COMPREHENSIVE RIVER PLAN for the DEERFIELD RIVER WATERSHED
November 1992
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Department of Environmental Conservation 103 South Main Street Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0408 State of Vermont
AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Department of Fish and Wildlife 103 South Main Street Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation Center Building Department of Environmental Conservation Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0301 State Geologist Natural Resources Conservation Council OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
802-244-7347 November 10, 1992
To whom it may concern:
For the past three years, the State of Vermont has been actively preparing comprehensive river plans for rivers where hydroelectric facilities are to be relicensed in 1993. These planning activities were initiated in response to the 1986 ECP A amendments to the Federal Powers Act under Section 10(a)(2)(A) requiring the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to consider both the extent to which a proposed project is consistent with a state comprehensive river plan and the river's capability to support power and non-power values, including fish and wildlife habitat, recreational use, and environmental quality.
The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation Department, with extensive public involvement, has completed a comprehensive river plan for the Deerfield River watershed. The Agency and Department are authorized to conduct rivers planning under Title 10 V.S.A Section 1423. A preliminary plan, published in July 1991, contains an inventory of river uses and values and goals articulated by the public. TheFinal Plan which I am now distributing consists of management goals and recommended goals for achieving those goals. The Final Plan defines a balance of Deerfield River uses and values including coordinated state hydropower management goals and actions.
The Agency will continue to work with New England Power Company, other federal and state agencies, affected municipalities, and interested members of the public to resolve outstanding issues. I would like to thank you for your past involvement and I hope that you will become active in securing the watershed opportunities identified during the comprehensive river planning process for the Deerfield River and its watershed.
Sincerely,
Chuck Clarke Secretary TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 a. The Vermont Comprehensive Rivers Program. b. overview of the Planning Process. c. This Planning Document.
II. HYDRO RELATED CONCERNS - Water Quality, Flow Regulation & Water Level Management••••••••••••••••••••• 8
III. HYDRO RELATED CONCERNS - water Resources & Recreation •••• 11
IV. VERMONT DEERFIELD RIVER WATERSHED CONCERNS - Not related to hydro•••••••••• � ••••••••••• 15
V. COMPATIBILITY WITH LOCAL & REGIONAL PLANS••••••••••••••••• 20
VI. PUBLIC RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25
APPENDICES Appendix A - Width standards for Protective strips.
i The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources is an equal opportunity agency and offers all persons the benefits of participating in each of its programs and competing in all areas of employment regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or other non-merit factors.
ii I. INTRODUCTION
A. The Vermont Comprehensive Rivers Program. The Vermont Comprehensive Rivers Program was designed by the Department of Environmental Conservation to identify and resolve conflicts over the use of Vermont's rivers and to establish public agreement for particular river management plans. The Program's structure was to develop river plans with maximum assistance from the public through workshops, public meetings ·and hearings. The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, with assistance from the Windham Regional Commission, identified three broad objectives which are: - to provide the means for individuals who know and care about the Deerfield River and its watershed to express how the area ought to be managed; - to identify and balance the needs of the citizens of the Deerfield River watershed for energy production, environmental protection and recreational enhancement; and, - to ensure that watershed residents, visitors and municipalities have an effective voice during the relicensing of the Deerfield River hydroelectric facilities scheduled for 1993.
B. overview of the Planning Process. Beginning in the fall of 1989, the Deerfield River Comprehensive Planning Project gathered information from the public on the uses and values associated with surface waters and the river corridor in the Vermont portion of the Deerfield River Basin. Project participants described qualities and attributes of the Vermont portion of the watershed which make the area environmentally unique and an important economic center to residents and visitors alike. The 223 square mile watershed includes: nine distinct municipalities situated within two counties; close to forty percent of the southern half of the Green Mountain National Forest which provides a variety of recreation, wildlife and forest resources, including a 5000 acre federally designated wilderness area; an impressive network of roads and trails, including portions of the Appalachian Trail, the Catamount Trail and the Long Trail; numerous lakes, ponds and wetlands, including four man-made reservoirs totalling 3750 acres; and two large year-round destiDation resorts which offer a variety of services. Figure 1 is a representation of the Deerfield River's profile and use. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate significant land and - 1 - ELEVATION (N.G.V.D) I'\) w CJ) - Green River .... 0 Oeetfteld No. 2 Dem1912) ( Gardner Falle Dem(1928) (FERC No. 2334) Oeer1leld No. 3 Dem (1912) North River I'\:) 0 � No. 4 Dam (1912) Miii Brook Chk:kley River 0 (.) ci5 0 1-h � - Pelham Brook 0 1:1:l � � .0 I.Q m rt I-' !:J" ll> (1) � z QJ Ci) H Fife Brook Dam (1'174) (FERC No. 2669) � t-o ,:D I-'· 0 :<:m rt :E: :::o ·: � Dunbar Brook --- I-'· (1) -o O ll> � JJ 0 I-' Sherman Dam (1928) n F Yankee Atomic Electnc: Plant (1961) --- Cf)Q m South Branch- Deerfield River---- rt E3 < ll> '"O 0 Weet Branch - o..rfteld River I.Q ll> 3 (1) � 0 "< :s 1-h0 • Hamman Dam (1924) I-' (11 n I..O 0 O co � co Ul • c 1-'H rt� ll> 1-h rt O I-'·� O E3 � ll> Bond Brook rt 00) I-'· Searnt>urfl Dem ( 1922) 0 � Cf) () 0 rn )> rr, r � 0 m m ::D � m ., ,, --" I 2 Somenet Dam (1913) w <.n ::0 mm 0 "ti .,, oc:Dr � o_� ::0 iii � 0 r < :r "Tl o Approximate location at Hew England Power Coapany land. D Other land. Figure 2. Significant Land Related Features in the Vermont Portion of the Deerfield River Basin. Somerset Reservoir elevation 2lJ4 feet msl surface area 1625 acres maximum depth 90 feet drainage area 30 sq mi 1920 ft long f 'I ------1'·- Searsburg Reservoir elevation 1753 feet asl surface area 25 acres ------maximum depth_ 50 feet r r ----��------d draina e area 98 s mi Searsburg dam constructed 1921 50 ft high X 612 ft long penstock length J.48 miles power production - 1 unit ave. annual eneration 22800 Harriman Reservoir elevation 1490 feet msl surface area 2185 acres maximum depth 180 feet draina e area 186 s mi Harriman dam constructed 1924 206 ft high X 1250 ft long penstock length 2.42 miles power production - J units ave. annual eneration 100500 MW I I Readsboro .-!.. ---- ...... __ .___ . Sherman Reservoir elevation 1102 feet msl VT surface area 160 acres drainage area 223 sq mi Figure 3. Significant Water-related Features of the Vermont Portion of the Deerfield River Watershed. water related features, respectively, within the Vermont portion of the Deerfield River watershed. The majority of Deerfield River planning project participants expressed concern over the ability to access and enjoy quality recreational experiences. The diversity and quality of the watershed's physical resources are threatened by growing use pressures and by conflicting resource management decisions. The large number and the diverse mix of boating uses on two of the watershed's reservoirs have created serious safety concerns. Hydroelectric development created the four reservoirs which are valuable assets for recreation, wildlife and flood storage. At the same time, regulation of river flows and reservoir water level fluctuation have degraded wildlife habitat and restricted the ability of persons to use and enjoy the water of the Deerfield River for purposes other than power production such as aesthetics, boating, fishing and swimming. Growth and development activities, although confined to one sub-watershed, have water quality and recreational implications throughout the Deerfield River watershed. A summary of public comments received during the Deerfield River planning project is presented on the following page. Comments have been organized into the five major categories of concern (preservation, conservation, restoration where degraded conditions exist, use restriction and economic development) and are grouped according to the four principal resource groups (land, biology, recreation and energy). Readers interested in the range of river management alternatives identified during those public forums are referred to a separate document entitled Preliminary Comprehensive Rivers Plan for the Deerfield River: An Inventory of Uses, Values and Goals (VT Department of Environmental Conservation and Windham Regional Commission, July 1991). c. This Planning Document. The Preliminary Comprehensive Rivers Plan for the Deerfield River contains the range of issues and concerns which are useful in making choices between alternatives and in understanding the consequences of particular management actions. The Final Comprehensive Rivers Plan for the Deerfield River Watershed contains a series of goals and resource management recommendations that will largely affect hydroelectric facility operations and recreational uses on utility-owned land. Some of the Plan's goals and recommended actions will also be useful to the protection and conservation of river uses and values in other areas of the watershed not owned, managed or influenced by the utility. - 5 - VERMONT DEERFIELD RIVER C 1) preserve wild & (1) enroll East Branch watershed land under (3) manage area known ( 1) prohibit motori zed (2) provide more pristine qualities of formal conservation restriction as the "Landing vehicle use in East access to river Soomerset Reservoir & (2·4,6,7,8) control/l_imit riparian Strip" Branch watershed (5) improve & East Branch watershed vegetation removal (4,7 .8) implement (5·8) review operation expand parking & (1·8) protection of (3) declare upper Deerfield River as a landfill leachate of underground storage boat launching at critical habitats·· Scenic River treatment systems tanks near surface access sites wildlife & vegetative (5·8) coordination & c01TmJnication between water ( 1) create new regulators C5·8) zoning designated (1·8) create planning conflict resolution consistency between c:all1)9round to process/ arena basin towns replace area known (1·8) growth planning coordination and (8) fol low·thru on as the "Landing information sharing construction erosion Strip" control standards (8) curtail snow d�ing (1·8) identify areas inappropr i ate for development (1·6) establish basin (1) install & maintain signage regarding (4 ,6) restore water (1-6) initiate fishery catch· wildlife habitat sensitivity to by-passed & de· barb less hook fishery and=release program (2,4,6) pass seasonalLy based aquatic base watered stream program (1) maintain spring flows below each dam segments reservoir water level (1,5) establish productive reservoir (2,4,6) install during loon nesting littoral zones for fisheries stream gauge below season ··<6,8) wastewater treatment design & disposal each dam to monitor areas for septage/sludge for c�liance with mininun flow requirements (1,2,5) no basln·wide (1,5) provide motorboat operator's safety CS) create local c 1,5) limit horsepower (1) Initiate sign publiclty regarding course beach orco for use by of motorboat engines up program for Somerset Reservoir or ( 1) one, unimproved access to Somerset local residents on reservol rs reservoir Island East Branch watershed Reservoir C 5) increase manpower (1,5) prohibit use of c�lng or Harriman Reservoir (1,5) stabilized seasonal water levels at to better manage jet-ski is on (2,4,6) schedule reservoirs Harriman Reservoir reservoirs flows to al low (1·5) provide linkage to Catamount Trail (5) mark navigational (5) restrict motorboat river boating (5) permit sailboat moorings at \lard's Cove hazards on reservoir hull size opportun t. ti es (1·8) conduct surface water quality as water level drops (5) increase (5) construct R monitoring enforcement of state visitors info. E boating laws on center c reservoir (3·6) establish R (1,5) establish primitive camp E:· motorboat operator sites along river A',- certification program corridor T (1,5) delineate areas (1 ,5) establish I of usage on reservoirs reservoir user fee 0 (5) establish (1,5) consider sticker/permit system barrier-free for local residents designs during reservoir maintenance (5) establish over· night camping by permit on reservoir (2,4,6) install telephone flow notification system (8) optimize snowmaking capabilities (1·6) use FERC re· l i censi ng process to ensure recreational access (1·6) no expansion in generation (1,5) reduce water (1·6) re-evaluate (4,6) maximize capabilities or increases in fl ow regulation level fluctuation NEPCo's day-use only power production (3) install stream gauge on Deerfield River (1,5) initiate policy capabilities above East Branch confluence disposal program for (4,6) dedicate a (4,6) modernize or improve existing hydro used motorboat oil portion of power operation efficiencies produced in basin as preference power (2,6, 7) examine potential for new/additional hydro generation ca bil ities GeographI c area codes: . .· :.,· . (1) East Branch •• headwaters.to Somerset dam· (2) East Branch •• Somerset dam to Deerfield River (3) Deerfield-River.·· headwaters to Searsl:>urg dam (4> Deerfield River -- Searsburg dam to Harriman Reservoir (5) Harriman Reservoir & direct drainage (6) Deerfield River··· Harriman dam .to VT/HA border <7> \lest Branch -- headwaters to Deerfield River· (8) North Branch • • headwaters to Harriman·Reservoir The Final Plan's management recommendations are intended to provide a balance between competing and, at times, conflicting demands on the finite capabilities of the resource. Neither the costs nor the benefits associated with the Plan's recommended actions have been quantified. Efforts are underway, however, by the utility to quantify the magnitude and extent of power production losses that may be experienced from alternative flow releases. Important factors for the reader to consider are the type, magnitude and extent of benefit derived .from the physical presence of water for water quality, biological and recreational values. The calculation of the monetary value of these benefits is a difficult undertaking outside the scope of this document. The Final Plan plan does not create new state regulation. Existing state statutes which govern the use of water resources protect and maintain Vermont rivers and their environs with an intent to balance the range of economic and conservation interests. The inventory of uses, values and goals and the completion of technical studies related to hydroelectric facility re�icensing enables the State to more fully consider the public interest during the permitting and certification of projects. The conservation of river values, however, requires more than State action. Many activities which may impact the Deerfield River and its tributaries are not regulated by the State. The Final Plan can be most effective when the recommended goals lead to on-going conservation efforts by persons at the community level. The goals and recommended actions in Sections II and III of the Plan constitute the outcome of the Agency's interpretation of technical study results and the Agency's major interaction with the public. These goal and action statements will be applied by the State of Vermont as input to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on hydroelectric relicensing issues and, where applicable, to the preparation of the state's Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The goals and recommended actions found in Section IV of the Plan are more general statements, not related to hydroelectric relicensing, of how uses and values of the Deerfield River and its tributaries, in the long term, may be balanced for the benefit of all those involved in the watershed planning process. Section V has been included to address concerns of compatibility between this state plan and any local and regional plans affecting the Vermont portion of the Deerfield River watershed. Finally, Section VI of the Final Plan contains responses prepared by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources to comments raised by the public during a hearing on the Plan. - 7 - II. HYDRO RELATED CONCERNS - Water Quality, Flow Regulation ' Water Level Management. Watershed Opportunities Tourist & Service Economies benefitted by hydropower production and modified water level management. Flood Protection Benefits continued by modified reservoir water level management. Enhanced Aquatic Habitat for fisheries and other aquatic biota in river segments below dams and in impoundments used for hydropower purposes. Assimilation of Treated Wastewater enhanced by in-stream flow maintenance. ***** Current Issues, Goals & Recommended Actions ***** Issue 1. Significant impairment of riverine aquatic habitat and biota by hydroelectric facilities' development and operation. Goal 1.1. Continued use of the river for the generation of electricity but in a manner that is compatible with and enhances other river uses and values. action: NEPCo should consider modernization and/or improving generation efficiencies at Searsburg Station, Harriman Station and downstream facilities. Goal 1.2. Establish conservation flows below each hydroelectric dam to improve aquatic habitat and biota and to achieve fishery management objectives. action: NEPCo should release minimum conservation flows at Somerset Dam to provide suitable habitat for the restoration, enhancement and protection of aquatic biota and all life stages of brook trout and landlocked salmon. action: NEPCo should release minimum conservation flows at Searsburg Dam to support a new 3.0 mile fishery (in bypass), improve habitat suitability for 0.7 miles below Searsburg Station (in tailrace) and provide habitat for the restoration, enhancement and protection of aquatic biota including all life stages of brown trout, rainbow smelt and landlocked salmon. action: NEPCo should release minimum conservation flows at Harriman Dam to support a new 4.5 mile fishery and restore, enhance and protect habitat suitable for aquatic biota including all life stages of brown trout and brook trout in the bypass. action:· NEPCo should monitor compliance with conservation flows using stream gauges or other reliable means below Somerset, Searsburg and Harriman dams. - 8 - action: NEPCo should monitor compliance with conservation flows using stream gauges or other reliable means at Searsburg tailrace. Goal 1.3. Reduce the impacts associated with present flow regimes at New England Power facilities. action: The magnitude.and frequency of flow fluctuation below Somerset Dam snould be reduced to minimize the effect on aquatic biota. action: The magnitude and frequency of flow fluctuation below Searsburg Station should be reduced to minimize the effect on aquatic biota. Goal 1.4. Provision for fish passage and fish screening. action: Downstream fish passage should be provided at Searsburg Dam. action: Penstock intake screening should be installed to address fish entrainment at Somerset, Searsburg and Harriman reservoirs. Issue 2. Impacts to stream water quality, aesthetics and recreation from flow regulation and two water diversions. Goal 2.1. Restoration and maintenance of in-stream flows to assimilate treated wastewater effluent. action: Sufficient and continuous flows should be maintained below Harriman Dam to assimilate wastewater discharged by the Readsboro Wastewater Treatment Facility. Goal 2.2. Establishment of a schedule for the release of whitewater boating flows below New England Power dams. action: Sufficient water volume, in accordance with appropriate ramping rates, should be provided on certain occasions below Searsburg Dam. action: Sufficient water volume, in accordance with appropriate ramping rates, should be provided on certain occasions below Harriman Dam. action: A telephone flow notification system·, from spring through fall, should be maintained to provide boaters and anglers information on the presence and amount of water being spilled or intentionally released at Somerset, Searsburg and Harriman dams. Issue 3. Impact on irnpoundment aquatic habitat and biota due to water level fluctuations at two reservoirs. Goal 3.1. Continuation of flood protection benefits at Harriman Reservoir. action: NEPCo should assure a reasonable level of downstream flood·protection benefits by keeping Harriman - 9 - Reservoir more consistently below the spillway by the determined freeboard need for necessary floodwater storage. Goal 3.2. Stabilization of water levels in Somerset and Harriman Reservoirs during critical biological periods. action: Water levels should be held stable by NEPCo in Harriman Reservoir during smelt spawning and incubation (typically, mid-April through the middle of June). action: Water levels should be held stable by NEPCo in Somerset and Harriman reservoirs during smallmouth bass spawning and incubation (typically, the first of May through June). action: Water levels in Harriman Reservoir should be managed by NEPCo to assure successful reproduction and juvenile rearing of spring spawning fishes, including pickerel and yellow perch. Goal 3.3. Establishment of a littoral zone in the reservoirs by reducing the magnitude of annual water level fluctuation. action: Alternatives in water level management that would create productive and functional littoral zones in Harriman and Somerset reservoirs should be carefully evaluated against power production and flood control benefits. Issue 4. Impact to endangered bird species at Somerset Reservoir from unstable water levels. Goal 4.1. Stabilization of water level elevation in Somerset Reservoir during critical loon reproduction periods. action: Stable water levels should be maintained during the loon nesting and egg incubation period (typically, the first of May through July). Goal 4.2. Documentation of loon nesting success. action: Annual reservoir shoreline inspections should be conducted by the VT Natural Heritage Program, the VT Institute of Natural Science or the VT Audubon Society with assistance from NEPCo. action: Greater effort should be spent in understanding and documenting reasons for loon nesting failures. Goal 4.3. Establishment of a loon education program. action: An information and education program concerning Somerset Reservoir loon protection should be created. - 10 - III. HYDRO RELATED CONCERNS - Water Resource & Recreation. Watershed Opportunities Improved Formal Public Access at hydropower facilities. A Boatable River with convenient dam portage facilities. Protected Open Space enjoyed by watershed residents and visitors. Land Management Compatibility between large land holders. ***** Current Issues, Goals & Recommended Actions ***** Issue 1. Deficient portage facilities for boaters. Goal 1.1. Provide safe portage around each hydroelectric dam. action: NEPCo should construct, maintain or improve trails for dam portage in consultation with the VT Agency of Natural Resources and boating interests. Issue 2. High user demand upon reservoir access facilities. Goal 2.1. Implementation of an improved management and maintenance strategy for each reservoir access site. action: Change house and restroom facilities at NEPCo's Wards Cove facility should be improved. action: A parking area for vehicles and trailers should be delineated and maintained and the launching area for roof-top boats should be improved on Sherman Reservoir. action: Site-specific educational signs should be installed to assist with the maintenance of reservoir access facilities. action: NEPCo should avoid the placement of directional signs which would tend to promote reservoir usage. Issue 3. Selective utility enforcement of day-use only policy. Goal 3.1. Establishment of limited reservoir shoreline camping. action: NEPCo should locate, design and construct no more than five primitive shoreline camp sites on Somerset Reservoir. Each camp site should consist of a single tent platform and a "one-haler" pit privy. Goal 3.2. Creation of a sailboat mooring program. action: NEPCo should cooperatively manage with local interests (i.e. the Windham Sailing Club) a sailboat mooring program in·wards Cove on Harriman Reservoir. - 11 - Issue 4. Remote & pristine Somerset Reservoir watershed characteristics. Goal 4.1. Restrict subdivision and development activities within the East Branch watershed. action: The acquisition of development rights for utility owned land within the Somerset Reservoir sub watershed should be a high priority of local, state and federal interests. Goal 4.2. Limitations placed on Somerset Reservoir access. action: NEPCo should avoid undertaking improvements to Somerset Reservoir access and reservoir boat launching facilities which would increase use. action: NEPCo should maintain existing reservoir shoreline access site. action: A new year-round camping facility (to replace the decommissioned "Landing Strip" on Green Mountain National Forest land) should not be designed or located on or near the shoreline of Somerset Reservoir. action: A concrete boat launching.ramp should not be constructed at Somerset Reservoir. Goal 4.3. Establishment of controls affecting motorized vehicle usage within the Somerset Reservoir watershed. action: Controls to restrict entry of non-utility motorized vehicles into the watershed of Somerset Reservoir during the non-winter season should be implemented. action: The completion of a non-motorized trail from Somerset Reservoir to Dover should be completed as a priority. This trail should be designed to maintain the aesthetic integrity of the area's ridgeline. Goal 4.4. Establishment of an education and protection program. action: A program to administer primitive camping, monitor and maintain access/use restrictions and educate reservoir and watershed users should be established by NEPCo from April through September. Issue 5. Differences between land management priorities. Goal 5 •. 1. Assure compatibility between land management goals, priorities and actions. action: NEPCo and the Green Mountain National Forest, in cooperation with the VT Agency of Natural Resources, should develop mutually compatible.land management strategies for abutting lands (particularly in the watersheds of Somerset Reservoir, East Branch below Somerset dam, Deerfield River above Searsburg Reservoir and Harriman Reservoir's western drainage). - 12 - action: NEPCo and the Green Mountain National Forest should complete, in coordination with the VT Agency of Natural Resources and the Windham Regional Commission, the Memorandum of Understanding and carry out specified management objectives. action: NEPCo should establish and implement a forestry management plan designed to protect and enhance critical habitat for game and non-game species as identified by VT Fish & Wildlife Department. Goal 5.2. Restrict subdivision and development activities within the direct drainage to Harriman Reservoir. action: The acquisition of development rights to utility owned land found on the western drainage of Harriman Reservoir should be a high priority of local, state and federal interests. Issue 6. Previous cultural obligations unfulfilled. Goal 6.1. Completion of a basin visitor information center. action: NEPCo should locate and construct an information center within the Vermont portion of the Deerfield River watershed to house information on the area's cultural, economic, environmental and physical resources. Issue 7. Deficiencies in public access to the Deerfield River & reservoirs. Goal 7.1. Establishment of a "Deerfield River Valley Heritage Trail." action: The abandoned railroad right-of-way (VT/MA border to Somerset Dam) should be designated as the Heritage Trail corridor. action: NEPCo should protect any cultural or historic remnants associated with the railroad right-of-way. action: Vegetation should be removed from overgrown portions of the abandoned railroad bed. action: Foot bridges should be built by NEPCo across Graves and Wilder Brooks (found along the west side of Harriman Reservoir) to eliminate present stream crossing difficulties. action: Linkage of catamount Trail segments should be given a high priority. action: Arrangements between NEPCo and the Catamount Trail Association regarding trail maintenance responsibilities should be finalized. - 13 - Goal 7.2. Establishment of year-round access. action: NEPCo should take steps to assure year-round access at present sites and provide new year-round access at Mt. Mills, Wards Cove and Whitingham sites on Harriman Reservoir. Goal 7.3. Improved handicap accessibility to the reservoirs. action: NEPCo should install facilities, at certain reservoir access sites, designed to improve handicap accessibility. Goal 7.4. Preservation of existing Harriman Reservoir and Deerfield River access during Route 9 realignment. action: Consideration should be given to replace existing access areas/sites serving Harriman Reservoir and the Deerfield River that may be damaged or eliminated during road construction activities. Issue 8. Architectural and aesthetic maintenance. Goal 8.1. Preservation of facility integrity and condition. action: NEPCo should maintain the historic architectural and scenic qualities of each power plant and associated appurtenances. - 14 - IV. VT DEERFIELD RIVER WATERSHED CONCERNS NOT RELATED TO HYDRO. Watershed Opportunities Forest & Farm Economies supported by soil conservation in watershed timberlands and floodplains. Pristine Streams in secluded areas that contribute cold, clear water to downstream areas. Upland Coldwater Cascading streams of importance to local and receiving waters that are well-oxygenated with the potential to support an improved watershed salmonid fishery. Exceptional Water Resource Values of statewide significance, especially those of the upper Deerfield River, Somerset Reservoir and Grout Pond, upper Cold Brook and the upper West Branch watershed. Recreation-based Economies benefitting from soil conservation, productive fisheries, minimum flows, reservoir water level management and trail networking. Free-flowing River Segments critical for fish migration and spawning and important for scenic value. Segments of Undeveloped River corridor with stable streambanks and shaded waters. **** Current Issues, Goals & Recommended Actions **** Issue 1. Erosion and sedimentation from land development activities. Goal 1.1. Reduce sediment discharges to the North Branch from construction related activities. action: Watershed municipalities should take appropriate steps, such as erosion control standards in zoning and subdivision regulations, site plan review requirements, permit compliance monitoring to control construction related erosion1 • action: The VT Agency of Natural Resources should work more closely with watershed municipalities and the development community of the North Branch sub watershed to design and implement a practicable erosion control program. action: The VT Agency of Natural Resources and the District Act 250 Commission should require, as one condition of any Act 250 permit granted in the North Branch sub-watershed involving erosion control, that 1 Technical assistance in developing such measures is available from the Bennington County Regional Commission, the Windham Regional Commission, the Windham County Natural Resources Conservation District and the VT Agency of Natural Resources. - 15 - mulching and off-site water diversion are to be performed on a daily basis. action: The VT Agency of Natural Resources and the District Act 250 Commission should require, as one condition of any Act 250 permit granted in the North Branch sub-watershed involving erosion control, that there be "no bare earth" for extended periods of time on any construction site. Goal 1.2. Reduce the potential for discharge of sediment to surface water in the Deerfield River watershed from silvicultual activities. action: Forest landowners and loggers should implement Acceptable Management Practices for Maintaining Water Quality on Logging Operations2. action: The Acceptable Management Practice (AMP) booklet should be distributed by the VT Agency of Natural Resources to each municipality of the Deerfield River watershed. Issue 2. Lack of formal public access to streams and rivers. Goal 2.1. Increase the number and extent of formal public access to surface water throughout the Deerfield River Basin. action: Watershed municipalities, in cooperation with the State of Vermont, should contact and work with interested and willing riparian landowners to locate, establish and protect selected access points. action: User groups, in cooperation with watershed municipalities, should contact and work with interested and willing riparian landowners to establish and protect selected access points. Issue 3. Increasing demands for snowmaking water withdrawals. Goal 3.1. Minimize impacts to water resources from snowmaking operations. action: Snowmaking interests should improve current operating and distribution efficiencies before developing new supplies. action: Snowmaking interests should avoid new in-stream impoundments. 2 VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation. August, 1987 . ... 16 - action: Impoundments associated with snowmaking operations should, at a minimum, release conservation flows derived using the VT A1ency of Natural Resources interim flow procedure . Issue 4. Lack of development setbacks and proliferating encroachments to rivers and streams. Goal 4.1. Improve the delivery of technical assistance by the state to watershed municipalities regarding riparian area protection. action: The VT Agency of Natural Resources should define appropriate widths or develop a methodology for watershed municipalities to use when establishing riparian buffer areas. action: Until appropriate riparian buffer widths are defined or a methodology developed, watershed municipalities and landowners should be �ncouraged to adopt the standards found in the AMP booklet (refer to Appendix A) . action: In addition to the AMP booklet, each municipality of the Deerfield River watershed should become aware of published4 specifications for a riparian forest buffer. Goal 4.2. Limitations on the encroachment of roads and structures into riparian areas. action: Watershed municipalities should establish riparian buffer zones and protect those zone·s from encroachment. action: Watershed riparian landowners should be encouraged to establish and maintain vegetated buffer strips between land use activities and surface water. Issue 5. Hydrologic modifications in upland areas. Goal 5.1. Minimize disturbance to watershed hydrology. action: Watershed municipalities and the development community should avoid re-routing of surface runoff and minimize the culverting of upland streams. 3 Agency Procedure for Determining Acceptable Minimum Stream Flows. Interim Procedure. March, 1991. 4 See "Riparian Forest Buffers: Function and Design for Protection and Enhancement of Water Resources." U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Radnor, PA. NA-PR-07-91. - 17 - action: Watershed municipalities and the regional planning commissions of the watershed should incorporate development density issues (e.g. ratio of development impervious area to development open space) into master planning efforts. Issue 6. Depletion and interferences affecting ground water supplies. Goal 6.1. Protection of ground water quality and quantity associated with community and public ground water supplies. action: The VT Agency of Natural Resources should assist watershed municipalities with the design of appropriate Wellhead Protection Area ordinances. action: Watershed municipalities should adopt Wellhead Protection Area ordin�nces. action: Watershed municipalities should evaluate procedures used for installing and maintaining on-site domestic septic systems as an early step to improve the effectiveness of sewage disposal. Issue 7. Conflicts arising between reservoir user groups. Goal 7.1. Reduction in conflict between reservoir user groups. action: Individuals, or user groups, should develop and submit a petition to the VT Water Resources Board which prohibits personal watercraft (i.e. jet skiis) from operating on Somerset Reservoir. action: Individuals, or user groups, should develop and subm1t a petition to the VT Water Resources Board which rrohibits the use of internal combustion motors north of the "narrows" on Somerset Reservoir. action: The State of Vermont should conduct more effective enforcement of boating laws on Somerset and Harriman Reservoirs. 5 Exemptions from such power boat use restriction would be necessary under special circumstances for utility, public safety, wildlife and other agencies. - 18 - Issue 8. Introduction and spread of Eurasian milfoil and other exotic aquatic plants to surface waterbodies. Goal s.1. Prevent the introduction and spread of nuisance aquatic plants within the Deerfield River watershed. action: Surface waterbody shoreline property owners should participate in Vermont's "Milfoil Watchers" program for the early detection of plant populations. action: The State of Vermont, NEPCo and waterbody users should install and maintain signs/educational materials (particularly at Somerset, Harriman and Sherman reservoirs and Lake Raponda) regarding nuisance aquatic plant spread prevention. action: The VT Agency of Natural �esources should continue investigations of technologies for m�lfoil spread prevention and milfoil population control. - 19 - V. COMPATIBILITY WITH LOCAL & REGIONAL PLANS. The process associated with the comprehensive rivers planning effort was to encourage participation by the wide variety of river interests and groups that utilize waters of the Deerfield River drainage. The purpos·e of the Final Comprehensive River Plan for the {VT) Deerfield River is to provide direction to those interests/groups on river, reservoir and river corridor management alternatives. affecting energy production, environmental protection and recreational enhancement. Due to the specific focus of the comprehensive rivers planning effort, the potential for incompatibility does exist between this Plan and other plans containing a broader focus. The passage of Vermont's Growth Management Law, referred to as Act 200, mandated that planned state actions be consistent with the 12 Vermont Planning Goals and be compatible with plans developed on a local and regional basis. Each state agency action and program that affects land use is to be based on agency plans developed in consultation with communities and regions. As defined in the law, for one plan to be compatible with another, the implementation of this plan will not reduce the desired implementation effect of �nether plan. If this plan, as implemented, will significantly reduce the desired effect of the other plan, the Deerfield River Plan may be considered to be compatible with another plan if it includes the following [refer to 24 v;s.A. section 4302(£)]; a. a statement that identifies the ways that it [the Deerfield Plan] will significantly reduce the desired effect of the other plan; b. an explanation of why any incompatible portion(s) of the Deerfield Plan is essential to the desired effect of the plan as a whole; c. an explanation why, with respect to any incompatible portion of the plan in question, there is no reasonable alternative way to achieve the desired effect of the Deerfield Plan; and, d. an explanation of how any incompatible portion of the plan in question has been structured to mitigate its detrimental effects on the implementation of another plan. Throughout the Deerfield River comprehensive rivers planning. process the Agency has worked closely with the Windham Regional Commission to reduce and avoid any incompatibilities. Incompatibilities which may arise between this plan and other local or regional plans have been expanded upon in the paragraphs below. - 20 - A review of recommended action statements found in the Plan has indicated the potential for incompatibility with local plans may exist in three areas of concern - economic, growth management and recreation. On the following pages and for each of these three areas, goal statments and actions of the Plan which may be incompatible with local and regional needs are discussed according to the four requirements of 24 V.S.A. Section 4302{f). Economic Section II. Goal 1.2. & Goal 2.2. Concerning the provision of conservation and/or recreation flows at certain dams. Reductions in power production at Searsburg and Harriman stations caused by the release of conservation flows and/or recreational flows may be incompatible with municipal tax revenue generation if the level or amount of annual power.production is used by the towns of Searsburg and Whitingham6 as a factor when calculating property taxes. The desired effect of the Plan is to continue generating hydroelectricity at facilities on the Deerfield River. The release of conservation flows at Somerset, Searsburg and Harriman dams, however, is essential to providing a minimum level of habitat and protection for aquatic biota. At present, no conservation flows are provided below Searsburg and Harriman dams. Although a minimum flow has been provided by the utility at Somerset dam, the volume of water released is not biologically based. The release of appropriate conservation flows at each dam is the only available alternative for partially restoring aquatic habitat below the three dams. Short of dam decommissioning or operating Searsburg and Harriman stations as run-of-river facilities, conservation flows (specific flow values will be part of Vermont's Water Quality Certification) have been determined by factoring targeted fish species and life stages of management concern. Section III. Goal 4.1. & Goal s.2. Concerning the transfer/donatation of development rights to land in certain areas of the watershed. The effect of transferring or donating development rights of utility-owned land in the Somerset Reservoir watershed and in the western drainage of Harriman Reservoir would be a reduction in property tax revenues for the towns of Stratton, Somerset, 6 Pending study results concerning the outlet valve of Harriman Dam, conservation/recreation flows through the Glory Hole may be converted to energy. - 21 - Wilmington and Whitingham. The degree of economic impact would be a function of the assessed value of the land and the amount of land acreage involved. Somerset and Harriman reservoirs (1625 acres and 2185 acres, respectively) are the two largest surface waterbodies in the southern portion of the state and the largest man-made waterbodies in Vermont. The watershed of Somerset Reservoir and the western slope of Harriman Reservoir are large undisturbed blocks of forested land under single ownership. Documented trends in New England reveal that industrial forestlands located near surface waterbodies hold significant development potential. This and the close proximity to other developing areas of the state, represent real threats to the future of these areas. Preserving the undeveloped nature of these watershed areas is an essential element of this plan. Inadequate state and federal funds preclude land acquisition as a viable option. Unless the utility was willing to place a long term conservation restriction on certain lands as part of the relicensing process, other forms of land protection (e.g. conservation easement) will not accomplish desired preservation objectives. Mitigating the economic effects to municipalities could be achieved by transferring land development rights only to land within a certain distance of reservoir shoreline (e.g. all land within 1000 or 2000 feet), by transferring development rights to land that has no development constraints or by phasing the transfer of development rights over a five to ten year period. Growth Management Section IV. Goal 1.1. Concerning the reduction in nonpoint source sediment discharges. Reducing construction erosion through a town based approach may be incompatible with the desire to alleviate the costs of municipal government on local residents as a program will require additional resources or necessitate a shift in present town permitting programs in order to monitor permit compliance with sediment control measures. Although erosion control reviews and permitting by District Act 250 �ommissions has improved in recent years, the majority of development within Vermont and in the Deerfield River watershed is exempt from Act 250 proceedings. Greater involvement with erosion control by municipal government is essential to the Plan and will be necessary to reduce sediment discharges from locally approved developments. - 22 - Recreation Section II. Goal 3.1. Concerning Harriman Reservoir water level management. Reducing the magnitude of water level fluctuation at Harriman Reservoir would result in a lower (but more stable) water level elevation and reduced surface acreage during the summer period which may be incompatible with local plans to improve or enhance recreational opportunities. Reducing the magnitude of annual and seasonal water level fluctuation in the reservoir would be essential to the establishment of a littoral zone and to the improvement of reservoir fisheries habitat. Existing reservoir water level management, among other impacts, exposes potential littoral areas to desiccation or to frozen conditions. A lower but more stable summer water level elevation will provide sufficient storage for capturing storm events to avoid upstream and downstream flooding and, over time, lead to the establishment of substrate conditions desirable for improving populations of aquatic biota. Section III. Goal 2.1. & Goal 4.2. Concerning reservoir access limitations. Limiting reservoir access (in the form of directional signage, sensitive replacement of the "Landing Strip" and maintaining present access to and at Somerset Reservoir) may be incompatible in cases where local plans call for improving and expanding access to surface waterbodies. The respect and protection of certain waterbody qualities were repeatedly aired throughout the planning process. The desired effect of the Plan is to continue reservoir access but in a manner which does not, through promotion or facilitation, increase reservoir use. This plan attempts to mitigate potential detrimental effects by recommending that directional signage be placed to- avoid promoting an increase in use. Similarly, the site chosen to replace the decommissioned "Landing Strip" should be well set back from Somerset Reservoir and should not be on the reservoir's shoreline. Finally, the existing gravel access road and gravel boat launch ramp should continue to serve as the principle. modes of access to Somerset Reservoir. Section IV. Goal 7.1. Concerning water use restrictions affecting Somerset Reservoir. Restricting uses on Somerset Reservoir (as a unilateral prohibition of personal watercraft and no internal combustion motors north of the "narrows") may be incompatible in cases where - 23 - local plans (specifically, the towns of Stratton and Somerset) may call for maintaining or improving surface water recreation. The desired effect is to avoid conflict between users and to protect the remote and pristine qualities of the reservoir. The noise and speed levels, and in some cases, the careless operation, of personal watercraft (i.e. jet skiis) constitute real invasions to the remoteness of the reservoir. North of the "narrows" represents one of the few wild and unspoiled environments in Vermont in addition to providing nesting habitat to endangered bird species. Possible detrimental effects have been mitigated by limiting recommended restrictions on motor type to the northern third of the reservoir and by the continuation of personal watercraft use on the larger, less remote Harriman Reservoir. - 24 - VI. PUBLIC RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY. Comments were submitted as part of a formal public hearing concerning the Final Comprehensive River Plan for the Deerfield River Watershed prepared by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. The hearing was held on July 9, 1992 at the Whitingham High School in Whitingham, Vermont by the Water Quality Division and was followed by a two week comment period. A response by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources follows each comment. Comment: There appears to be a sizeable conflict between Section II Goal 3.1 (flood protection) and Goals 3.2 and 3.3 (stabilization of water levels and establishment of littoral zones, respectively). In addition, the Plan sets no priorities for these goals. Because of its potential impact to loss of life and property damage, Goal 3.1 should receive a higher priority than Goals 3.2 and 3.3 (Paul Mendelsohn, West Dover). Response: The State of Vermont will not aggravate downstream flooding and will consider the flood protection value of NEPCo reservoirs when the Agency issues the water quality certification for the Deerfield River Project. Priorities, however, are not established for any of the goals found in Sections II, III or IV of the Plan. The Plan will be immediately used by the Agency when drafting the state's water quality certification for New England Power Company (NEPCo) hydroelectric facilities seeking a license to operate from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Downstream flood protection is an important and complex technical issue being carefully examined by the Agency. Comment: Goal 7.1 in Section IV (surface water conflicts) recommends prohibition of power boats "north of the narrows" on Somerset Reservoir. Recommendation should be power boat restriction throughout the waterbody (P.Mendelsohn). Response: Throughout the planning process it became evident that maintenance and protection of the unspoiled and tranquil character of Somerset Reservoir are of great public concern. Vehicular access to the reservoir and boat launching at the reservoir, both at the reservoir's southern end, are and will remain unimproved and limited. The northern end of the reservoir (particularly the portion of the reservoir north of the narrows) is a secluded location that provides not only critical habitat for the endangered common loon but also serves as a sheltered, undisturbed and remote area. The reservoir is a large waterbody which, when subjected to southerly or northerly winds, may create navigational challenges to boaters. A complete prohibition of power boats on the reservoir would preclude an historic use and is, therefore, unwarranted at this time. The Vermont Water Resources Board, in response to surface water use concerns of the VT General Assembly, has proposed to enact speed limits on all Vermont surface waterbodies. - 25 - Comment: Installation of fish screening (Section II, Goal 1.4) at Harriman Dam intake has the potential for negatively impacting the food source in the discharge area used by wintering bald eagles and brown trout in Sherman Reservoir. Also, fish screening is an agency issue, not a public issue (Mark Franklin, Deerfield Valley Sportmens Club, Whitingham). Response: The magnitude of the fish entrainment problem and the effects this is having on the aquatic systems and fisheries development potential in Harriman and Sherman reservoirs has yet to be substantiated through scientific evaluation. To date, NEPCo has only conducted a literature review of entrainment and productivity impacts associated with hydro power impoundments. Effective screening of the Harriman intake would prevent entrainment of fish that reside in Harriman Reservoir. While the public may not show concern for particular fish species other than brown trout, rainbow smelt entrained at the Harriman intake and discharged into Sherman Reservoir is thought to be an important source of food for the brown trout fishery of Sherman Reservoir. If the incidence of large brown trout in the tailwater of Harriman Station is a reaction to the smelt forage, then it may also be indicative of a significant level of entrainment occuring. Smelt abundance is crucial to attaining the fishery management goals in Harriman Reservoir. Presently, management emphasis is for brown trout. This could be expanded in the future to include Atlantic salmon and/or lake trout. All three species benefit from an abundant smelt population. Overwintering bald eagles have been observed at Sherman Reservoir. Eagles can be expected to overwinter on waterbodies with an available food supply and where open-water conditions persist. Eagle food studies in Maine, New Brunswick and Minnesota showed that brown bullhead, white suckers and chain pickerel accounted for much of the eagles diet, with smelt appearing in trace amounts. White suckers and bullhead are abundant in Sherman Reservoir. Winter open-water conditions also attract ducks which are preyed upon by eagles. In past winters, heated water discharged by Rowe Yankee has kept the reservoir largely ice-free which encouraged waterfowl to overwinter. With the decommissioning of Rowe Yankee, it is questionable whether Sherman Reservoir will remain ice-free enough to be attractive to bald eagles. Comment: Proven land management by the utility with diverse recreational opportunities should not be modified through .a transfer of development rights as recommended in Section III Goals 4.1 and 5.2 (M.Franklin). Response: A transfer of land development rights would not reduce the ability of NEPCo to manage their land. The intention of the two goals and associated actions is to permanently avoid the subdivision and/or sale of undeveloped NEPCo land in certain areas, land that has high resource value and land that is used by the public for recreational purposes. - 26 - Comment: The Final Plan needs to be "integrated" with the Preliminary Plan. In particular, the Preliminary Plan has a wider range of goals and objectives, contains the use and value inventory and describes conflicts (Melissa Reichert, Windham Regional Commission, Brattleboro; William Lattrell, Deerfield River Compact, Greenfield, MA; Alison Trowbridge, VT Natural Resources Council, Manchester). Response: The Preliminary Comprehensive Rivers Plan for the Deerfield River (July 1991) is an important planning document since it represents the compilation of uses, values and goals expressed by groups and individuals; expressions which were quite varied, wide ranging and, at times, conflicting. The preliminary planning document is not considered to be a "plan" since it does not produce or result in a particular course of action or contain any recommendations. The Preliminary Plan does, however, define the range of items and issues of concern raised by the public. The Final Plan is derived, in part, from the Preliminary Plan. The Agency believes the Preliminary Plan has been integrated into the Final Plan. The Final Plan refers to the Preliminary Plan, describes the process followed in its development and contains a summary of comments received. The Final Plan is a document containing specific recommendations largely based on measures identified in the Preliminary Plan. Conditions of the water quality certification will be consistent with goals and actions of the Final Plan. Comment: Other than certain actions which name the utility, the Plan needs to specify other parties responsible for taking non hydro related actions (M.Reichert). Response: The Final Plan is considered to be a state agency plan. Where a recommended action is consistent with authorities granted to the state or Agency, specific parties are identified. In cases where recommended actions are outside the realm of state or Agency authority, the Final Plan does not identify parties for implementation. Comment: Interbasin water transfers associated with snowmaking was a subject of concern voiced at earlier public meetings. The Final Plan should address this concern (M.Reichert). Response: "Interbasin" water transfer was an issue raised by the public during the planning process. The concern was largely focused on the transfer of water from Somerset Reservoir to land areas which drain into the North Branch. The Final Plan states that maintenance of minimum stream flows is necessary to protect aquatic biota in and along streams. Any proposed interbasin transfers of water associated with snowmaking must undergo rigorous environmental review and, if approved, satisfy this water quality goal. comment: The present role, issues and goals of Deerfield River tributaries should be addressed in the Final Plan (W.Lattrell; Cleve Kapala, New .England Power Company, Concord, NH). - 27 - Response: Statements on the role (i.e. uses and values), issues and goals which concern the tributaries of the Deerfield River are found in the Preliminary Plan. certain goals and recommended actions of the Final Plan are applicable to Deerfield River tributaries. Comment: The Final Plan does not discuss apparent conflicts which are created between some goals and actions or their mitigation. The Plan should discuss the environmental and economic impacts from reduced amounts of hydropower production caused by water level management and/or minimum flows (W.Lattrell). Response: Goals and actions of the Final Plan represent the Agency's interest in executing its responsibilities and in achieving for the public greater balance between uses. These dual interests, expressed as the Plan's actions, are designed to reduce present impacts to the Deerfield River, reservoirs and tributaries and to minimize any confl.icts which may arise. The Final Plan does not discuss economic impacts which may arise from changes in hydro operations. Establishing minimum stream flows and changes in reservoir water level management will result in reduced hydropower production levels at some facilities. The type and amount of economic impact from reduced electrical production by hydro will be a function of the type of replacement energy used (e.g. coal, oil or gas). The economic effect to Vermont electrical ratepayers from a power production shift is considered to be marginal since none of the Deerfield River electrical capacity is owned by any Vermont utility. The Agency believes that minimum stream flows and modifications to reservoir water level management will produce significant and positive (yet unquantified) economic effects to recreation and sport fisheries within the Deerfield River watershed. Comment: The impact on downstream (i.e. Massachusetts) ecosystem, economy, fish and wildlife, and human environment must be considered before a reservoir fluctuation stage is determined (W.Lattrell). Response: The Agency is carefully considering downstream effects which may arise from modified hydro operations, particularly water level management of Harriman Reservoir. Comment: The "overall tone" of the Final Plan is different from the Goals, Actions and Opportunities found in the Preliminary Plan. The Final Plan lacks the "cogent punch" of the Preliminary Plan. The Final Plan does not contain "time frames" and "what might be involved with undertaking the action step" found in the Preliminary Plan (A.Trowbridge). Response: The Preliminary Plan is a compilation of the multiple concerns and issues raised by the public and by river interest groups. Importantly, the Preliminary Plan is an inventory. The timing of certain actions in the Final Plan (especially Sections II and III) will be addressed either in the Water Quality - 28 - Certification process or in the Agency's comment letter to FERC. Persons interested in timeframes and implications of implementing other goals and actions beyond state authority should consult the Preliminary Plan. Comment: Describe the legal authority for the Plan. Clarify how the Final Plan will be used in the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) and other state agencies. A section of the Final Plan should be developed that describes the use of the Plan in federal and state regulatory proceedings (e.g. Act 200 planning, Act 250) and in the management of ANR programs. Describe how the Plan can be used in regional and municipal contexts (A.Trowbridge). Response: Deerfield River comprehensive planning activities were initiated by the Agency in response to the 1986 Electrical Consumers Protection Act (ECPA) amendments to the Federal Power Act under Section lO(a) (2) (A). These provisions require FERC to consider the extent to which a proposed project is consistent with a state comprehensive river plan and the river's capability to support power and non-power values, including fish and wildlife habitat, recreational use and environmental quality. The Plan is also authorized under Chapter 47 of Title 10 V.S.A. including Section 1003 and the VT Water Quality Standards. Comprehensive rivers planning is described in the Agency's Act 200 plan. Some aspects of the Final Plan will be used by the Agency during the water quality certification process associated with hydro relicensing. on municipal and regional levels, certain goals and actions of the Plan may be used to strengthen surface water related planning and protection activities. Comment: The Plan should state that in future snowmaking water withdrawal decisions "1) allocation of additional state waters for commercial development will be avoided, (2) in-stream impoundments will be avoided and (3) current operating and distribution efficiencies for snowmaking will be improved before new supplies can be developed" (A.Trowbridge). Response: The Agency has prepared a specific procedure for water withdrawals which includes water used for snowmaking purposes. The Plan references this flow procedure. Comment: An effective action not stated in the Final Plan to protect rivers and streams in the Deerfield River watershed is to seek reclassification to Class A or to seek ORW or Outstanding Resource Water designation (A.Trowbridge). Response: The Agency acknowledges that reclassification and ORW are two of many useful approaches to protect rivers and streams. The Agency believes that (1) both reclassification to Class A and ORW designation can be undertaken to achieve a variety of objectives and (2) those decisions are best determined on a local level. Public comment during the planning process did not identify specific stream/river segments for Class A reclassification or ORW designation. As a result, the Agency has not included such actions as recommendations in the Final Plan. - 29 - The Agency encourages local groups to prepare findings which may support a Class A reclassification or an ORW designation. Such findings, when completed, can be forwarded to the VT Water Resources Board as a request for reclassification or ORW designation. Comment: The Final Plan downgrades input received from regional and local levels and the value of a true grassroots plan in order to support the Agency's agenda. The Plan, as written, conflicts with the three broad objectives of Section I.A. which imply a high degree of respect and opportunity for involvement by watershed residents in the planning process (C.Kapala). Response: The Final Plan is unique regarding the high degree of respect and opportunity for involvement by watershed residents. The goals and recommended actions in the Final Plan are state positions which have developed from input, comments and concerns made by the public during many occasions over three years of public participation (October 1989 to July 1992). The watershed goals are general statements that reflect the balance of public concerns. The action statements are meant to include as much specificity as possible, particularly related to issues where the state has direct regulatory responsibility. Comment: It would not be prudent for the utility to invest in maximization of efficiencies with the uncertainty of what may be lost in relicensing via unresolved conservation flows (C.Kapala). Response: The Agency believes it is appropriate to address the efficiency of energy production while considering aquatic resource protection through conservation flows during the license application process. Comment: There is no technical basis for asserting flow fluctuations at Somerset and Searsburg have negative impact (C.Kapala). Response: Flow fluctuations below Somerset and Searsburg dams are large. Habitat studies conducted by NEPCo at these two facilities support this conclusion. The technical basis for asserting large flow fluctuations result in negative impacts on the aquatic resource is very well documented. Comment: No public comments have been received [during the planning process] regarding fish passage or entrainment. The size and depth of intakes at Somerset and Harriman make it unlikely that entrainment or impingement are significant (C.Kapala). Response: The assertion by NEPCo that the size and depth of the intakes do not significantly contribute to fish entrainment and impingment is based only on a literature review and no site specific study. As stated above, fish entrainment at the Harriman intake is perceived by the angling community to be significant at the Harriman Station tailrace. Due to the magnitude and duration of seasonal drawdowns at these reservoirs - 30 - (particularly Harriman), the Agency believes the entrainment issue cannot be discounted as having negative impact on reservoir productivity and fisheries management. As long as the reservoirs continue to experience larger scale drawdowns and fishery management programs fall substantially below reasonably achievable goals, the effects of hydro operations on aquatic systems will be suspect by the Agency. Comment: A reasonable level of downstream flood protection benefits requires significant winter drawdown, similar to current operations (C.Kapala). Response: NEPCo completed an evaluation of flood benefits for Somerset and Harriman reservoirs as part of the relicensing application. This evaluation included an analysis of the change which would occur if the reservoirs were stabilized at spillway crest. Based on the Agency's interpretation of the study, the extreme winter drawdown can be substantially modulated and still provide substantial or equivalent flood benefits. The Agency has never requested consideration of a crest-control run-of-river operation. Comment: The use of Somerset Reservoir by the only pair of loons in southern Vermont indicates current operations are compatible with loon nesting (C.Kapala). Response: Common loons attempt to nest in many artificial impoundments in Vermont with varying success. Since 1978, the Agency has contracted with the VT Institute of Natural Science of Woodstock, VT to monitor the occurrence and success of loon nesting throughout the state. At Somerset Reservoir, several nesting failures have been noted. Nesting failures have been attributed to either nest flooding or nest abandonment due to water level drawdown. Clearly, Somerset Reservoir has value for the common loon, especially if water levels can be carefully controlled during the nesting period. Comment: As long as the utility can continue to economically operate its hydro facilities, the Project will continue to provide benefits of restricted subdivision and development enjoyed by the public without the additional public expense of purchase of development rights (C.Kapala). Response: The Agency does not advocate the decommissioning or removal of any NEPCo facility. NEPCo derives substantial benefit from the use of a public resource. Trends in land development within the New England region show that large parcels of industrially held lands found near and adjacent to surface water have been subdivided and sold, eliminating public access. To permanently protect public access and use on certain NEPCo lands, the Final Plan recommends a transfer (versus purchase) of development rights before development pressures jeopardize benefits the public now enjoy. 31 - Comment: It would seem that a more lasting value for the Plan could be gained with additional attention paid to the concerns of area residents and a more far-reaching approach to the river, independent of the Agency's priorities focused principally on hydro relicensing (C.Kapala). Response: The Department, with considerable assistance from the Windham Regional Commission, has conducted an open public planning process designed to identify all Deerfield River interest groups and encourage on-going participation. An inventory of Deerfield River uses, values and goals produced the "Preliminary Comprehensive River Plan for the Deerfield River" (July 1991). Public input to the process focused on, but was not limited to, hydro-related issues. Except for the North Branch and West Branch, utility hydro operations influence the entire Vermont river system. The Agency and Department have heard the range of public concerns and believe that the Plan's format (especially Sections II, III and IV) allows the reader to readily distinguish between hydro and non-hydro aspects of the river. Associated with the river's non-hydro aspects, authority for rivers management by the state is limited by statute. Many of the recommended actions are not state responsibilities but require action by municipalities and landowners. Comment: The Plan recommends a number of changes to hydro operations. The Plan should quantify the implications of these changes on the cost of electricity (Alan Twitchell, Whitingham). Response: Certain actions of the Final Plan will result in reduced electrical energy production levels from some facilities. NEPCo produces and wholesales electricity to utilities through9ut New England. Since a small amount of peaking energy provided by NEPCo is purchased by Vermont utilities, the increased cost to Vermont ratepayers from these changes is considered to be insignificant. Increased costs to out-of-state purchasers are expected to be marginal. The cost implications need to be evaluated by NEPCo as specific flows and reservoir water level management actions are identified during the relicensing process. Comment: The Plan does not mention the existing tour boat service on Harriman Reservoir which has been in operation since the mid-1970s. The Plan should preserve commercial tour boats now operating on Harriman Reservoir (Richard Joyce, Wilmington). Response: Although the comment was received well after the designated public comment period, the Department recognizes the tour boats as an important economic and recreational endeavor in the Deerfield River watershed. The Final Plan does contain actions designed to improve reservoir accessibility and to reduce conflict between reservoir user groups. The Final Plan, however, does not recommend the prohibition or restriction of tour boat service on Harriman Reservoir or imposing any surface use restriction affecting Harriman Reservoir (e.g. speed limit, boat size, engine size). - 32 - APPENDIX A Width Standards for Protective Strips Slope of land between roads Width of strip between or log landings & streambanks roads or landings & stream or lake shores (feet along ground surface) 0 to 10% 50 feet 11 to 20 70 21 to 30 90 31 to 40 110 over 40% add 20 ft for each add'l 10% of side slope note: Slope percent is calculated by dividing the rise or change in elevation by the run or horizontal distance. As an example, a slope that gains 10 feet in elevation over 100 feet of horizontal distance is a 10% slope. - 34 -