STATEMENT ON PROPOSED REVISIONS OF THE USE OF PUBLIC WATER RULES
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL REVISIONS
August 18, 2025
The Federation appreciates the work of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Lakes and Ponds staff on developing these proposed revisions.
In working through this process, we have come to realize that the issue of normal and non-normal uses of the state’s public waters is critical. The DEC Commissioner has publicly stated that wake sports are a not a normal use of the public waters.
According to 10 VSA §1424, “To the extent possible, the Secretary shall provide for all normal uses.” (emphasis added). We see no requirement within the statute for the Agency to provide for non-normal uses. Normal use is defined in UPW Rule 5.6: “Normal use” means any lawful use of any specific body of public water that occurred on a regular, frequent, and consistent basis prior to January 1, 1993.
Since wake sports do not meet the definition of normal use as defined in statute and as stated by the Commissioner, we question a process that allows this and other activities that do not meet this definition to take place on the state’s public waters. Rather, we suggest that those engaging in such non-normal use activity should be required to show proof that such an activity does not: damage aquatic habitat, cause increased phosphorus or pollutants to enter the water, contribute to shoreline
erosion or lake bottom disruption, or have the potential to spread aquatic invasive species.
Instead, current practice is to allow “anything goes” until lake stewards and concerned citizens raise the issue. These volunteer groups are then required to engage in a multi-year and complex petitioning process to address the issue of non-normal use, all the while the state allows this use to take place on the
public waters, possibly causing considerable damage to fragile aquatic hazards to others.
Other new types of watercraft, besides wake boats, that do not fit the definition of normal use nor cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, fit the definitions of watercraft in these rules are already on the market and more are likely to be invented and sold. Given the continued spread of aquatic invasives, increasing phosphorus levels in many lakes, as well as the mounting pressure on the state’s freshwater resources from climate change, it is unconscionable to continue to allow these types of activities to simply occur as if the state’s lakes and streams are immune to damage or easily repaired.
We submit that the public trust doctrine requires the Agency to act proactively to prevent any non-normal use of the state’s public waters and to enact rules requiring anyone wishing to engage in such uses to submit a petition to do so, and to prove that such activity will not cause ecological damage to the aquatic ecosystem or the shoreline, will not spread aquatic invasive species, and will not pose a safety hazard to other lake users.
UPW RULE REVISIONS
We believe that many of the proposed revisions will serve to provide additional protection for the public waters. However, there are several revisions that we do not support, as noted below. We also explain our concerns about some of the proposed revisions in the discussion below and offer recommendations for additional changes.
The Federation supports the following changes:
• that wake sport zones are at least 3,000 feet in length (proposed Section 5.18)
• that the wake sport zones contain 100 contiguous acres of lake that is at least 500 feet from shore and 20 feet deep (proposed Section 5.18)
• an allowance for “shape normalization” of the wake sport zone to remove odd-shaped sections (proposed Section 5.18)
• Requirement of a 500-foot offset between wake sports and loon nesting sites during loon nesting season. (proposed Section 3.6)
• Addition of an increased safety offset of 500 feet from any individual, vessel, etc. (proposed Section 3.7 (c))
• Addition of flexibility to add and remove wake sports eligible lakes from the list maintained by the Secretary based on changing conditions (proposed Section 3.7(f))
• Temporary use restrictions due to public safety, emergency situations, or for other good cause, as determined by the Secretary. (proposed Section 4.3)
The Federation does not support the following in the absence of improved decontamination infrastructure capable of wake boat decontamination:
• Removal of the Home Lake Provision. (Current Section 3.7 (c) deleted from proposed revisions)
• Removal of the requirement to provide proof of decontamination and replace with a reference to required universal decontamination standards in 10 V.S.A.§1454. (Current Section 3,7 (e) removed from proposed revisions and proposed Section 3.7 (d)).
DISCUSSION
500-foot buffer and 20-foot depth:
While we support this revision at this time, we wish to point out that currently the most reliable scientific study regarding adequate shoreline buffer distance (Marr, et al. 2022) recommends operations at greater than 500 feet. The DEC staff in their memo of 9/18/2023 also cited the Marr study in their recommendation that the buffer distance should be 600 feet. In particular, this research shows that wave energy is attenuated at 600 feet and wave energy is an important factor affecting shoreline erosion. There is also a concern that if larger and more powerful wake boats that can generate larger waves than those that were tested in this study enter the state, the 500 foot buffer will not be nearly enough to attenuate these waves leading to greater shoreline damage and safety hazards for other lake users.
The most recent study of lake bottom disruption (Reifsgraf 2025) suggests that a depth greater than 20 feet should be used. Unfortunately, this study does not indicate how much greater than 20 feet would be safe. Nevertheless, an abundance of caution would suggest that greater depth of 30 to 40 feet would be better and more likely to reduce the likelihood of lake bottom disruption. However, enlarging the buffer or increasing the depth will remove more lakes from the eligibility list. A reduction in numbers will leave the largest inland lakes open to wake sports. Among these are some of the most pristine A(1) eligible lakes that should receive more – not less – protection nor should we encourage concentrating more damaging and aquatic invasive species (AIS) spreading activities on these lakes.
The other group that would be subject to great concentration of wake boats are those lakes that are already subject to a high level of boat traffic while contending with a Eurasian watermilfoil infestation. Subjecting this group of lakes to increased wake sports activity that could lead to more damage and a yet greater risk of becoming infested with more AIS species is also not an acceptable outcome.
Decontamination
We note with great concern that if these revisions should be implemented, 9 of the remaining 18 wake sports eligible lakes are aquatic invasive free with 5 of these eligible for A(1) status with reclassification petitions already filed. Aquatic invasive species are a biological pollutant and a real danger to the water quality and ecological integrity of lakes. Unlike other vessels, it is not possible to inspect, completely drain, or properly clean the ballast tanks of wake boats with the means generally available to greeters. Neither the lake associations nor the state currently have adequate facilities to properly decontaminate wake boats or the funding to create such facilities.
We recognize that specialized equipment suitable for cleaning the closed ballast tanks of wake boats exists and may be available at some boat dealers. However, there is currently no system in place to ensure that all wake boats are able to access such equipment and, more importantly, to show that their tanks have been cleaned before entering a lake since visual inspection is not possible. Given this, wake boats cannot comply with the decontamination requirements of 10 VSA §1454.
In addition, we point out that thus far the requirements of 10 VSA §1454 have not been adequate to stop the spread of AIS. AIS has continued to spread (see attached graph), with two more lakes recently infested with milfoil (Joe’s Pond and Lake Eden) and zebra mussels have now been found in the southern portion of Lake Memphremagog. Until such time as adequate decontamination services, more greeter programs with longer staffing hours, better public education – especially to out of state visitors – and adequate funding are available, the state should not be allowing additional potential carriers of aquatic invasive species to move around the state’s inland lakes. In particular, the state’s most pristine, A(1) eligible lakes should receive the highest level of protection.
The Agency has indicated that in addition to these revisions it will develop an improved decontamination plan. We certainly support such an effort and hope that it will be based on valid scientific research such as that outlined in Elwell and Phillips (referenced in attached bibliography). However, we disagree with loosening decontamination requirements while that plan is being developed. It is incumbent on the Agency responsible under state law for preventing aquatic invasive spread to strengthen rules that increase prevention, not weaken them. During the time, possibly years, which will be required to develop a comprehensive decontamination plan and to raise the funds for implementation, more lakes could become infested with aquatic invasives.
The Home Lake Provision
The home lake provision of the current rule is intended to address the lack of proper decontamination services and to reduce the risk of spreading aquatic invasive species. This is especially important if the other revisions are approved leaving many of the state’s most pristine lakes likely to attract even more wake boats and therefore become more vulnerable to invasive spread. Difficulty of implementation is the reason given for the removal of this rule. We suggest that by using modern technology, enlisting the help of the affected lake associations, and prioritizing the importance of protecting these pristine lakes, this rule could be implemented in an efficient manner, with minimal state resources.
We further note with concern that another reason presented by the Agency for the elimination of the home lake rule is that wake boats comprise only 1% of motorized vessels currently on VT lakes (See “Summary of 2024 wake sports activity”). However, these data are based on Greeter Program observations and recordings, and they may be significantly compromised because:
• Most of the greeter programs do not have greeters on duty 7 days/week throughout the boating season, resulting in many days of use with no data recorded.
• The survey instrument used by the greeters does not allow for accounting for boats that repeatedly enter the same lake regularly and do not travel elsewhere. This skews the total number of boats entering inland lakes.
• It is difficult to visually identify a wake boat, leading to a potentially significant number of misidentified boats and lower wake boat counts.
Although we suspect that wake boats do still comprise a small percentage of the boats on inland lakes, deficiencies in these data make the figure of 1% for the population of wake boats on Vermont lakes highly uncertain. In light of such uncertainty, we urge the Agency to adopt rules that are the most protective in this situation since it is not currently possible to measure actual risk.
We further urge the Agency to improve data collection of wake boat manufacturers and models so that wake boat trends can be tracked and so that other parameters like displacement, length, and horsepower can be considered. All of this data along with the other data collected should be publicly available. Assuming, though, that the number is small, we suggest that it should not be impossible with the help of the local lake associations to account for this small number of boats and enable them to understand the necessity of not moving among lakes.
Informing out-of-state boaters has been another excuse used to remove this provision. However, out of state boaters are currently expected to know and abide by all other Vermont rules and regulations. If declaring one lake as their “home” for the summer is a state rule, then out-of-state boaters should be expected to know this rule and if in violation should receive the same sanction they would for violating any other state regulation. Concentration of wake boats on fewer lakes.
While reducing the number of wake sports eligible lakes will help to better protect more lakes from the potential damage caused by wake boats, we anticipate that this will cause a greater concentration of wake boats on the 18 remaining eligible lakes, including the 9 that are invasive free. In addition to concerns about spread of aquatic invasives to the pristine lakes, there is also an increased possibility of spreading additional invasives into the remaining wake sports eligible lakes that might currently have only one type of invasive. Since zebra mussel veligers have been shown to survive for days, or even up to a month in small amounts of water in ballast tanks, the particular concern is that wake boats may move from zebra mussel infested lakes such as Lake Champlain or Lake Bomoseen to other inland lakes that may have Eurasian watermilfoil but so far have not been plagued by zebra mussels. Even though these lakes are not completely invasive free, they also deserve protection from becoming infested by yet more aquatic invasives.
Petitions
We are unclear about the status of some of the individual lake petitions that were issued under the blanket denial. We urge the Agency to allow any of those lakes that remain eligible for wake sports to request a reconsideration of their petition based on the unique circumstances of their lake. Each of these petitions should receive full consideration including opportunity for public hearings and comments and an individual response detailing the reasons for approval and denial. We also urge the Agency to fully consider and respond to any petitions that were submitted but not included in the blanket denial.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL REVISIONS TO THE UPW RULES
1. Recommendation: Add limits on size of motors and boats
The boating industry continues to manufacture and market larger and more powerful boats. Yet, the proposed rule revisions contain no limitations on the size of motorized vessels that can operate on the state’s public waters. This is of particular concern to the inland lakes and especially the smaller lakes.
Currently, large boats with enormous motors and the capability of going at great speed and creating large and powerful wakes are available and are not prevented from operating on any of the lakes that allow motorized boats and that have no speed limit. This is of concern with regard to wake boats since their purpose is to create very large waves which have already been recognized as creating a safety hazard and a potential source of shoreline damage. However, other types of boats with sufficiently large and powerful engines can do the same. Better data collection as recommended above on wake boats, as well as other motorized vessels, should be part of addressing this issue.
For this reason, we urge the Agency to proactively consider adding a provision in these rules limiting the amount of boat displacement that can operate on inland lakes. We believe that this is well within the authority of the Agency (10 VSA§1424 (1c)).
2. Recommendation: Revise proposed Section 4.1 (j) “Aquatic Nuisance Control Inspections Stations and Greeter Programs” as follows
We suggest that it is more relevant to the UPW Rules to replace the proposed Section 4.1 (j) with the text of 10 VSA §1454 (a), (b), (c), (d). While the proposed inclusion from 10 VSA §1461 describes the establishment of greeter programs and greeter training, it does not relate to the rules governing the transport of aquatic invasives.
We think that it is more important to include in the rules the statutory language that explains the responsibilities of all lake users and to clarify in these rules that statute requires boater compliance with inspections and boat washes if deemed necessary by a greeter (10 VSA§1454 (c): “…It shall be a violation of this section for a person transporting a vessel to or from a water to not have the vessel, the motor vehicle transporting the vessel, the trailer, and other equipment inspected and decontaminated at an approved aquatic nuisance species inspection station…”)
3. Recommendation: Add criteria to better protect A(1) eligible and aquatic invasive free lakes
Vermont has some of the cleanest, most pristine, and AIS free lakes in the entire country. Continuing pressures on our water resources from the warming climate and changes in federal environmental regulations make it even more urgent that these lakes receive the highest protection possible to ensure that such waters survive for future generations. For this reason, we urge the Agency to include additional criteria not only for determining wake sports eligibility but also for determining eligibility for other activities that could potentially damage these lakes, including activities that disrupt lake bottoms, cause shoreline erosion, or have the potential to spread aquatic invasives.
4. Recommendation: Retain “wake sports prohibited” in Appendix A “Lake Specific Rules”
We recommend that the indication of “wake sports prohibited” NOT be removed for each lake from Appendix A where wake sports are not allowed. If that phrase is not there many people consulting that section of the rules may assume that wake sports are allowed and may not know to look for the eligibility list. We also suggest that a link to the eligible list, zone maps, and other details be included for the lakes that will be eligible to host wake sports.
5. Recommendation: Clarify bullet point 2 in Section 2.1
The proposed second bullet point in Section 2.1 ‘Petitions” requiring a description of actions taken by petitioners to review the proposed activity with the public and with local municipalities should be clarified. We suggest that if this provision is approved, the Agency should provide guidance as to what would constitute such a review for petitioners and some minimum standard that would be considered adequate to ensure that such a petition would be deemed administratively complete.
6. Recommendation: Add online or hybrid meetings allowed in Section 2.2 (c)
Section 2.2.(c) mentions that public meetings for either Agency-led rule revisions or petitions will be held in an appropriate locale but there is no mention that these meetings could be either all online or hybrid. We recommend adding that proviso to better enable wide participation.
7. Recommendation: Include the opening of 10 VSA §1424 in Section 2.3 “General Criteria”
The current rule lists (b) and (c) of 10 VSA§1424 describing considerations that the Secretary must make when rulemaking. We recommend also including section (a) which describes what types of rules the Secretary is empowered to make. This clarifies the areas that these rules are meant to cover.
“The Secretary may establish rules to implement the provisions of this chapter, including:
(1) Rules to regulate the use of public waters of the State by:
(A) defining areas on public waters wherein certain uses may be conducted
(B) defining the uses which may be conducted in the defined areas;
(C) regulating the conduct in these areas, including the size of motors allowed, size of boats allowed, allowable speeds for boats, and prohibiting the use of motors or houseboats;
(D) regulating the time various uses may be conducted.
(2) Rules to govern the surface levels of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs that are public waters of the State.”
8. Recommendation: Add lake association review to Section 2.6 “Delegation to Municipalities”
Lake Associations are usually the main entity carrying out restoration and remediation projects on the lake as well as managing greeter and AIS infestation programs, providing education to lake users and property owners, and other lake protection activities. For this reason, we think it important that if a municipality wishes to move for a delegation of authority for some activities regarding the lake, the municipality should be required to inform and work with the local lake association.
9. Recommendation: Add the purpose of the rules to Section 1.1 “Applicability and Purpose”
We suggest including the statutory statement of purpose of the UPW Rules in whole or in part to open this section. Also, include the statement of policy regarding aquatic invasive species. This makes clear at the very beginning the purpose and intention of these rules as well as the policies and priorities of the state. “The purposes of the rules shall be to further the maintenance of safe and healthful conditions; prevent and control water pollution; protect spawning grounds, fish, and aquatic life; control building sites, placement of structures, and land uses; reduce fluvial erosion hazards; reduce property loss and damage; preserve shore cover, natural beauty, and natural stability; and provide for multiple use of the waters in a manner to provide for the best interests of the citizens of the State.” (10 VSA§1421) “It is the policy of the State of Vermont to prevent the infestation and proliferation of invasive species in the State that result in negative environmental impacts, including habitat loss and a reduction in native biodiversity along with adverse social and economic impacts and impacts to the public health and safety.” (10 VSA §1451)
10. Recommendation: Revise definitions and terms including motor or internal combustion engines
Electric motors are becoming more common. For that reason, we suggest revising the places in the rules where “internal combustion motors” are mentioned to clarify if electric (or other types of motors) are also prohibited or limited. For example, Section 3.5 states: “Use of internal combustion motors to power vessels on lakes, ponds, and reservoirs is prohibited where the use of such motors was not a normal use prior to January 1, 1993”. The intent seems to be to prevent any type of motorized vessel on these lakes so this rule should be revised to clarify that any type of motorized vessel is prohibited. Other places that should be addressed: Sections 3.2 and 3.4 (c). In addition, Section 5.4 should be revised to “motors” and to include internal combustion, electric, etc.
CONCLUSION
Vermont is fortunate to have some of the cleanest and most pristine lakes in the country. We are equally fortunate to have so many members of the public
and hundreds of dedicated members of volunteer lake associations who work so hard to protect the state’s public waters. Freshwater resources are not a luxury item nor are the state’s waterways only useful for recreation or tourism. Aquatic habitats are as complex, diverse, and necessary as are our forests and meadows. Clean freshwater and healthy aquatic ecosystems are essential for life and must be preserved and protected now and for future generations.
Enormous time and energy have been expended in attempting to accommodate and justify a non-normal use on inland lakes that has been repeatedly shown to be hazardous to other lake users, damage shorelines, and be a potential source of aquatic invasive species spread. Any rules that result from all of this effort are likely to be less than effective given the regular development in the industry of larger, more powerful boats that can create much larger waves than the current rule or the proposed revisions account for. With the increasing pressures on these precious resources, we conclude that the best and wisest decision that the Agency could make, one in keeping with its mandate to protect and preserve the state’s public waters, would be to provide the highest and broadest protections for the state’s lakes and ponds now and into the future.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Link to extensive bibliography on AIS spread in ballast tanks: https://ballast-outreach-ucsgep.ucdavis.edu/AIS_Info_and_Research/
Decontaminating a wake boat. Video. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alTMHclwwZk Campbell, T., T. Verboomen, G. Montz and T. Seilheimer. 2016. Volume and Contents of Residual Water in Recreational Watercraft Ballast Systems.
Management of Biological Invasions: Volume 7
Choi, W. J., Gerstenberger, S., McMahon, R. F., & Wong, W. H. (2013). Estimating survival rates of quagga mussel (Dreissena rostriformis bugensis)
veliger larvae under summer and autumn temperature regimes in residual water of trailered watercraft at Lake Mead, USA. Management of Biological
Invasions, 4(1), 61.
Dalton, Larry B., and Sariah Cottrell. Quagga and zebra mussel risk via veliger transfer by overland hauled boats. Management of Biological Invasions (2013)
Volume 4, Issue 2: 129–133
Elwell LC and S Phillips, editors. 2021. Uniform Minimum Protocols and Standards for Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination Programs for
Dreissenid Mussels in the Western United States (UMPS IV). Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Portland, OR. 55 pp.
https://invasivemusselcollaborative.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/UMPS-III-7-14-2016.pdf
Glamore, W.C. 2008. A Decision Support Tool for Assessing the Impact of BoatWake Waves on Inland Waterways.
Harwood, H. 2017. Protecting Water Quality and Resuspension Caused by Wakeboard Boats. LakeLine. 37 3): 12 15
Keller, D. 2017. Low speed Boating managing the Wave. Lakeline: 37 3) 10 11
Marr, Jeffrey, et al. (20220) A Field Study of Maximum Wave Height, Total Wave Energy, and Maximum Wave Power Produced by Four Recreational Boats
on a Freshwater Lake. St Anthony Falls Laboratory, University of Minnesota.
NHDES. 2019. Impacts Of Motorized Craft on New Hampshire’s Waterbodies. Wd wmb 25
https://Www.Des.Nh.Gov/Organization/Commissioner/Pip/Factsheets/Wmb/
Documents/Wmb 25 .Pdf
Riesgraf, Andrew, et al. (2025) A Field Study of Recreational Powerboat Hydrodynamics and their Impacts on the Water Column and Lakebed. St.
Anthony Falls Laboratory, University of Minnesota.
Smagula, Amy. Ballast/Wake Boats: Specific Concerns about AIS and Water Quality. `Presentation. NH Department of Environmental Services.
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. (2024).
“Summary of 2024 wakesports activity.”
https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/documents/Summary%20of%20wake sports%20activity%20and%20issues%20during%202024%20season.pdf) and of
these even fewer are moving between lakes.
SPREAD OF AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
The Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds
Board of Directors
Pat Suozzi (Lake Iroquois), President
Jackie Sprague (Harvey’s Lake), Vice President
Dave Johnson (Lake Dunmore), Treasurer
Jeri Bergdahl (South Pond), Secretary
Lisa Beroud (Lake Bomoseen)
Kent Henderson (Friends of Northern Lake Champlain)
Jerremy Jones (Lake St. Catherine)
Jan Parsons (Havey’s Lake)
Vince Pisegna (Lake Morey)
Jeffrey Schumann (Lake Dunmore)
Beth Torpey (Seymour Lake)
Jay White (Partners for Bay Restoration, Lake Champlain)
