lampricide shows that a treatment concentration of 1.3 x MLC may cause mortality to young-of-

9

year and yearling mudpuppies and other salamanders, but has limited impacts on older breeding-age classes. A total of 29, 19, and 1 mudpuppies were collected in 3 post- treatment collections in 2004, 2008, and 2012, respectively. While the exact population status of mudpuppies within the Winooski River is unknown, the data reported on mudpuppy impacts do not directly support the conclusion that this species has been unacceptably impacted because of its use. However, the Secretary has determined a slightly reduced concentration for a shorter duration poses an acceptable risk to all nontarget organisms, especially mudpuppies, and based on prior treatment concentrations will ensure effective control of sea lamprey. Given that the USFWS has improved the accuracy and precision of treatments over the last 25 years, the Department has concluded that a carefully executed lampricide treatment at 1.2 x MLC is an acceptable approach to minimizing possible adverse effects on the mudpuppy population within the Winooski River. In a listing decision dated October 28, 2011, the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources determined that the 2011 recommendation by Vermont’s Endangered Species Committee to list the mudpuppy as a threatened species was not supported by available information. While the Secretary recognizes that additional surveying efforts are needed, she does not believe the proposed use of lampricide will or has posed an unacceptable risk this species’ population in the Winooski River. However, the Secretary reserves the authority to require additional studies if determined necessary to maintain this finding. Impacts of TFM on silver lamprey (Ichthyomyzon unicupsis) are discussed in detail within the FSEIS. With a treatment concentration of 1.2 times MLC, losses of silver lamprey larvae are expected. Nonetheless, despite repeated treatments of rivers containing populations of silver lamprey, regular assessment surveys show that they continue to persist at acceptable populations. The mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdii) is considered to be a rare fish in Vermont and is known to occur in several waterways in the Champlain Basin, some of which are treated with lampricide. Mottled sculpin are relatively resistant to TFM exposure at typical concentration treatment levels. The brassy minnow (Hybognathus hankinsoni) and the blacknose shiner (Notropis heterolepis) are considered to be a rare fish in Vermont and are known to occur in several waterways in the Champlain Basin. One mortality of the brassy minnow and only 3 mortalities of the blacknose shiner have been documented during post-treatment surveys of the 67 total lampricide treatments that have occurred. These species have not been tested in bioassays or cage studies because it is considered to not be at significant risk of mortality during typical lampricide applications. In general, the Cyprinidae family is considered to have a relatively high tolerance to lampricide. Therefore, the proposed lampricide treatment poses an acceptable level of risk to brassy minnows and blacknose shiners. The Secretary has determined that there is acceptable risk to any wetlands directly adjacent to the Winooski River. To mitigate the risk of introduction or transport of non-native, aquatic invasive species proper spread prevention measures must be taken. Thus, prior to any control activity occurring, all

10

equipment (such as a boat, trailer, vehicle, and gear) that has been in or on any other waterbody, will be decontaminated in accordance with the Voluntary Guidelines to Prevent the Spread of Aquatic Invasive Species through Recreational Activities, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, November 2013, or its approved replacement. Having reviewed all of the potential negative impacts of the proposed pesticide treatment on the nontarget environment, the proposed activity poses an acceptable risk if it is conducted in accordance with this permit and the all other applicable regulations. The Secretary has determined that there is acceptable risk to the nontarget environment.

11

AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIVISION 1 NATIONAL LIFE DRIVE, MAIN 2 MONTPELIER, VT 05620-3522 RESPONSE SUMMARY TO COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL PERMIT DECISION #2015-C04 Re: Proposed use of lampricide in Winooski River Municipalities of Winooski, Burlington, and Colchester

8. COMMENT There is concern over a reduction of the mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus) population throughout Vermont allegedly caused by the use of lampricide. Listing the mudpuppy as threatened or endangered and reducing the use of lampricide may help protect this species. Adversely affecting mudpuppy populations with TFM, and expecting them to rebound, does not make sense. 8. RESPONSE The abundance and distribution of mudpuppies within the Lake Champlain basin is largely due to observed mortalities from lampricide treatments. Mudpuppies are very challenging to scientifically survey, which has contributed to a lack of reliable frequency of occurrence and density data for this species. In a listing decision dated October 28, 2011, the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources determined that the 2011 recommendation by Vermont’s Endangered Species Committee to list the mudpuppy as a threatened species was not supported by available information. While the Secretary recognizes that additional surveying efforts are needed, she does not believe the proposed use of lampricide will or has posed an unacceptable risk this species’ population in the Winooski River. The USFWS has requested to treat at 1.3 x MLC, as is standard in most other Vermont streams. The USFWS’s experience in treating rivers with lampricide shows that a treatment concentration of 1.3 x MLC may cause mortality to young-of-year and yearling mudpuppies and other salamanders, but has limited impacts on older breeding-age classes. While the exact population status of mudpuppies within the Winooski River is unknown, the data reported on mudpuppy impacts do not directly support the conclusion that this species has been unacceptably impacted because of its use. However, the Secretary has determined a slightly reduced concentration for a shorter duration poses an acceptable risk to all nontarget organisms, especially mudpuppies, and based on prior treatment concentrations will ensure effective control of sea lamprey. Given that the USFWS has improved the accuracy and precision of treatments over the last 25 years, the Department has concluded that a carefully executed lampricide treatment at 1.2 x MLC is an acceptable approach to minimizing possible adverse effects on the mudpuppy population within the Winooski River.

Vermont Endangered Species Committee

T&E Permit Application Review

Application: USFWS Lampricide Treatment of the Lamoille River in 2020 and 2024

Date: 29 June 2020 Summary: The applicant proposes surveys to treat the Lamoille River with the lampricide TFM or TFM/1% niclosamide. Species Potentially Impacted: Pocketbook mussel, pink heelsplitter mussel, fluted shell mussel, fragile papershell mussel, cylindrical papershell mussel, giant floater mussel, eastern sand darter, and lake sturgeon. Advice: Should a permit be granted? No Comments: We appreciate the efforts of the US Fish and Wildlife Service to minimize the effects of the lampricide treatment on non-target species. Despite these efforts, the Endangered Species Committee continues to struggle with the use of lampricide in Vermont rivers. We understand that there are negative effects of lamprey parasitism on sport fish populations. However, we continue to be concerned about long-term effects on populations of T&E species such as mussels, as noted in the white paper provided by the Invertebrate SAG in 2013 (included with these recommendations). Additionally, we know there are negative effects on non-target species that are not listed as threatened or endangered, but are in S1 or S2 categories (critically imperilled or imperilled). Given the concerns about water quality in Vermont, particularly in the Champlain Basin, adding toxic chemicals to state waters feels like an out-dated approach to fisheries management. We urge the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department to continue to look for control options that are more species-specific and continue to monitor the literature for additional information on long-term cumulative effects on non-target species. The sampling scheme guiding the timing of river treatment provides imprecise results. As such, thresholds for treatment are based on sampling data that are highly variable spatially and temporally (12, 3, 3, 3, 0, and 19 larvae based on surveys at ~3-year intervals 2005 to 2019). We feel these survey results are a low bar to clear for the purpose of introducing toxic chemicals into Vermont waterways. Further, data on the efficacy of lampricide treatment on wounding rates is equivocal. In the meantime, we urge the US Fish and Wildlife Service to consider seriously the possibility of keeping one river system free from lampricide treatment; we suggest the Lamoille River as an excellent choice for such action.

page 2

Permit Conditions: If a permit is granted, what specific conditions/restrictions do you recommend be included? 1. The post-treatment non-target mortality survey be conducted at each survey location no later than the next daylight period following the lampricide block passage. Rationale: To provide a more representative picture of non-target fish mortality resulting from a lampricide treatment, observations should be made as soon after treatment as is practical to minimize predation on dead or dying fish. Additionally a shorter period between treatment and survey would reduce the risk of sudden increased flows that would impair or prevent observations. 2. The USFWS increase its sampling intensity to provide more precise estimates of larval lamprey populations in rivers that are scheduled for lampricide treatment. Rationale: The purposeful additional of toxic chemicals to a waterbody should be done with a more complete understanding of the populations dynamics of the target organism. Given the data on larval abundance in the Lamoille River, sampling intensity is insufficient to provide needed data on lamprey demography. Concerns & Questions: What concerns or questions do you have about the application or the proposed project that should be noted?

1. See statement above.

Additional information: Is there any other feedback or information that you would like to share about this permit application? We suggest a treatment that would be conducted during the latter part of the period proposed in the application to minimize impact on young-of- the-year Lake Sturgeon. Rationale: As lampricide-sensitive Lake Sturgeon mature during their first year of life, they quickly build resistance to lampricides. Consequently the later in the year the treatment, the lower the risk of mortality from a lampricide treatment.

Submitted as a Report on Freshwater Mussel Survival in Vermont. The Invertebrate Scientific Advisory Group of the Endangered Species Committee, H. Peter Wimmer and Kent McFarland Co-chairs. 7 February 2013 - revised 2/16/13 and 6/4/13 Sent by Pete Wimmer, SAG Inverts, 6/5/13 Effects of the Lampricide TFM (3-trifluroromethyl-4-nitro-phenol) on Long-term Survival of Adult and Pre-adult Vermont Unionid Mussels Conclusions: 1. Short term monitoring has shown that TFM or TFM in combination with 1% niclosamide does not harm adult or juvenile unionid mussels; harm meaning lethality. 2. Unionid mussels are especially long-lived and long term effects of TFM and TFM/1% niclosamide are not known. 3. Effect of TFM and TFM/1% niclosamide on pre-adult stages is not well known. 4. The current procedures for monitoring impacts of TFM are inadequate to determine long term effects of treatment on adults and short- or long-term effects on juveniles. Justification: 1. Short term monitoring shows that TFM or TFM/1% niclosamide does not harm unionid mussels. It has been amply demonstrated in laboratory and field studies that concentrations of TFM or TFM/1% niclosamide up to several times the minimum lethal concentration (MLC) to kill 100% of lamprey ammocoetes (young larvae) and transformers (juveniles) do not kill most adult unionid mussel species during the exposure period or after the longest observation period to date, about a year, after lampricide application stops. (Bills, T.D., et. al., 1992; Boogard, M. A., et, al. 2004a and 2004b; NY Dept. Environmental Conservation et. al. 2007 and many others) . Waller, et. al. (1998) showed that exposure of several mussel species to several concentrations of 14C-TFM over a period of 48 hours resulted in a concentration of 14C-TFM in some tissues up to 60X the concentration in the water without significant mortality at the end of the exposure. Valve closure did not significantly affect 14C-TFM accumulation. Studies have generally considered narcotization and survival of mussels after exposure but Waller et al. (2003) showed growth of Elliptio complanata over a 10 month period did not vary with exposure to TFM or TFM/1% niclosamide. This growth was not compared to growth of unexposed animals. The fact that TFM or TFM/1% niclosamide don't kill mussels at concentrations which kill 100% of lamprey larvae, at least in controlled lab situations, is encouraging for lamprey control efforts using TFM and for the orthodox view of mussel safety during such treatments. 2. Unionid mussels are especially long-lived and long-term effects of TFM and TFM/1%

niclosamide are not known. Unionid mussels are especially long-lived species, some possibly reaching two centuries. A local example is the eastern pearlshell, Margaritifera margaritifera, which is not found in TFM treated areas in Vermont. Bauer (1992) indicates life span in unionid mussels is related to metabolic rate (temperature and food dependent), adult specimen size and location in the stream. Longer lived species tend to be larger as adults and are located in colder water. The range of life span for adult unionids is from approximately 6 years up to a century or more. Thus a lack of statistically significant adult mortality after TFM treatment over a period of several years could be highly deceptive. Strayer (2008) cites several studies which show that human and natural impacts, on mussel populations, not immediately resulting in mortality, may take years, decades or even centuries to be expressed as changes in adult numbers. A particularly interesting example is that of mussel populations immediately below dams built from the early 1900s through mid-century with hypolimnetic water release. The mussel populations in the affected regions of the streams are just now beginning to show population depression after as much as a century in some cases Heinrich, J.R. and J.B. Layzer, (1999); Layzer, J. B.et.al. (1993). Exact cause or causes of the die-offs were not determined. Also see Tilman et al. (1994) and Cope et.al. (1995). 3. Effect of TFM and TFM/1% niclosamide on pre-adult stages is not well known. Even though TFM does not kill a number of species of mussels immediately, it may be having a repressive effect on reproduction or the survival of a pre-adult life stage such as juveniles or glochidia. TFM is adsorbed by very fine sediments where it can be sequestered for an extended period, the duration being dependent upon variable water chemistry, quantity of fine particulate organic matter and the microbial environment, Hubert (2011, study in progress), Kemp (1973) and Dawson,V.K. et.al. (1985) and others. The Hubert study is attempting to, at least in part, determine the residence time of TFM in sediments. The Dawson study is mainly aimed at determining how much TFM can be transferred from the water to the sediments to aid in planning lampricide treatments. Juvenile mussels tend to reside in the fine sediments between stones in streams for a number of reasons, chief among these are protection from larger predators and the presence of fine particulate organic matter along with algae, bacteria and protozoa upon which they feed, so may be exposed to TFM concentrations well below the point where it is detectable in the stream water. The work underway by Hubert (2011) might throw some light on these issues. 4. The current system of monitoring effects of TFM are inadequate to determine long term effect of treatment on adults and short- or long-term effects on juveniles A number of Vermont streams are on a 4-year cycle of TFM treatment for lamprey control. This regular exposure of the stream to TFM replenishes any TFM still sequestered in the fine sediments, the zone where juvenile mussels reside. Possibly this extended exposure to TFM is

killing or damaging juveniles, and if so, this repression of a successful reproductive cycle won't become evident for many years if only adult populations are monitored. There are other potentially toxic chemicals in the water which may be more responsible for the lack of reproductive success of the mussels (Cope; et. al., 2008). TFM may be a major agent contributing to the decline of many, if not all, unionid species in TFM treated portions of streams. 5. If the role of TFM can be isolated from the role of these other agents it will require very carefully designed field controls and lab work. Given available evidence for the role of TFM in unionid decline, there are some studies which should be performed. This issue needs to be examined by means of careful, long-term, field studies encompassing several TFM treatment cycles in which juvenile population density is monitored between treated and untreated portions of streams. Similar untreated streams should be studied as controls when the untreated portion of the treated streams are dissimilar from the treated portions. When possible, juveniles should be lab reared to a size where positive species determination can be made. Any trend in juvenile population and species composition is indicative of the future population of the stream. Final Note: Such an intensive study requires resources beyond those available to the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is an obvious candidate to conduct such studies. Findings are vital to the lamprey control program and to the development of a more comprehensive plan for the recovery and protection of Vermont mussels (see O’Brian, et. al. 2002). Addendum: A group at the USGS Upper Midwest Science Center has been looking into many of the issues presented here. Depending on their approach, they may provide answers to our questions. They have not yet published and we anxiously await this. Submitted as a Report on Freshwater Mussel Survival in Vermont. The Invertebrate Scientific Advisory Group of the Endangered Species Committee, H. Peter Wimmer and Kent McFarland Co-chair. 7 February 2013 revised 2/16/13 and 6/4/13

References: Bauer, G. 1992. Variation in life span and size of the freshwater pearl mussel. Journal of Animal Ecology. 61: 425 -436. Bills, T.D., J.J Rach; L. L. Marking and G.E. Howe. 1992. Effects of the Lampricide 3-triflouromethyl-4-nitrophenol on the Pink Heelsplitter. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 183. Washington, D.C. I-iii, 1-7. Boogard, M.A. ,Bills, T.D. and D.L. Waller. 2004 (Final Draft for Peer Review) Acute Toxicity of TFM and TFM/1% niclosamide mixture on the giant floater (Pygonodon [Anodonta] grandis) mussel and the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) larvae. US Geological Survey, La Cross, WI for the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Cooperative, Essex Junction, VT. 17pp. Boogard,M.A., C.S. Kolar and D.L.Waller. 2004. Acute Toxicity of 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol (TFM) and a TFM/1% niclosamide mixture on the giant floater (Pyganodon grandis), fragile papershell (Loptodea fragilis) and the pink heelsplitter (Potamilus alatus) unionid mussels and the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) larvae.US Geological Survey for the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Cooperative and Vermont Department ofFish and Wildlife, Essex Junction VT, 17pp. Cope, W, R. Bringolf, D. Buchwalter, T. Newton, C. Ingersoll, N. Wang, T. Augspurger, F. Dwyer, M. Barnhart, R.Neves and E. Hammer. 2008. Differential exposure, duration, and sensitivity of unionoidean bivalve life stages to environmental contaminants. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. V 27, no. 2 pp. 451-462. Cope, W. and Waller, D. 1995. Evaluation of freshwater mussel relocation as a conservation and management strategy. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management. Vol. 11 no. 2, pp. 147-155. Dawson, V. K., D.A. Johnson and J. L. Allen. 1985. Loss of Lampricides by adsorption on bottom sediments. Can. J. of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. V 43(8); 1616-1620. Published on the web April 2011. Heinrich,J.R. and J.B. Layzer. 1999. Reproduction by individuals of a non-reproducing population of Megalonaias nervosa (Mollucidae, Unionidae) following translocation. American Midland Naturalist. 141:140-148. Hubert, T. 2011. Determination of TFM Residues in sediment and water following a lampricide treatment. Study in progress. USGS, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center. 2pg. Kemp, Lloyd l. 1973. Microbial degradation of the lampray larvicide, 3-triflouromethyl-4-nitrophenol in sediment-water systems. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Technical Report No. 18.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2007. Summary of TFM toxicity tests of the cylindrical papershell (Anodontoiudes ferussacianus). 3pp. O'Brian, C, M. Ferguson, S.Fiske, M. Lyttle, and E. Marsden. (in preparation) Recovery plan for twelve Vermont freshwater mussel species. Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. Strayer,D.L. 2008. Freshwater Mussel Ecology, A Multifactorial Approach to Distribution and Abundance. University of California Press, Berkeley. I-vii, 1-204.

Tilman,D; R.M. May; C.L. Lehman and M.A. Nowak. 1994. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371: 65-66. Waller, D.L., J.J. Rach and J.A. Luoma. 1998. Acute toxicity and accumulation of the piscicide 3-triflouromethyl-4-nitrophenol (TFM) in freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Ecotoxicology 7, 113-121. Waller, D.L., T.D. Bills, M.A. Boogard, M.A. Johnson and T.C.J Doolittle. 2003. Effects of lampricide exposure on survival, growth and behavior of the unionid mussels Elliptio complanata and Pyganodon cataracta. Conference paper: Journal of Great Lakes Research. Vol. 29, Supplement 1, 542-551.

Agency of Natural Resources 1 National Life Dr, Davis 2, Montpelier, VT 05620-3702 • 802-828-1294

Threatened & Endangered Species Takings Permit Statutory Authority: 10 VSA § 5408

1. Permittee 2. Permit Period

Bradley Young Effective Date: XX/XX/2020

USFWS, Lake Champlain Office Expiration Date: XX/XX/202411 Lincoln Street, Essex Jct., VT 05452, Authorization #: EH-2020-15802-662-5304, [email protected] Amendment # 0

3. Principal Officer: Andrew Milliken

4. Subpermitee(s): The trained staff of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Vermont Fish andWildlife Department (VFWD) under the direction of the Permittee.

5. Authorized Species: Giant floater (Pyganodon grandis), Pink heelsplitter (Potamilus alatus), Fragile papershell(Leptodea fragilis), Pocketbook (Lampsilis ovata), Cylindrical papershell (Anodontoides ferussacianus), Fluted-shell (Lasmigona costata), Eastern Sand Darter (Ammocrypta pellucida), Lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens)

6. Authorized Activity: Lampricide Treatment in the Lower Lamoille River.

7. Location of Authorized Activity: Lower Lamoille River.

8. Findings

A. The Permittee applied for a Threatened & Endangered Species Takings Permit under 10 V.S.A. § 5408 toauthorize the incidental take of the species listed in section 5 for the purpose of treating the Lower LamoilleRiver with lampricide.The Lamoille River was last treated in 2013 and 2009.

B. The Permittee is a government entity with expertise in the capture and handling of species listed in section 5.

C. Said activity has been determined to be non-de minimis in nature and will have the following benefits: enhancethe propagation and restoration of native lake trout, landlocked Atlantic salmon, and other Lake Champlainfish species including walleye, northern pike, and endangered lake sturgeon.

D. The sea lamprey is a fish that parasitizes other fish, scarring or killing its host. A substantial body ofinformation collected by the Permittee and others indicates that the sea lamprey is depressing coldwater andsome warm water fisheries in Lake Champlain. The negative impacts of sea lamprey parasitism have beendocumented in the Great Lakes where sea lamprey control programs have been in effect for more than 50years.

E. The proposed lampricide treatment is part a long-term sea lamprey control program for Lake Champlaininitiated by the Permittee, along with the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative, theNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife in 2002. Thisprogram was developed in response to an eight-year experimental sea lamprey control program conducted onLake Champlain between 1990 and 1997. The experimental program illustrated the efficacy of the lampricideTFM in effectively reducing numbers of sea lamprey to levels resulting in significant improvement in salmonidsurvival and fishing quality in Lake Champlain. A primary goal of the long-term sea lamprey control program isto prevent the economic harm from sea lamprey parasitism as well as to enhance the propagation of salmonidand other fisheries in Lake Champlain.

F. Programmatic targets of 15 lamprey wounds per 100 Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) and 25 lamprey woundsper 100 lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) were sent in 1990 in the FSEIS. Targets are based on experienceand historic data that indicate these species can withstand and persists at those level of lamprey wounds.

G. November 2019 lamprey wounding data identified wounding rates of 20 per 100 Atlantic Salmon and 57 per100 lake trout. Both rates are above the set programmatic goals and are reasons to continue to control knownsea lamprey populations.

H. The Lamoille river system is one of 21 Lake Champlain tributaries in Vermont, New York and Quebec that area source of sea lamprey production. Pretreatment surveys conducted in 2019 identified 19 larvae distributedthroughout the length of the Lamoille River, downstream of the Peterson Dam. Surveys were conducted over

Draft

T&E Species Takings Permit DRAFT Lamoille Lampricide ● Young ● USFWS ● EH-2020-15 p. 2 of 6

0.025% of the habitat area.

Treatment Strategy and Methodology

I. The primary lampricide application point (AP) is at Peterson Dam (river mile 6.0). TFM or TFM/1% niclosamidewill be applied directly to the intake to the hydro-power turbine. The lampricide will be quickly mixed into theriver as it passes through the turbine.

J. Application rate: TFM or a TFM/1% niclosamide combination (with niclosamide concentration equivalent to 1%of the TFM concentration) will be applied for 12-14 consecutive hours to achieve a target in-stream treatmentconcentration of no greater than 1.3 x MLC. The permittee may introduce niclosamide for 2 hours prior toaddition of TFM in order to stabilize niclosamide concentrations and ensure a properly balanced mixture withTFM, once added. The early application of niclosamide will not count as part of the 12 or 14 hours of totaltreatment time.

K. MLC will be determined by the results of an on-site toxicity test and diurnal stream pH and alkalinity analysis inthe days prior to treatment. The MLC may be adjusted during treatment to compensate for shifts in pH oralkalinity that differ from pre-treatment conditions.

L. TFM Bars, adjustable rate pumps, or back-pack sprayers may be used to make supplemental applications ofTFM on up to 3 small tributaries (SAP 1-3 on Figure 4) near their confluences with the Lamoille River,concurrent with passage of the mainstem lampricide block at those points, to block lamprey escapement intountreated water from these streams. Flows on the day of treatment will determine the need for thesesupplemental applications.

Post Treatment Water Quality Monitoring

M. Lampricide concentration will be measured and monitored at low levels in the lake following treatment.Monitoring will occur and advisories will remain in place until 24 hours after measured levels fall below theVermont Department of Health’s advisory threshold of 100 ppb. The low-level lake monitoring strategy andmethodology are detailed in the Water Use Advisory Zone Monitoring Plan for Lampricide Treatments of thePoultney/Hubbardton River, Lewis Creek, LaPlatte River, Winooski River, Lamoille River, Stone Bridge Brook,and the Missisquoi River” (Smith 2019a)

Target/Non Target Species Mortality Monitoring

N. Post-treatment mortality assessment crews will systematically survey pre-defined sections of each treatedstream reach within 36 hours of the lampricide block passage. All visible river-bottom in each section will beinspected. Observations of non-target organism mortalities, except lamprey, will be recorded.

O. The 5 mortality survey sections are identified in Figure 5 (Application p. 24) and comprise 23% of the treatedreaches.

P. All dead fish (excluding lampreys), amphibians, mussels, and other large invertebrates encountered will beidentified band enumerated, if possible. Organisms not identified in the field will be collected, if possible, andretained for identification.

Q. Dead lamprey larvae will not be counted during the post treatment mortality survey, but the first 30encountered in each transect will be retained and identified.

R. Assessment of treatment effects on lamprey populations will occur by means of a larval survey completedwithin one year following the treatment. Larval surveys following treatments provide more direct andstatistically sound means of comparison with the pre-treatment population surveys.

S. Results of non-target mortality surveys will be submitted to VFDW by May 1 of the year following thetreatment. Post treatment larval survey results will be submitted by December 31 of the year following the yearof treatment.

Takings

T. Mussels – Within the treatment area, there are six known mussel species. The toxicity of TFM to musselsconcludes the mussels listed in Section 5 should incur little to no mortality during the treatment. TFM toxicity


tests conducted on the mussels indicate that the TFM no observed effect concentration (NOEC) for these species ranges from 1.5 to >2.0 x MLC (Table 1, Application p. 5).

Fish

U. Lake Sturgeon – Early life stages of lake sturgeon are the most sensitive to TFM of the listed non-lamprey fishes. Boogaard et. Al (2003) conducted a series of tests on early life stages of lake sturgeon from sac fry through age 1+.The study found tolerance to TFM increased with size. Average NOEC’s of three young-of-year size classes averaging 107, 157, 217 mm total length were equivalent to 1.0 x MLC, 1.0 x MLC, 1.2 x MLC, respectively; average NOEC for an age 1+ group averaging 261mm total length was equivalent to 1.5 x MLC (Table 2, Application p. 6).

V. Eastern Sand Darter – Eastern sand darters are relatively tolerant of TFM exposure at treatment concentrations, with NOECs of 1.4 x MLC and 1.6 x MLC in a laboratory toxicity test respectively (Neuderfer 2000).

W. Toxicity of the Lampricide TFM to Vermont Threatened and Endangered Species present in the Lamoille River is summarized in Figure 1 of the Application (p.7).

Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation

X. Mussels - No additional mitigation for mussels is proposed as all listed species are relatively tolerant of TFM/1% Niclosamide exposure at the proposed treatment concentration.

Fish

Y. Eastern sand darter – No additional mitigation is proposed as eastern sand darters are relatively tolerant of TFM exposure at the proposed treatment concentrations.

Z. Lake Sturgeon – Treatment will occur between late September and late November to allow young-of-year sturgeon to increase in size prior to lampricide exposure.

AA. The treatment concentration was lowered to 1.3 x MLC to minimize potential impacts to lake sturgeon based on sensitivity to lampricides. Where no sensitive threatened and endangered species are present, treatments are conducted at concentrations of 1.5 x MLC to ensure effective treatment outcomes.

BB. At a treatment concentration of 1.3 x MLC, there is a risk that environmental conditions may lead to areas of the river where TFM concentrations are below those lethal to sea lamprey; however, this risk is offset by the added protections to the listed species which are sensitive to TFM.

Advice of the Endangered Species Committee

CC. On June 29, 2020, the Secretary received the advice of the Endangered Species Committee. That advice has been considered and outlined below:

a. The ESC remains concerned about long-term effects on populations of T&E species such as mussels and on non-target species that are not listed as threatened or endangered, but in S1 or S2 categories. The ESC urges USFWS to look for other control options that are more species-specific and continue to review literature for long-term cumulative effects on non-target species, as well as consider the potential not treating one river system with lampricide.

b. The post-treatment non-target mortality survey be conducted at each survey location no later than the next daylight period following the lampricide block passage;

c. Sampling data that guides timing of river treatment is highly variable spatially and temporally The USWFS should increase its sampling intensity to provide more precise estimates of larval lamprey populations in rivers that are scheduled for lampricide treatment;

d. Treatment should occur during the latter part of the proposed period to minimize impact on young-of-the-year Lake Sturgeon

DD. On July 09, 2020, the USFWS provided responses to the Endangered Species Committee advice as outlined below:


a. Post-treatment surveys are conducted the morning following the lampricide application. The application point is surveyed less than 14 hours after the addition of the chemical concludes. The block progression is monitored and as it moves downstream, sites are sampled once the block has passed within daylight hours. The only exception is when high water conditions make surveys unsafe for staff.

b. USFWS finds pre-treatment sampling is sufficient and uses a Standardized Quantitative Assessment Sampling (QAS) protocol developed by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. QAS estimates have wide confidence intervals, but based on the latest QAS survey, the Lamoille River larval population estimate made up over 17% of the known and surveyed larval population in the Lake Champlain tributaries. If the Lamoille were left untreated, it would not result in a 17% increase in the parasitic population due to the nonlinear recruitment relationship from larval to parasitic phase. Allowing the Lamoille to remain untreated, may result in species recruitment to the parasitic phase, allowing new unchecked recruitment in selected areas and a higher parasitism rate. The result is the 17% larval population in the Lamoille would be come more than 17% of the lake’s parasitic population. Maintaining larval suppression from all sources maintains limited recruitment and minimizes resulting parasitism. Based on USFWS’ prior experience in surveys and treatments, a more precise sampling regime would be an added resource expense that would not affect decisions on which rivers should be treated.

c. The USFWS proposes to treat the Lamoille between late September and late November to allow young-of-year sturgeon increased growth potential prior to Lampricide exposure. Growth rates of sturgeon slow later in the year as temperatures decline and the USWFS does not find an additional 2-4 weeks provides meaningful, additional protections. The distinction in juvenile sturgeon protection based on size is made between treating in the fall rather than in the summer.

9. Statutory Determination

A. 10 V.S.A. § 5408(b) provides that “after obtaining the advice of the Endangered Species Committee, the Secretary may permit, under such terms and conditions as necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter, the incidental taking of a threatened or endangered species or the destruction of or adverse impact on critical habitat if: (1) the taking is necessary to conduct an otherwise lawful activity; (2) the taking is attendant or secondary to, and not the purpose of, the lawful activity; (3) the impact of the permitted incidental take is minimized; and, (4) the incidental taking will not impair the conservation or recovery of any endangered species or threatened species."

B. The Permittee requests an Endangered & Threatened Species Takings Permit for incidental take.

C. The state of Vermont recognizes the value which plants, fish and wildlife in their natural environment have for public enjoyment, ecological balance, and scientific study. See 1981, No. 188 (Adj. Sess.), § 1(a).

D. The state of Vermont recognizes the need for protection and preservation of these plants, fish, and wildlife in their natural environment. Id.

E. The General Assembly of Vermont intends that the species of wildlife and wild plants normally occurring within this state which may be found to be threatened or endangered within the state should be accorded protection as necessary to maintain and enhance their numbers. Id. at § 1(b).

F. The General Assembly of Vermont intends that the state should assist in the protection of species of wildlife and wild plants which are determined to be threatened or endangered elsewhere pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act. Id.

G. 10 V.S.A. § 5408(i)(2) allows the Secretary to require mitigation strategies and mitigation funds, in addition to the permit fees, to mitigate the impacts of a taking or the destruction of or adverse impact on critical habitat. Mitigation may include compensation, including payment into the Threatened and Endangered Species Fund, provided that any payment is commensurate with the taking or adverse impact proposed.

H. The Secretary has the authority to impose mitigation to offset the takings, in accordance with 10 V.S.A. § 5408


(i)(2). Here, the Permittee is proposing a treatment concentration of 1.3 x the Maximum Lethal Concentration (MLC) for sea lamprey, and treatment between late September and late November. The aforementioned actions reduce potential impacts to the identified listed species.

I. Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 5408(b), the ANR Secretary hereby determines, based upon the findings detailed above and after receiving advice from the Endangered Species Committee, that the proposed activity is consistent the purposes of the 10 V.S.A. ch. 123. An Endangered and Threatened Species Takings Permit is authorized, as conditioned below.

10. General Conditions & Authorizations

A. This permit is issued in accordance with 10 V.S.A. ch. 123. All activities authorized herein must be carried out in accord with and for the purposes described in the application submitted. Continued validity or renewal of this permit is subject to complete and timely compliance with all applicable conditions, including the filing of all required information and reports.

B. This permit is expressly conditioned upon compliance with all applicable federal and state laws, regulations and permits.

C. This permit does not confer upon the Permittee the authority to conduct research without the acquiring necessary landowner permission including, but not limited to, state lands.

D. By acceptance of this permit, the Permittee and its heirs, successors and assigns agree to provide the Agency of Natural Resources with unrestricted access, at reasonable times to the animal or plant specimens and/or animal or plant parts collected and possessed under this permit, collection and monitoring records, and access to the premises as necessary to ensure compliance with this permit.

E. The Agency maintains continuing jurisdiction over this activity, and may, at any time, order the Permittee to undertake remedial measures if necessary, to ensure the protection and conservation of listed species.

F. This permit is not valid for endangered and threatened species that are not listed in section 5.

G. The permit is valid for use by the named Permittee and subpermittees(s) only and may be revoked by the Secretary at any time for cause, or violations of any terms or conditions of this permit or state law.

H. The Permittee and subpermittees shall carry copies of this permit whenever performing authorized activities and shall make the permit available upon request.

I. Pursuant 10 V.S.A. § 5410, the locations of listed species shall be kept confidential and the sharing of such information is a violation of this permit and the law.

11. Specific Conditions, Authorizations and Reporting Requirements

A. The Permittee shall follow all conditions listed in the 2020-XX Aquatic Nuisance Control Permit issued by the Agency’s Department of Environmental Conservation

B. USFWS shall preserve specimens of the listed species according to protocols developed with DFW scientists during a 2012 meeting with the Endangered Species Committee and provide specimens to the following DFW staff:

Sturgeon – Margaret Murphy

Eastern Sand Darters – Bernie Pientka

Mussels – Mark Ferguson

Turtles – Steve Parren (highly unlikely for turtles to be affected)

C. Six months prior to a second treatment under this permit, the Permittee shall submit a statement of intent letter to the Agency of Natural Resources. The letter shall identify any and all known research and findings, since the submission of their most recent application for a permit, regarding the effects of TFM on the species covered in this permit.

https://enb.vermont.gov/?id=7727


D. All communication and reports of results required by the Aquatic Nuisance Control Permit shall be sent to:

Permits Administrator Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department

Commissioner’s Office 1 National Life Drive, Davis 2 Montpelier, VT 05620-3702 [email protected]

E. Any mortality/morbidity related to the activities authorized under this permit that was/were not specifically requested, anticipated, and/or authorized shall be reported in writing to VFWD Permits Specialist within 72 hours of each occurrence. Reports shall include species identification, date, and reason for death, along with a plan for reducing the likelihood of future occurrences. All morbid specimens shall be stored frozen until transferred to a VFWD biologist.

F. An annual report, due by May 1 of the year following the treatment, shall be submitted to the Permit Specialist (electronic format preferred). At a minimum, the report shall summarize project methods (including explanations for any changes/adjustments to methods proposed in the permit application), activities and species handled, tagged or with transmitters installed, any mortality/morbidity, animal status, other species encounters, tags/transmitters removed, species’ behavior, dates of all activities, location of activities (description and coordinates) and locations of important sites for management and conservation. Post treatment larval survey results will be submitted by December 31 of the year following the year of treatment.

G. The Permittee shall accommodate requests by Agency of Natural Resources staff for additional information from collection activities (e.g., copies of original field sheets, computerized data in usable format). Reports of results of any subsequent analyses and copies of subsequent publications resulting from the collections made under this permit shall be forwarded to the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department within 30 days of publication.

Issued by: __________________________________________________ Date: __________________

Julie Moore, Secretary Agency of Natural Resources

Right to Appeal to Environmental Court Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 220, any appeal of this decision must be filed with the clerk of the Environmental Division of the Superior Court within 30 days of the date of the decision. The Notice of Appeal must specify the parties taking the appeal and the statutory provision under which each party claims party status; must designate the act or decision appealed from; must name the Environmental Court; and must be signed by the appellant or their attorney. In addition, the appeal must give the address or location and description of the property, project or facility with which the appeal is concerned and the name of the applicant or any permit involved in the appeal. The appellant must also serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal in accordance with Rule 5(b)(4)(B) of the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings. For further information, see the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings, available online at www.vermontjudiciary.org. The address for the Environmental Court is 2418 Airport Road, Suite 1, Barre, VT 05641 (Tel. # 802-828-1660).

Documents

United States Department of the Interior Lamoille River...Nov 01, 2019 · 1 National Life Drive, Davis 2 Montpelier, VT 05620-3702 802-828-1294